Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditLast Thursday, in a close 49-42 vote, the Senate adopted South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham's amendment to a military budget bill restricting the authority of US courts to hold the executive branch accountable for its detainee policies. (Click here for the roll call.)
The measure would overrule a 2004 Supreme Court decision allowing detainees, even those the government has declared "unlawful combatants," the right to appeal to American courts. This right--known as "habeas corpus"--is enshrined in the US Constitution and even strict constructionists like Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas can't be happy with this unprecedented encroachment on the judicial branch's turf.
Graham is carrying water for the increasingly embattled Bush Administration on this one, and it may come back to haunt him. The rapid-fire opposition to his bill is being joined by far more than the usual suspects, as Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith write in a new piece on The Nation.com: "John Hutson, a retired rear admiral and former judge advocate general of the Navy, not only protested but organized 60 former military officers to object. The National Institute of Military Justice, the organization of military lawyers, denounced it. High-powered legal scholars like Judith Resnik of Yale Law School, David Shapiro and Frank Michelman of Harvard Law School, and Burt Neuborne of New York University Law School circulated a blistering letter describing the legislation as "an effort to alter fundamental precepts of our constitutional order."
It also seems to me that if there is nobody in detention who can be convicted of anything without special kangaroo courts, then the real terrorists have indeed won, in part by pushing us to abdicate all moral authority.
The tidal wave of opposition seems to having an effect and cooler heads in the Senate are already reconsidering its action. An amendment proposed by Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, which would restore habeas corpus to detainees may come up as early as this week. The Center for Constitutional Rights, which sued the Justice Department on behalf of people held at Guantanamo, is calling for "emergency action" in support of the Bingaman amendment.
Click here to send a letter to your Senators imploring them to vote in favor of the Constitution (or call toll-free at 888-818-6641 or 888-355-3588), check out and circulate background resources put together by CCR, including an excellent primer exposing seventeen myths and distortions underlying the Graham amendment and click here to find contact info for your local newspaper editor and write him/her urging the paper to come out for Bingaman's amendment.
As Hilzoy at the Obsidian Wings blog--who has penned a series of thirteen posts debunking the Graham amendment--rightly insists. "Our country should never be the sort of place where the Secretary of Defense can just drop someone into a legal black hole, where the laws cannot reach, and whence there is no appeal. And we should not tolerate attempts to turn it into such a place. We claim to be a nation of laws; habeas corpus is one of the foundations of those laws, and it is too precious, and too important to the country we want to be, for us to throw it away."
*******
And here's a good update from Hilzoy.
Share this article
Peter Rothberg
Your guide to expressing informed dissent to war, racism, sexism, environmental degradation and market-based solutions to social problems.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
My God....All you loonie lefties care about is the rights of enemies whos sole purpose is to exterminate us off the face of the earth. Pathetic excuses for Americans...Totally Disgusting but typical
Posted by *bushrules* at 11/14/2005 @ 1:47pm
The National Institute of Military Justice, the organization of military lawyers, denounced Graham's bill. No loonie lefties there! But they do care about the US Constitution, unlike you and your ruler.
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 11/14/2005 @ 1:59pm
Where in the constitution does it say we give rights to terrorists?? You libs try so hard to rewrite history...and the constitution...even going as far as saying its living and breathing...The court has no business telling the the commander in chief how to conduct a war period.
Posted by *bushrules* at 11/14/2005 @ 2:10pm
It's called checks and balances my unbalanced friend! The point is not that terrorists should or should not get rights. The issue is that it is for the courts to rule as they see fit on matters of executive accountability.
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 11/14/2005 @ 2:16pm
Still havent answered my question my un-hinged friend....where in the constitution does it say terrorists get any rights??? They dont even get rights under the Geneva conventions. How about an intellectual response for a change???
Posted by *bushrules* at 11/14/2005 @ 2:20pm
I know it's hard for you to discern but the intellectual response, if you will, was contained in the second two sentences of my three-sentence reply above. Are you obsessed with me?
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 11/14/2005 @ 2:25pm
"The point is not that terrorists should or should not get rights"
That is not a response to a question, it is a dodge. By the way, obsession is more in line with liberal thought. Since you wont answer my questions (for obvious reasons) perhaps some studying on your part of the constitution is in order
Posted by *bushrules* at 11/14/2005 @ 2:30pm
The right to the civilian court system has never been given to prisoners of war. The captives in question do not even have the POW status. They will be given their day in court, but not a civilian court. They will be tried as we have tried others of similar status for 200 years. I saw in the other article concerning this subject in The Nation that there was an attempt to compare this to the Japanese internment issue During WWII---absolutely unsound reasoning. The Japanese that were interned were U.S. citizens while those at Gitmo are not. What you are trying to do is create a right that does not exist--the right of a non citizen, accused of committing war on the U.S., to be tried in a civilian court. If you want this right to exist then propose an amendment---see how much support you get from the citizens of this great country.
