S3930 - Detainee bill
Is anyone else worried about this? It scares the heck out of me.
:::gasp::: you mean you don't know? [SIZE="1"][COLOR="DimGray"]::: pretends to be a fancy-pants intellectual:::[/COLOR][/SIZE]
I ask to soothe my inner fact-checker.
A google overview
The actual bill
One thing I noticed while looking into this is that the media doesn't seem to want to help citizens be active in their government. None of the articles I looked through stated the actual number of the bill.
Why, again, are people supporting this? Folks on the right-ish side of the aisle...what's the defense for violating the Constitution?
I happened across this
http://www.sundancechannel.com/film/?ixFilmID=6558 film about Guantanamo Bay on Sundance the other night. It is astonishing to me that our goverment is allowing, even encouraging, so much that is clearly against the Geneva Convention. The volunteer subjects in this film were mentally and physically destroyed after only 4 days, and yet some actual detainees have been held there for 4 years! They are not given legal counsel nor are they charged with anything that they can defend themselves against. Apparently it is ok for the US to treat people that way, but at the same time we condemn other countries for violating the Geneva Convention.
I can only imagine the horror that a bill allowing military trials in order to bypass due process would cause.
Stormie
Stormie, they aren't military tribunals...they're a thrid system of justice that is being spontaneously created. The entire bill is probably un-Constitutional, but there are definitely provisions therein that DEFINITELY are. For example, you can't retroactively pardon someone for violating the War Crimes Act. Nor can you suspend the Writ of Habeus Corpus, which this also tries to do.
...but...they have to do this...in order to...protect freedom ???
They have to do this to protect themselves. A while back I read an excellent paper by a high ranking Canadian military officer. He wrote that under the Geneva Convention, military officers and even Jr., himself, could be subjected to a trial before an international tribunal - something like the Nuremberg trials of high ranking Nazi officials. This is about writing a "get out of jail free" card, as it is anything else.
Just when you think it can't get any worse...
Why doesn't Jr. just abolish the entire Bill of Rights and be done with it? :mad:
It is astonishing to me that our goverment is allowing, even encouraging, so much that is clearly against the Geneva Convention.
Look back. How long ago was the expression "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition" posted. Why do you think my posts are so aggressively blunt on the liar and scumbag president? Nothing new here including outright attempts to restrict the right of Habeas Corpus. But then warnings of this effort were quoted direct from George Jr's own speech. Do you for one minute think anything I was posting is based in emotion? Read the appropriate excerpt from his speech as posted in The Cellar with warnings about this bill:
Has the Bush Doctrine failed? on 7 Sept 2006.
Third, I'm asking that Congress make it clear that captured terrorists cannot use the Geneva Conventions as a basis to sue our personnel in courts, in U.S. courts. The men and women who protect us should not have to fear lawsuits filed by terrorists because they're doing their jobs.
Exact quote from George Jr's speech. He spins it so that you don't notice - they want to take away provisions of the Geneva Convention third article. They want to eliminate the right of Habeas Corpus - a fundamental American principle of law - to some people to make torture and other violations of the Geneva Convention legal in the US.
There is nothing exaggerated in my repeated references to a lying and mental midget president. And I was totally surprised back in early September how many here simply approved (by their silence) of this bill.
Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition. Warning of this bill, including the Supreme Court decision that created this bill, were also posted in:
Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone
Well, at least this thread tells me that some don't approve of torture and violations of the Geneva Convention. There are some in The Cellar who do approve of both. We have exchanged words - bluntly - as a result.
Headsplice - by the time the unconstitutionality of this bill arrives in the Supreme Court, the court will be changed. In the Hamdan case, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia all opposed the 29 Jun decisions that demanded George Jr admit to torture, secret prisions in foreign nations, kidnapping, and no rights of Habeas Corpus.
PA has two senators. Spectre has strongly opposed what this administration is doing to basic American principles of law. Santorum - who will be reelected this November - strongly supports these new restrictions on American freedoms. Santorum approves of torture and hopes you will reelect him. He therefore will contribute to changing the Supreme Court so that this bill - to eliminate the right of Habeas Corpus for some - will remain law.
Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition. Does my repeated reference to that expression make any sense yet? Are you beginning to understand why my posts of this administration have become so acidic over the years? Why did I never in over ten years not post so acidic? Why was I almost the only one here to see George Jr was lying even about those aluminum tubes? This president is not a decent or honest man.
America: "oooohhhh... look at meeee... I'm an eeeevvvvilllll empire *prances around on the bones of the oppressed*"
Here are the
65 subverters of the US Constitution in the US Senate.
Torture and permanent imprisonment without trial will be legal.
America: "oooohhhh... look at meeee... I'm an eeeevvvvilllll empire *prances around on the bones of the oppressed*"
You support the suspension of Habeus Corpus?
And making fun of it doesn't make it any less important. Yes, it's for people who are 'enemy combatants.' But who defines 'enemy combatants'? And hasn't the GOP been saying that Democrats are "giving aid and comfort" to the terrorists?
Torture and permanent imprisonment without trial will be legal.
Yes...but...that's only so we can
protect freedom! :::eyes you suspiciously:::
that freedom being the freedom to lock up those who disagree with us?
that freedom being the freedom to lock up those who disagree with us?
Who's this "us"? Got a mouse in your pocket?
Why, again, are people supporting this? Folks on the right-ish side of the aisle...what's the defense for violating the Constitution?
Please cite the part of the Constitution that protects unlawful alien enemy combatants.
so......
what's a lawful alien enemy combatant?
and can you lock up an unlawful alien friendly combatant?
so......
what's a lawful alien enemy combatant?
and can you lock up an unlawful alien friendly combatant?
I'm sure George Orwell could explain it all to you if only he were still around. Say! Don't you Brit's have a bunch of North Sea oil?
*Eyes JayMcGee suspiciously*
Just what do you have in the pocket of that cardigan, anyhow? I think the US military needs to take you in for questioning. Don't worry. If you're innocent, you'll be home just in time for your 90th birthday, and we promise we won't do anything - anything that will show scars, anyhow. :eyebrow:
Please cite the part of the Constitution that protects unlawful alien enemy combatants.
Amendment Six:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Please cite the part of the Constitution that protects unlawful alien enemy combatants.
It’s called the Geneva Convention - and ratified according to the US Constitution. It's also called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which the US ratified in 1948. Unlawful alien enemy combatant is simply your attempt to pervert them into sub humans or Martians. But then you are posting in directe contradiction to the Supreme Court - and even the Bible. They are humans which mean the Geneva Convention fully applies - as you always knew but somehow forgot.
It’s called the Geneva Convention...
Ah, yes...the Geneva Convention part of the Constitution. Right.
The Geneva Convention doesn't "apply to all humans" any more than the Constitution does. Nice red herring.
If theyre actual enemy combatants, theyre protected under Geneva. If theyre not, theyre protected under civil laws.
Ah, yes...the Geneva Convention part of the Constitution. Right.
You're slipping Mag. I saw you palm that card.
TW didn't say the Geneva Convention was part of the Constitution. He said it was ratified according to the Constitution. He obviously means that its ratification was in accordance with the Constitution.
Once you start saying "We all have inalienable rights... except those folks over there", you have started down a slippery slope.
Ah, yes...the Geneva Convention part of the Constitution. Right.
The Geneva Convention doesn't "apply to all humans" any more than the Constitution does. Nice red herring.
First, the Geneva Conventions are the law of the land according to the Constitution, because the Constitution says that if we sign a treaty, then we are bound by it. So yes, the Constitution says that we have to stick to the Conventions (notice the plural, btw).
Second, the Constitution also has this neat little trick in it in Article 1 sections 9 and 10 denying the ability of the Congress to pass ex post facto laws, meaning that the Bush administration can't pass a law that clears them of any wrongdoing in the past (specifically: violating the Conventions by ordering and/or condoning torture).
