Picking and choosing when the laws can be followed without impeding one's progress toward's the mission's objective is bull shit. And simply re-writing them to retroactively make actions previously illegal "immune" isn't bullshit, it's chicken shit.

And the methods deemed permissible for these actions? The administration gets to pick. But they have to say what they pick and record the choices in the Federal Register, so we'll all know what's legal today. Since when does this administration demonstrate it's devotion to revealing it's methods? Do you seriously contend we'll see this happen?

Show me.

Which, of course, is total nonsense promoted by a lying president, PA Senator Rick Santorum, and Rush Limbaugh fans. The Constitution does not define war as only limited to nations. In fact Article 1 defines two types of military actions: Where does any of this say anything about war only limited to nations? It does not. So why do extremists lie about this? What is their agenda? But if they have declared war - and MaggieL says they need not be a nation to do that - then America is at war and those prisoners are soldiers. Soldiers that are covered under article three of the Geneva Convention. Remember that article three ratified by the US as stipulated by the Constitution AND that the US is obligated to abide by? That question is for extremists who conveniently change the rules whenever it suits them. MaggieL - others have accused you of also changing the rules when it suits you. So how you you explain torturing soldiers in direct violation of the Geneva Convention?

Article three does not permit secret prisions, torture, and other actions. Actions intentionally performed and advocated by radical extremist George Jr AND approved by MaggieL.

Non-Americans in The Cellar are again cautioned that S3930 is about kidnapping you, torturing you, hiding you from any judicial review or even from the International Red Cross.... and making it legal. S3930 that MaggieL so approves of is about screwing any non-Americans - violating the Universal Declaration for Human Rights - and making that crime legal.

This same MaggieL finally admitted those tortured prisoners always were protected by the Geneva Convention - but will deny it because "Nobody expects a Spanish Inquisition". Why do you think that phrase has been reposted so many years in The Cellar. Did one poster understand all this years ago? Whom?

Torture any foreigner whenever the president demands it. No judicial review (writ of Habeas Corpus), Red Cross, or Geneva Convention protections. Torture of foreign citizens is to become legal in American - and MaggieL approves.

Scarier still - so much silence from non-Americans about what MaggieL and George Jr think of non-citizen rights. You have the right under new American laws to be kidnapped in your own country and to be tortured in secret prisons - and MaggieL approves. Scary? They why so much silence here?

Do you know where the phrase comes from? Or is this the most unintentionally funny post from you in ages?

What part of "asymmetrical" don't you understand? Issuing such fatwas as these doesn't make someone a soldier, it only makes their violent intensions explicit.

Oh, and another thing: once again I'll thank you too refrain from telling me what I've "admitted", particularly when you do so to put your own words in my mouth to construct yet another of your famous straw men.

I know you bear a very heavy mantle in being the self-appointed resident arbiter of "reality" and ultimate dispenser of facts. But buck up; sophomoric debating fallacies are not becoming to your high office.

An historical analogy
 

Pirates of the Mediterranean

By ROBERT HARRIS

Kintbury, England

September 30, 2006

IN the autumn of 68 B.C. the worlds only military superpower was dealt a profound psychological blow by a daring terrorist attack on its very heart. Romes port at Ostia was set on fire, the consular war fleet destroyed, and two prominent senators, together with their bodyguards and staff, kidnapped.

The incident, dramatic though it was, has not attracted much attention from modern historians. But history is mutable. An event that was merely a footnote five years ago has now, in our post-9/11 world, assumed a fresh and ominous significance. For in the panicky aftermath of the attack, the Roman people made decisions that set them on the path to the destruction of their Constitution, their democracy and their liberty. One cannot help wondering if history is repeating itself.

Consider the parallels. The perpetrators of this spectacular assault were not in the pay of any foreign power: no nation would have dared to attack Rome so provocatively. They were, rather, the disaffected of the earth: The ruined men of all nations, in the words of the great 19th-century German historian Theodor Mommsen, a piratical state with a peculiar esprit de corps.

Like Al Qaeda, these pirates were loosely organized, but able to spread a disproportionate amount of fear among citizens who had believed themselves immune from attack. To quote Mommsen again: The Latin husbandman, the traveler on the Appian highway, the genteel bathing visitor at the terrestrial paradise of Baiae were no longer secure of their property or their life for a single moment.

What was to be done? Over the preceding centuries, the Constitution of ancient Rome had developed an intricate series of checks and balances intended to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a single individual. The consulship, elected annually, was jointly held by two men. Military commands were of limited duration and subject to regular renewal. Ordinary citizens were accustomed to a remarkable degree of liberty: the cry of Civis Romanus sum I am a Roman citizen was a guarantee of safety throughout the world.

But such was the panic that ensued after Ostia that the people were willing to compromise these rights. The greatest soldier in Rome, the 38-year-old Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (better known to posterity as Pompey the Great) arranged for a lieutenant of his, the tribune Aulus Gabinius, to rise in the Roman Forum and propose an astonishing new law.

Pompey was to be given not only the supreme naval command but what amounted in fact to an absolute authority and uncontrolled power over everyone, the Greek historian Plutarch wrote. There were not many places in the Roman world that were not included within these limits.

Pompey eventually received almost the entire contents of the Roman Treasury 144 million sesterces to pay for his war on terror, which included building a fleet of 500 ships and raising an army of 120,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry. Such an accumulation of power was unprecedented, and there was literally a riot in the Senate when the bill was debated.

Nevertheless, at a tumultuous mass meeting in the center of Rome, Pompeys opponents were cowed into submission, the Lex Gabinia passed (illegally), and he was given his power. In the end, once he put to sea, it took less than three months to sweep the pirates from the entire Mediterranean. Even allowing for Pompeys genius as a military strategist, the suspicion arises that if the pirates could be defeated so swiftly, they could hardly have been such a grievous threat in the first place.

But it was too late to raise such questions. By the oldest trick in the political book the whipping up of a panic, in which any dissenting voice could be dismissed as soft or even traitorous powers had been ceded by the people that would never be returned. Pompey stayed in the Middle East for six years, establishing puppet regimes throughout the region, and turning himself into the richest man in the empire.

Those of us who are not Americans can only look on in wonder at the similar ease with which the ancient rights and liberties of the individual are being surrendered in the United States in the wake of 9/11. The vote by the Senate on Thursday to suspend the right of habeas corpus for terrorism detainees, denying them their right to challenge their detention in court; the careful wording about torture, which forbids only the inducement of serious physical and mental suffering to obtain information; the admissibility of evidence obtained in the United States without a search warrant; the licensing of the president to declare a legal resident of the United States an enemy combatant all this represents an historic shift in the balance of power between the citizen and the executive.

An intelligent, skeptical American would no doubt scoff at the thought that what has happened since 9/11 could presage the destruction of a centuries-old constitution; but then, I suppose, an intelligent, skeptical Roman in 68 B.C. might well have done the same.

In truth, however, the Lex Gabinia was the beginning of the end of the Roman republic. It set a precedent. Less than a decade later, Julius Caesar the only man, according to Plutarch, who spoke out in favor of Pompeys special command during the Senate debate was awarded similar, extended military sovereignty in Gaul. Previously, the state, through the Senate, largely had direction of its armed forces; now the armed forces began to assume direction of the state.

It also brought a flood of money into an electoral system that had been designed for a simpler, non-imperial era. Caesar, like Pompey, with all the resources of Gaul at his disposal, became immensely wealthy, and used his treasure to fund his own political faction. Henceforth, the result of elections was determined largely by which candidate had the most money to bribe the electorate. In 49 B.C., the system collapsed completely, Caesar crossed the Rubicon and the rest, as they say, is ancient history.

It may be that the Roman republic was doomed in any case. But the disproportionate reaction to the raid onOstia unquestionably hastened the process, weakening the restraints on military adventurism and corrupting the political process. It was to be more than 1,800 years before anything remotely comparable to Romes democracy imperfect though it was rose again.

The Lex Gabinia was a classic illustration of the law of unintended consequences: it fatally subverted the institution it was supposed to protect. Let us hope that vote in the United States Senate does not have the same result.

Robert Harris is the author, most recently, of Imperium: A Novel of Ancient Rome.

I've been snickering each time it's posted.

Someone who's supporting Bush and his right to do whatever the fuck he wants, explain this and then explain to me how this isn't violating the Constitution.
This isn't about some hypothetical terrorist anymore. This is about the government getting the okay to come after YOU for whatever the fuck reason they want.

@headsplice: "trust us"

@Flint: I'll trust 'them' when I'm dead and burned.

As you wish...

My favorite part:

List of American Citizen enemy combatants, by GWB:

1. John Kerry
2. Edward Kennedy
3. Barbara Boxer
4. Dan Rather
5. Al Gore
6. Al Frankin
7. .......

7. tw
8. headsplice

and, I'm guessing, pretty much everyone who's given to unicef.