Coming up with new rules for a new kind of game is just fine. Let's face it, the Conventions were written for conflicts between two states, and are hard to apply when the conflict is between a state and non-state actor. But trying to cornhole the Constitution (especially when it's only for political gain, not actually trying to make any headway catching and prosecuting people) is, quite literally and without hyperbole, anti-American.
anti-American
One of the most catastrophic (and amusing, to me) internet debates I've had involved my contention that someone calling someone else un-American was in itself un-American, for which I was reprimanded, and informed that I cannot use that phrase as a criticism of itself, which I felt was perfectly appropriate. 72 hours later, I "won" becaue the guy went into all-caps.
I didn't violate Godwin's Law, though: no Nazi's/Hitler/Facism at all. I'm so awesome. :rolleyes:
This is entirely wrong.
How about the part where it's retroactive to actions taken by interrogators as early as 1997? It doesn't make us more secure. It doesn't fight terror. (whatEVER the fuck that means). It's a get out of court free card for the inquisitors.
fucking CRAVEN.
How about the part where it's retroactive to actions taken by interrogators as early as 1997?
S3930 - The "
CYA" Bill
Please cite the part of the Constitution that protects unlawful alien enemy combatants.
Is an "unlawful alien enemy combatant" a person? If so, they get due process. You can't make up a random label that didn't exist in the 1700s and then say that the Constitution doesn't mention it.
The Bill of Rights isn't a list of rights that Americans have. It's a list of rights that the US Government doesn't have.
In addition, about the Geneva Conventions, the Constitution says:
This Constitution ... and all Treaties made ... under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
You can't make up a random label that didn't exist in the 1700s and then say that the Constitution doesn't mention it.
If it was intended to be in the Consitution,
his (:fsm:) noodley appendage would make it so. Ramen.
Is an "unlawful alien enemy combatant" a person? If so, they get due process. You can't make up a random label that didn't exist in the 1700s and then say that the Constitution doesn't mention it.
Funny, that's the argument the Dems use for gun control. But never mind that...
It's not a random label; it's the definition in the law. But I didn't say the citation (which you didn't supply) had to mention "unlawful alien enemy combatant", only that it had to apply to them.
Were you perhaps thinking of Amendment V?
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger...
If you're going to present your interpretation of the Constitution, please cite the part you are interpreting.
Funny, that's the argument the Dems use for gun control. But never mind that...
It's not a random label; it's the definition in the law. But I didn't say the citation (which you didn't supply) had to mention "unlawful alien enemy combatant", only that it had to apply to them.
Were you perhaps thinking of Amendment V?
So does that mean that in "times of public danger" a US soldier can walk around shooting civilians with impunity? If so, why was Lt. Calley ever charged in the first place for his actions at the Mai Li massacre? The 5th Amendment does not give the military carte blanche to act like Nazi Storm Troopers. It just means that if a soldier kills or wounds an enemy soldier in time of war, he won't stand trial for murder.
By the way, the 6th Amendment begins "In
all criminal prosecutions..." It doesn't say except for prosecutions of unlawful alien combatants. Even the Nazi high command was allowed to stand trial, and they weren't tortured, either.
The US is now, in effect, playing by two sets of rules - one for us and another for everyone else. Where's the integrity in THAT? Its like saying "Thou shall not kill" means you can't kill me, but its fine for me to kill you.
The Declaration of Independence states that ALL men are created equal and have certain inalienable rights. It doesn't say only US citizens are created equal. It says ALL MEN.
You endorse shredding the Bill of Rights to fragments, breaking a solemn treaty made with the WORLD, and the torture of human beings. If that's what America has come to, then I will no longer call myself an American.
It's not a random label; it's the definition in the law.
What law?
Were you perhaps thinking of Amendment V?
If you're going to present your interpretation of the Constitution, please cite the part you are interpreting.
Since I used the term "due process", I was obviously referring to the part of the Fifth Amendment that is not modified by the "war or public danger" clause, which only applies to grand jury indictments for serving members of the US military.
What law?
The one you're complaining about...apparently the one you haven't read.
You endorse shredding the Bill of Rights to fragments, breaking a solemn treaty made with the WORLD, and the torture of human beings. If that's what America has come to, then I will no longer call myself an American.
That's up to you. But the Geneva Conventions were not "made with the world", they were made between nations; their applicability to terrorists who are neither acting on behalf of a signatory nor honoring the Conventions themselves is a complex issue.
The one you're complaining about...
Exactly. They made up a label and said that the Constitution doesn't apply to them.
And where is the term defined? How does one become an "alien unlawful enemy combatant"?
How does one become an "alien unlawful enemy combatant"?
ALIEN- an individual who is not a citizen of the United States.
LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- individual who is
(A) a member of a State's regular military forces and engaged in hostilities against the United States, or
(B) a member of a State's militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement engaged in hostilities which are under a command, wear a distinctive sign (uniform) that is recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly, and abide by the law of war (ie Geneva convention), or
(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities.
UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- an individual engaged in hostilities against the United States who is not a lawful enemy combatant.
IOW if the US military attacks your home, if you are not an American citizen and you defend you home, then you are an alien unlawful enemy combatant. Therefore you can be shipped to Abu Ghriad, be tortured, and can appeal to no one - especially not the Supreme Court - for violations of Fundamental Human Rights.
Even if you are covered by the Geneva Convention - even if you are a citizen of a country that ratified the Geneva Convention - according to this law, you no longer have any human rights.
And where is the term defined?
I see you still haven't read the law.
mmmmm......
waits for the knock on the door.....
I see you still haven't read the law.
The law mentions it twice, neither of which is a definition.
This stuff is hardly new.
Santa Anna considered the Texan rebels to be unlawful combatants.
March 6: A bloody Mexican attack on the Alamo begins before dawn, and the Mexican forces slaughter all inside except for the women, children, and Travis' slave, Joe. Mexican losses number around 600.
March 20: Mexicans capture a Texan force retreating from Goliad, led by James W. Fannin, near Coleto Creek.
March 27: Santa Anna orders the execution of Fannin and 350 men at Goliad.
The movie 'The Great Escape' is based on a
real escape in WWII. The escapees were all captured wearing civilian clothes but otherwise met the definition of lawful combatants in S3930. Of course, noone expected the Nazis to have the exact same litmus test as Congress. Rule number one is if you are going to commit a war crime, don't lose the war.
BTW, I do not consider this an example of Godwin's Law, but I'm sure someone is going to disagree.
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]The balloon went up in spectacular style. A 'Grossfahndung' (national alert) was ordered with troops, police, Gestapo and Landwacht (Home Guard) alerted. Hitler, incensed, ordered that all those recaptured were to be shot. Goering, Feldmarschall Keitel, Maj-Gen Graevenitz and Maj-Gen Westhoff tried to persuade Hitler to see sense. Eventually he calmed down and decreed that 'more than half are to be shot and cremated.' This directive was teleprinted to Gestapo headquarters under Himmler's order, and a list of 50 was composed by General Nebe and Dr Hans Merton.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]One by one the escapers were recaptured and on Himmler's orders, handed over to the Gestapo. This was not the normal practice; usually, recaptured PoWs were handed over to, and dealt with, by the civilian police. Singly, or in small groups, they were taken from civilian or military prisons, driven to remote locations, and shot whilst offered the chance to relieve themselves. The Gestapo groups submitted almost identical reports that 'the prisoners whilst relieving themselves, bolted for freedom and were shot whilst trying to escape.'' This infamous expression has now passed into history as an euphemism for cold blooded murder.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Three escapers, Per Bergsland (aka Rocky Rockland), Jens Muller and Bram van der Stok, succeeded in reaching safety. Bergsland and Muller reached neutral Sweden, and van der Stock arrived in Gibraltar via Holland, Belgium, France and Spain. Out of the 73 others, 50 were murdered by the Gestapo, 17 were returned to Sagan, four sent to Sachsenhausen, and two to[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2] Colditz Castle[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]. Word reached England of the atrocity; in mid July 1944 Anthony Eden, British Foreign Minister, made a speech in the House of Commons declaring that the perpetrators of the crime would be brought to justice.[/SIZE][/FONT]
Maybe at some point we'll start getting reports from Guantanamo of prisoners being eaten by sharks while trying to swim to freedom.
The law mentions it twice, neither of which is a definition.
You might want to check the section deceptively titled "Definitions".
You might want to check the section deceptively titled "Definitions".