It's sad, but most Americans don't appreciate the freedoms and rights that come with citizenship in our country. They take them for granted and have no clue what it feels like to be without them. Therefore, they cannot comprehend the impact that a law such as the one under discussion here will have. They erroneously believe that it won't affect them since they are law-abiding people. It only pertains to 'those other people, the terrorists', they think.

I've lived without these freedoms. I've been held captive and assaulted with no legal recourse or escape. I've lived where it was illegal for me to drive, to own property, to hold most jobs or attend a religious meeting of any kind. I've been groped and beaten on the street simply because of what I was wearing. There was no one to appeal to, no one who cared. I had absolutely zero legal rights. As a result, I no longer take even the smallest freedom or right for granted. In that country, if you pissed off the wrong person, you could be picked up, detained and questioned. And never seen again.


http://www.yaledailynews.com/Article...rticleID=33532


So lets think about what this bill does.

Who decides if YOU (yes, you...even an American citizen) are an unlawful combatant? - The Military

Who hears the charges? The Military

Who decides if you are telling the truth? The Military

Who is supervising the people detaining you? The Military

Who do you appeal to? No one.

Who is protecting and defending your rights? No one.

Do you notice a severe lack of checks and balances to that system?

Oh wait, this doesn't apply to you or me because we're law abiding, upright citizens and we despise terrorism. No one like us would ever get caught in a web of accusations resulting in our detainage. :fingerx:

Anyone wonder why this bill happens to be retroactive to 1996 specifically? Coincidentally, that is when the War Crimes Act of 1996 was signed into law.http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...1----000-.html. Convenient that this would cover Bush and his Military commanded actions should they be deemed to be "crimes", isn't it? This bill not only provides legal shelter for the administration, but, perhaps equally as important, retroactive moral justification for their crimes.

Stormie

I doubt you two place anywhere in the first two million, much less 7 or 8.

Does it really give you a thrill to put words in Dubya's mouth? We could get you an actual puppet.

If it makes you feel better to not laugh at my joke, Maggie, that's fine. I'm well aware that I'm not that important.
However, attacking me for saying something obviously false does nothing to justify what the folks on Capitol Hill are doing to us (including seven Dems, just to be fair). So, you're down with imprisoning American citizens without recourse to trial? Is that how I should interpret that bit of inanity?

Isn't it odd that the supposed "less government intervention in the lives of the citizens" party is the one who wants to make the police state?

Using an adjective changes nothing. It is still called 'war'. The Constitution does not require any adjectives. Having made a major admission - having admitted 'they' declared war - now you want to change (spin) your proclamations? MaggieL - I post blunt, factually, and (because I have no political allegiance) honestly. As so many here should appreciate, my principles of American justice run deep and are based in numerous layers of underlying facts. And I include those reasons in every post; no soundbyte cracks as you are now posting.

Reality is: you advocate kidnapping, secret prisons, violations of Universal Human Rights, wiretapping without judicial review, Congressional bill S3930, violation of the Geneva Convention article three, and torture. Your contempt for the rights of foreign citizens is particularly odious. Foreign citizens are denied even access to the International Red Cross or judicial review under a law that you approve. You advocate the "Spanish Inquisition" of anyone who is not an American citizen. I never expected that of you and only realized recently the depth of your "Spanish Inquisition" principles.

Meanwhile you said, intentionally, to make your point: They "declared war on us" is your statement - no matter how you deny it. If war was declared, then their people are soldiers. Your petticoat is showing.

Sophomoric are these principles: contradictory posts and advocacy of torture, international kidnapping, the "Mission Accomplished" war, secret prison, destruction of Human Rights, violations of the Geneva Convention ... and insistence that the Geneva Convention need not apply because it is not part of the US Constitution. MaggieL - if you were not advocating concepts so common in a venomous dictatorship, then I would not be calling you out like this. No emotion. Blunt, factual, honest, and American principles also question your loyalty to a mental midget president.

You still insist that war must be conducted against nations, even after the US Constitution was quoted. Right out of the Constitution; war is not limited to nations. "Unlawful enemy combatant" is just another excuse to promote kidnapping, wiretapping, secret prisons, and torture. To suspend Writ of Habeas Corpus. To deny them rights afforded by the US Constitution and international law. They declared war on us. You now deny it? Fine. Then according to Article 1 of the US Constitution, Writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be suspended as S3930 does. MaggieL endorses S3930. People still have rights under the Geneva Convention and Universal Declaration for Human Rights - no matter how a political agenda rationalizes contrarian.