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
`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.
SEC. 7. HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS.
(a) In General- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking both the subsection (e) added by section 1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2742) and the subsection (e) added by added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law 109-163 (119 Stat. 3477) and inserting the following new subsection (e):
`(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.
So in other words, an American citizen could be wrongfully accused of being an "unlawful enemy combatant," and while he awaits determination if he really is or not, the 6th Amendment no longer applies to him. In effect, any US citizen the government doesn't like can now be legally "disappeared" with no legal recourse.
Thanks for the tip on the "definitions" part. :mad:
PS: I just now saw that tw posted much the same thing as I did, but I'm going to let my post stand because it bears repeating. The shock of it takes a while to sink in.
Every American and non-American should know why George Jr wants this law - as marichiko posted:
(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.
Supreme Court ruled on 29 Jun 2006 almost entirely against the administration. George Jr does not like 'liberal' American legal principles. George Jr was forced by the Supreme Court to admit to extraordinary rendition (international kidnapping), torture, secret prisons, and denial of judicial review. Even his definition of unlawful enemy combatant was declared fiction. George Jr (actually Cheney) wants Supreme Court powers restricted to that the presidency can torture, kidnap, and imprison without judicial review. S3930 is another step closer to an American dictatorship.
Even the writ of Habeas Corpus - a fundamental American legal principle - is a direct threat to a dictator president. Fear of dictatorship is why Habeas Corpus is so fundamental to American laws. Don't be fooled for one minute. He will even proclaim a worldwide network of terrorist - a myth - to promote more dictatorial presidential powers - including S3930.
No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus ...
Most scary are so many in The Cellar who somehow ignore this danger.
George Jr administration can kidnap, 'Pearl Harbor' a sovereign nation, violate the Geneva Convention and Universal Declaration of Human Rights, advocates the destruction of a Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty, operate secret prisons so that judicial review is stifled - and even torture .... and so many in the Cellar approve by their silence? Do you appreciate the threat of what MaggieL and George Jr are advocating?
Why so much silence – and not just from America? We have made kidnapping of foreign citizens legal. Non-Americans have no legal protections especially if kidnapped to a secret foreign American prison. A prison made legal by this bill. Why do you non-American Cellar Dwellers so approve of what MaggieL posts by excessive silence? George Jr has declared you as fair game. You have no protection once provided by writ of Habeas Corpus, if this bill becomes law. America can kidnap you and you are nothing more than meat on a hook. With this bill, you have no legal recourse to demand your rights as defined by the Geneva Convention or by Universal Declaration of Human Rights. MaggieL approves and non-Americans here say nothing? Why do you also approve by not posting a response?
[COLOR="Silver"]Pssssst. Don't tell anybody, but Maggie really didn't go to England - she went to Pakistan. Yeah, Pakistan. I think she did some computer work for Al-Q.[/COLOR]
No, let's see if Maggie is still around in a week. :D
To the CIA: just kidding.:blush:
So, we arrive at the crix of the problem: We're involved in a political war that is being prosecuted as a military war. The fact is that we haven't declared war on anyone that we're keeping as "unlawful enemy combatants," so Maggie is, under the letter of the law, halfway correct. Since they aren't soldiers for a foreign power, they aren't protected by the Geneva Conventions.
The flip side of that argument is that if they aren't soldiers, then they're civilians and criminals, and should be prosecuted as such. The Bush Administration is trying to have it's cake and eat it, too. You can't say: "We're at war with these people" and then turn around and say, "They aren't soldiers so we can do whatever we want."
The fact is that we haven't declared war on anyone that we're keeping as "unlawful enemy combatants," so Maggie is, under the letter of the law, halfway correct.
In fact, since they're not a a nation, it's not possible to declare war on them, as such. (see my previous comments on other threads referring to the jihadi shell game).
To make matters worse, the people in question have declared war on us. (See various fatwas, etc.) This is "asymmetrical warfare" in more ways than one. . These enemies don't *need* to be a nation to wage war, and it is to their advantage not to be. They get plenty of under-the-table funding and weapons from nations who are pleased to have them as surrogates (with not-terribly-plausible denyability).
Given the level and kinds of force these enemies are able and willing to muster, I personally don't think treating this as a criminal rather than a military matter (as the Democrats and other liberals seem inclined to do) is either appropriate or wise.
In all this confusion, can the administration tell the difference between American citizens and non-citizens? Between legitimate, lawful activities and those that aren't? I, for one, don't trust them to.
I think Bush and Co. should be impeached, then prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, then turned over to the UN for international trials... I feel it is perfectly reasonable to circumvent the military to have this done.
What does that makes me?
It makes me a patriot.
Neither a combatant nor an enemy.
It makes me a patriot.
Neither a combatant nor an enemy.
But, if I printed that post and handed it out as a flyer, would it be "material support" to "the enemy"
???In fact, since they're not a a nation, it's not possible to declare war on them, as such.
Well, that inconvenient truth didn't stop
what's his name.
September 5, 2006
President Discusses Global War on Terror
Your presence here reminds us that we're engaged in a global war against an enemy that threatens all civilized nations.
We're a nation at war
we've also learned a great deal about the enemy we face in this war
Despite these strategic setbacks, the enemy will continue to fight freedom's advance in Iraq, because they understand the stakes in this war.
Afghanistan and Iraq have been transformed from terrorist states into allies in the war on terror.
Well, that inconvenient truth didn't stop what's his name.
Yes, unfortunately his rhetorical attempts to convey the severity of the situation are lost on some people., who think all we should really do is call the cops to read them their Miranda rights and hook them up with an ACLU lawyer. No Mace or Tasers, now...that would be torture.
:banghead:
Good thing we have Maggie; otherwise we might all :gasp: agree!
...otherwise we might all :gasp: agree!
In that case, I'd take the Devil's Advocate.
MaggieL, you, and GWB, for that matter, pick and choose when precise speech is important, and when it is not. That makes "arguing" your point of view easier, but not more effective.
What's going on here is A Big Lie (tm), an enormous bait-and-switch. Bait and Switch? Yeah, the signing statements are a very popular example of these lies. We've been told and sold "WAR". But it's not, it cannot be, as you correctly pointed out. But "WAR" is nonetheless repeated endlessly for favorable the emotional and behavioral responses it elicits. We (the American people, including Congress, plus the mouse in my pocket) were fucking stampeded into "WAR" and now we're kept moving at this stupid killing pace (economically and emotionally, to say nothing of the squandered lives of our soldiers and citizens and the pissing away of our credibility as a world leader) by the incessant drumbeat of Fear! Terrorists! 9/11!
But we're a nation of laws, and those laws are broken with impunity by this administration. It makes me SICK. If there was some evidence of competence or credibility, there *could* be a place for the administration to
found my trust. but lacking any such foundation, there is *no* place to start. Show me the damn money, no more of this "Trust me" bullshit. Where is the balance in Checks and Balances?! GWB went "all in" and Congress folded. SCOTUS has called them, but that may/will change as the new players tag up and enter the ring. In every fair game I've ever played, that kind of collusion is most politely called cheating.
The sheer hubris of this administration is staggering. It is so vast, that the fall will shake the world and George W Bush's reign will live in infamy.
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.
In fact, since they're not a a nation, it's not possible to declare war on them, as such.
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:
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies commited on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations.
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.
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?
To make matters worse, the people in question have declared war on us. (See various fatwas, etc.) This is "asymmetrical warfare" in more ways than one. . These enemies don't *need* to be a nation to wage war, and it is to their advantage not to be.
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?
"Nobody expects a Spanish Inquisition". Why do you think that phrase has been reposted so many years in The Cellar.
Do you know where the phrase comes from? Or is this the most unintentionally funny post from you in ages?
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.
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.
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.
Do you know where the phrase comes from? Or is this the most unintentionally funny post from you in ages?
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.
@Flint: I'll trust 'them' when I'm dead and burned.
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.
My favorite part:
The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights.
This dangerous compromise not only authorizes the president to seize and hold terrorists who have fought against our troops "during an armed conflict," it also allows him to seize anybody who has "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States." This grants the president enormous power over citizens and legal residents. They can be designated as enemy combatants if they have contributed money to a Middle Eastern charity, and they can be held indefinitely in a military prison.