To every non-American Cellar Dweller. S3930 says you can be kidnapped from your own country (extraordinary rendition), be taken for torture to Guantanamo or other secret American prisons, and neither the International Red Cross nor US Supreme Court can come to your defense. Anyone need ask why I am being so blunt?

[quote=marichiko][i]
1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--

`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or

QUOTE]

So, does the deceptivly named defininations section define a 'lawful enemy combatant' .....

[quote=JayMcGee]Yes, tw dug up the definition a few posts back:

So, by the US government's own definition, our military are themselves "unlawful enemy combatants." But I keep forgetting, rules are for everyone except the US government.:mad:

The law was written so that American citizens are exempt. The laws permit the United States government to kidnap and secret imprison any foreign citizen, deny where that victim is, keep that victim hidden from the International Red Cross and US Supreme Court, deny him Writ of Habeas Corpus, and torture him. Non-Americans - S3930 will make all this legal. In the eyes of this administration, non-Americans are a potential enemy. Therefore S3930 makes this legal should we 'feel' you might have Weapons of Mass Destruction. Americans now fear potential enemies everywhere. Amazing what will be done when god talks to a president.

From MS_NBC on 8 Oct 2006: If we had an honest president, then this would not be big news. Cmd Swift presented a most complete and comprehensive appeal to the Supreme Court so that the President of the United States had to admit this: foreign citizens were being kidnapped, tortured, and held in secret prisons (so that even the International Red Cross could not find these people). This Supreme Court decision caused secert prisions to be emptied to Guantanamo. George Jr wants bill S3930 passed so that foreigners can be kidnapped in their own countries, held in secret American prisons (no protection from Writ of Habeas Corpus), and the Supreme Court can no longer rule against such Human Rights violations.

Clearly anyone who represents the rights of Americans and non-Americans must be punished because George Jr is god's chosen president. Even worse, non-American dwellers apparently even approve of torture by so much silence. Makes one wonder what will happen next. The Constitution must be removed from all government offices? No. Just a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

No more amazing than when tw issues a decree as to what "reality" is, as he does on a very regular basis.

That's a really psychotic habit, you know? Confusing your own opinions and obsessions with reality...

Isn't it funny how now, when one reads Onion headlines, he kinda has to stop a moment and question whether it's a parody or not. That's how strange "reality" has become.

Hey Maggie. Why is it that you use the "L" word as if it's self-evident what such a broad term means? "Those damn liberals!" "A liberal is a person who...doesn't agree with Maggie?"

I still haven't heard any substantive critique of the arguments presented...

I've tried critiqueing tw. But the problem is to do so you have to have the amount of time he has to blather and indulge in baiting and, having an actual life, I don't.

He generates this stuff in such a prodigious volume that I find I must content myself with poking fun at his style once in a while. His world view is so Unabomberish that no amount of "critique" will lead to a point where actual discussion can happen.

When he starts telling everyoine what "reality" is, it's kind of like getting stuck on an elevator with three Jehova's Witnesses and Lyndon LaRouche.

Reality is so easy to write about. But when inventing a world defined by a conservative political agenda, well, it takes MaggieL a long time to spin myths.

Funny how MaggieL disparaged Lyndon LaRouche. Considering extremism in her posts, well, its like yelling at the mirror.

Political agendas create myths - don't solve problems. Stable people don't consult their political biases to define reality. Stable people need not carry concealed weapons because they so fear everyone. Stable people don't blindly proclaim Saddam had WMDs only because "I feel he has WMDs, therefore he must". Stable people first learn facts; need not spend hours trying to spin lies into something coherent.

MaggieL endorses torture, extraoridinary rendition (international kidnapping), secret prisons hidden from the International Red Cross and the Geneva man, and 'Pearl Harboring' of nations justified by theoretical (mythical) fears. It takes great effort to justify things not based in reality. It also took great effort to insist that Saddam and bin Laden were allies or to prove Saddam was a threat.

Centrists need not rationalize using extremist agendas. Inventing half truths takes time. No wonder I can define problems with many facts - and MaggieL now resorts to disparaging remarks.

Wacko conservatives will even tell us that Iraq is getting better and that the "Mission Accomplished" war was a good thing. That because a conservative agenda 'proves' that Iraq must be getting better. Meanwhile, quality of life in Iraq was better under Saddam. Iraqis even had regular electricity and other basic services. More realty that must be denied when using an extremist agenda.

With more guns in Iraq, Iraq is so much safer. First massive numbers of guns arrived. Now violence has never been worse - and will be getting worse. 'Will be getting worse' is another reality that extremists conservative spend hours spinning denials of. The conservative bible said increased violence and looting was not so. They even insist Iraq will get better - as number of weapons increase. An extremist's bible says so.

Meanwhile those who deal in reality - not in a political agenda - even cite Sze Tsu and Military Science 101 as to why such violence was inevitable. It does not take long to write about mistakes due to an extremist agenda - such as pre-emption, disbanding the military and police, and why looting happened. Lying about it takes MaggieL hours.

Reality is easy to write about. Lying just takes so damn long to invent. Justifying torture - no wonder MaggieL finds it so difficult to reply. Instead she resorts to classic Rush Limbaugh 'mocking and insulting' sound bytes. Spinning lies would take too long.

MaggieL endorses S3930 to permits torture in secret prisons and that denies victims right to appeal to the Supreme Court. Just another step in what dictators and extremists conservatives want. No wonder they carry concealed weapons. Reality is the enemy.

Again...
http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n...60171225_l.jpg
If you behave like the enemy, use their tactics... you are no different than the enemy.
If your laws have no meaning for others... they have no meaning.

I'd like to dredge this back up and suggest everyone give a listen (click here for episode information). The episode of This American Life includes interviews with previous detainees and is a little more than an hour long, but well worth it to get a peek into Guantanamo Bay.

I'm about a third of the way through.

Scary shit.

If you don't have time to listen, reading the transcript (PDF) might work better.

Not really...

Indefinite detention in prison as guilty until proven innocent under secret evidence without the ability to consult a lawyer? Worries me. A lot.

It would me too, if you are an American citizen who is subsequently subject to the Constitution. Non-citizens have no claim to the US Constitution under any circumstances.

Merc, what is happening is that the US put out bounties for "Al Qaeda" members and then people would tip off the Americans about innocent people just to receive the money. Those innocent people were tortured while the US knew they were innocent but were too prideful to let them go and admit their huge mistake.

That shouldn't be a scary thing directed at you. It should be a scary thing that your country would do something like that.

They still have every claim to be protected under Habeas Corpus and the Geneva Convention.

Look I understand that early on, mistakes were made. Many people I personally know have said so. Those mistakes cannot be undone. On the other hand, it did not take long for people to wise up to the errors of those with alterior motives. To bad it took over 2 years for that to happen. If you are truly an EC, I say fuck you, go to Bulgaria or Egypt and let them have their way with you. But I hear you, understand your concerns. I share them and the damage that has been done. I belive that the vetting process has been improved, even if some of the damage done so far is not repairable. It is the best I can hope for at this point.

GC, Yes... HC, no. HC is not covered in the GC.

Just because it isn't in the Geneva Convention doens't mean that we should just not bother with it. We should setting a standard to the rest of the world saying that we give everyone a fair trial.

Ummmm.... no. That is what the GC is for. To set a standard by which everyone can agree on. Not more, not a projection of our Consitutional Rights afforded to us as US citizens to non-citizens. Ain't happening. We have made huge errors, don't get me wrong. I have friends who were at the Abu Ghraib prison immediately after the blow out. It was not pretty. As a soldier at the time I was not in a position to judge. Now, based on all we know, not enough of the top brass hung by their balls. History will be the judge. I have friend who to this day are in the active service of a number of agencies in the government. They do good work. They do it to the best of their abilities.

The Constitution doesn't give rights to US citizens; it restricts the authority of the US government. The only thing that gives them wiggle room on Guantanimo is that they're pretending that Guantanimo isn't under US jurisdiction.

Exact same phrases used in Nuremburg to justify what we much later called the holocaust. It was only a mistake. They did not know. They did not realize.

One of the lessons from the Zimbardo famous study was that many will blindly do as they are told even if they knew it was killing someone. Rather than be a decent person and stop killing another, well, it was only a mistake.

TheMercenary belittles felony crimes into a mistake. A mistake as so many Germans said when confronted with evidence called the holocaust. Only a mistake when enemies of America (called the George Jr administration) 'make a mistake' to impose a political (and religious) agenda on all others. After all, that is the same reasons that justified National Socialism. Had TheMercenary called them ‘anti-American dumb’ or extremists, then it is an honest attempt to explain such crimes. These were not mistakes. Good people don’t make these mistakes. Extremist dumb followers of extremists may blindly make such mistakes for two years? Two years? TheMercenary demonstrates what happens when the keys to an asylum are given to the inmates. TheMercenary demonstrates what happens when political agendas rather than intelligence justifies actions.