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. .......
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.
Last Thursday, though, Congress' approval of the Military Commissions Act deprived America of its strongest weapon against terrorism: the moral high ground.
The act allows inhumane torture techniques by interpreting the "serious physical pain or suffering" prohibitions of the Geneva Conventions far too narrowly. To violate these new provisions, torture would have to result in "bodily injury" that has either substantial risk of death, extreme physical pain, disfigurement of a serious nature (not including cuts, abrasions or bruises) or significant loss or impairment of bodily function.
This is an unreasonably low standard for human treatment and would allow most of the administration's brutal techniques to continue. Waterboarding, or tying a prisoner to a board upside-down and submerging his head underwater to simulate drowning, would still be legal. The Cold Cell, or leaving a prisoner standing naked in a cell kept at 50 degrees and periodically dousing him with cold water, would still be legal. Long Time Standing, or forcing a prisoner to stand in handcuffs with his feet shackled to an eyebolt in the floor for more than 40 hours, would still be legal. Stress Positions, or chaining a prisoner in a painful position for long periods of time, would still be legal. All of these are among the most popular Bush-approved methods currently employed by the Central Intelligence Agency.
Equally grave is the elimination of habeas corpus for aliens detained overseas. Under this act, someone at Guantanamo Bay can never get a hearing on whether he is being illegally held or whether he is being illegally treated (tortured). As long as he is not prosecuted in a military commission hearing, he can be held indefinitely, and there is no way for him to get out.
http://www.yaledailynews.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=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/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002441----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
7. tw
8. headsplice
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?
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.
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?
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.
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:
To make matters worse, the people in question have declared war on us. (See various fatwas, etc.) This is "asymmetrical warfare" in more ways than one. . These enemies don't *need* to be a nation to wage war, and it is to their advantage not to be.
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=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' .....
Yes, tw dug up the definition a few posts back:
LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- individual who is
(A) a member of a State's regular military forces and engaged in hostilities against the United States, or
(B) a member of a State's militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement engaged in hostilities which are under a command, wear a distinctive sign (uniform) that is recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly, and abide by the law of war (ie Geneva convention), (emphasis my own) or
(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities.
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:
So, by the US government's own definition, our military are themselves "unlawful enemy combatants."
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:
Navy lawyer denied promotion
Swift led successful Supreme Court challenge of military tribunals
The Navy lawyer who led a successful Supreme Court challenge of the Bush administration’s military tribunals for detainees at Guantanamo Bay has been passed over for promotion and will have to leave the military, The Miami Herald reported Sunday.
Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, 44, will retire in March or April under the military’s “up or out” promotion system. Swift said last week he was notified he would not be promoted to commander.
He said the notification came about two weeks after the Supreme Court sided with him and against the White House in the case involving Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who was Osama bin Laden’s driver.
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.
Amazing what will be done when god talks to a president.
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?"
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...
I still haven't heard any substantive critique of the arguments presented...
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.
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.
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...
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.
Is anyone else worried about this? It scares the heck out of me.
Not really...
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.
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.
Non-citizens have no claim to the US Constitution under any circumstances.
They still have every claim to be protected under Habeas Corpus and the Geneva Convention.
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.
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.
They still have every claim to be protected under Habeas Corpus and the Geneva Convention.
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.
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.
Look I understand that early on, mistakes were made. Many people I personally know have said so. Those mistakes cannot be undone.
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 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.
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.
Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla... bla, bla. Bla, bla, bla bla...
TheMercenary belittles felony crimes into a mistake.
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. A foreign national in a US court gets full protections.
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
What felonies? Who has belittles? Please you must try to be more clear in your arguments.
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.
Torture is not a crime?
Why yes it is, where did I say it was not?
International kidnapping (extraordinary rendition) is not a crime?
Well sorry I do support that.
Imprisoning people for years without judicial review is acceptable?
No, probably not. I think they are working on that one. If you are an EC or POW then bad luck for you.
Wrong. They are not in a US court. A military tribual has a different set of rules.
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.
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.