When did they 'realize' it was a mistake? When threatened with prosecution.

Those who are extremists must justify everything by a political agenda. When caught - as Germans in Nuremburg – only then it is called a mistake. For two years wacko extremist Americans (ie Cheney) continued to make the same mistakes? Only when criminal minds know no difference between right and wrong. It was only a mistake when one was driving 120 MPH down the highway and killed 35? Of course. It was only a mistake.

Appreciate the attitude of those who promote and defend the George Jr administation. it was only a mistake - the tens of millions whose lives have been destroyed. Had George Jr done this same thing as the President of Iraq, he would have been hanged just like Saddam - and not for a mistake.

The only thing giving them wiggle room is that the detainees are NOT US citizens.

Wrong. A foreign national in a US court gets full protections.

What felonies? Who has belittles? Please you must try to be more clear in your arguments. Connecting loosely associated subjects is a sign of a serious illness. Where do you cut and paste your conspiracy notions from?

Wrong. They are not in a US court. A military tribual has a different set of rules.

MILITARY COMMISSION

CRIMES: Defined by the Defense Department

PRESIDING OFFICIAL: A military lawyer, called a judge advocate, who is appointed and acts as a member the panel.

DELIBERATORS: A panel of three to seven military officers.

DEFENSE : Appointed by the defense secretary or someone he names as the appointing authority.

RULES OF EVIDENCE: A military lawyer is assigned to represent the accused, who can hire a civilian lawyer as well. The civilian lawyer could be barred from sensitive proceedings and evidence. The presiding officer decides whether admit or exclude evidence. There are rules governing suppression of evidence.

SECRECY: The presiding officer has broad discretion to close the proceedings.

DECISIONS: Conviction and sentencing require a two thirds vote.

DEATH SENTENCE: Only by unanimous vote of a commission of seven members.

RIGHT OF APPEAL: The accused cannot appeal to a civilian court. A review panel of three military officers or commissioned civilians, including judge, can recommend new proceedings.

FEDERAL CRIMINAL COURT

CRIMES: Defined by Congress and state legislatures

PRESIDING OFFICIAL: A federal judge, nominated by the president, confirmed by the Senate and appointed for life.

DELIBERATORS: A jury of 12 civilians, randomly drawn from voter lists, sometimes combined with driver lists. The lawyer for the accused can eliminate potential jurors.

DEFENSE: The Constitution requires that the judge appoint a defense attorney if the accused cannot afford one.

RULES OF EVIDENCE: Federal rules and case law exclude certain types of evidence, such as hearsay and illegally obtained statements.

SECRECY: The Constitution guarantees a public trial, except in certain cases, normally involving children.

DECISIONS: Must be unanimous in conviction and sentencing.

DEATH SENTENCE: As in all sentencing, the jury must be unanimous.

RIGHT OF APPEAL: The accused has the right to appeal the conviction or sentence to a higher (appellate) court.

Sources: U.S. Department of Defense, National Institute of Military Justice, FindLaw, Cornell Law School

Torture is not a crime? International kidnapping (extraordinary rendition) is not a crime? Imprisoning people for years without judicial review is acceptable? Of course it is - to TheMercenary. Supreme Court keeps ruling these are crimes. But these crimes are so contemptible and so anti-American as to not even require the Supreme Court to remind us.

Scary is that TheMercenary considers these only a mistake using the same phrases by defendant in Nuremburg.

Remember - only people who can be trusted to judge what is good and evil are the extremists. And nobody expected a Spanish Inquisition - a specific reference that what TheMercenary calls only a mistake. For two years they did not realize it was only a mistake? Actions justified by political agendas are that dangerous. The entire "Mission Accomplished" is a perfect example human perversion justified by a 'political agenda'. Worse, we who are not anointed as righteous extremists cannot be trusted to know what is right.

Clearly we are so untrustworthy as to not see Guantanamo for what it really is. And we condemned the Soviets for their gulags.

Why yes it is, where did I say it was not?

Well sorry I do support that.

No, probably not. I think they are working on that one. If you are an EC or POW then bad luck for you.

Exactly. And the US court abdicated responsibility to the tribunal based on the idea that Guantanimo was not US territory.

If the Cubans threw a couple bombs over the fence I bet they'd be singing a different tune.

True dat. It would make for some interesting news. I would love to see Cuba become another protectorate like Guam and PR.

Hell no....we don't need another money pit for corporations to hide out.