Posted by Len Mosse at 11/14/2005 @ 2:35pm
God you're dense! The first line ("The point is not that terrorists should or should not get rights") just clarifies why your question is off/non-applicable. The second line ("The issue is that it is for the courts to rule as they see fit on matters of executive accountability") is your response. No one is saying anything about who the Constitution does or doesn't give rights too! The point is that the founding fathers created a system of checks and balances that obligated the judiciary to review executive privilege. This is what Graham's bill seeks to undermine--the constitutional role of the judiciary! (Okay? Get the point?) And that's why so many conservatives are against it.
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 11/14/2005 @ 2:38pm
Len--After reading Bush Rules your eloquence comes off as a refreshing shaft of light but you also miss my point--, namely, it is for the judiciary to decide on what rights the detainees at Gitmo should or should not get. I'm arguing against Graham's bill b/c it thwarts the basic system of checks and balances. I'm not trying to create any rights. I'm trying to leave the interpreation of the law in the hands of the branch of government which is qualified to assess it.
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 11/14/2005 @ 2:42pm
"God you're dense! The first line ("The point is not that terrorists should or should not get rights") just clarifies why your question is off/non-applicable"
Typical example of liberal intellectual thought...Insult 1st then dodge the question..I'll try one more time...I asked you specifically if the constitution or Geneva give rights to terrorists???I dont care what is in your artical or anything else...its a simple question even a liberal hack ought to have the intellectual honesty to answer...Lets see if your up to the task...I wont hold my breath for it
Posted by *bushrules* at 11/14/2005 @ 2:42pm
PETER ROTHGERG, My advice is "Give it up" - you just can't reason with some people...
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/14/2005 @ 2:44pm
And I wasn't referring to LEN MOSSE
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/14/2005 @ 2:45pm
Pls don't hold your breathe. I have enough on my conscience. But you do seem obsessed. Could it be a ramnant of some liberal past you haven't yet been able to fully eradicate?
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 11/14/2005 @ 2:46pm
You're right ILP....I'm just procrastinating.
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 11/14/2005 @ 2:46pm
I understand your point--I don't agree. To create a right out of thin air that has never existed is what many conservatives have been criticizing for a long time. There is no historical precedent for allowing non citizens who have been accussed of warfare against the U.S. to be tried in federal court. The poor attempt by the authors of the other article to create a precedent is laughable---(attempting to compare Japanese internment to this issue__Korematsu v. U.S. case). Habeas Corpus is a civilian right that is possessed by American Citizens and non citizens who might commit a crime against U.S. law. These accussed terrorist are in the military system --not the civilian.
Posted by Len Mosse at 11/14/2005 @ 2:49pm
Since a person accused of conducting war against the U.S. has no right to a civilian federal court--Congress can define the scope of federal court involvement. They define the scope of federal court involvement in certain areas on a regular basis (for example exempting certain industries from civil suit). In order for the Congress to limit the judiciary it would have to be a law that attempted to take away or infringe a right established in the Constitution or by precedent----This is not true in this case.
Posted by Len Mosse at 11/14/2005 @ 2:59pm
Peter:
The 2004 decision of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld concerned the right of a U.S. citizen to bring a habeas petition. Does the Senate amendment concern the rights of U.S. citizens, or aliens? If it is the latter, I fail to see how this amendment would overrule Hamdi. I disagree with the amendment for other reasons that would go off in too much of a tangent at this point, but maybe I am missing something here concerning your cite to the 2004 case.
Posted by Hman23 at 11/14/2005 @ 3:04pm
Peter:
Ignore my previous question - I realize I had the wrong case in mind - and not Rasul v. Bush.
nevermind
Posted by Hman23 at 11/14/2005 @ 3:25pm
It is unfortunate that this step is necessary, but I wholly agree in this case with the Senate majority voted.
You cannot have a law designed for domestic animals and try to apply it to hyenas and jackels!
As for the military laywers who do not like this law, I am not surprised, they are after all lawyers. With all due respect to my JAG brethern, (CPT M. Anderson and Leuopold pronounced loop-hole, which was always a source of good natured ribbing)there job is to interpet the law. They are not warfighters or decision makers. Even Judge Advocate Generals, they may have two-stars on their collars, but they too are Lawyers and Judges with an additional task of adminstering the JAG Branch. The Admiral JAG you cite, has probably never commanded a manuever or T.O.&E unit. No doubt an inlfuential adviser, not diminishing them, but it is not an unassailable endorsment.
JAGs advise manuever commanders on all things that relate to military law or UCMJ. If amended they will fall into that line.
Posted by CPT at 11/14/2005 @ 3:27pm
I hope this will apply to all terrorists. The terrorists who bombed the Oklahoma City Federal building were lucky to have been given a fair trial. They should have been treated like the animals that they are(were). Same for anyone who has every bombed a Planned Parenthood or burned a cross on someones lawn. When we are able to deal with every act of terror swiftly I might be able to sleep at night.
Posted by lancer_man at 11/14/2005 @ 4:02pm
Y'all are really missing the point. Whether all the various conservative posters think non-US citizens should or should not receive fair trial is not the issue here. (I think the US system of jurisprudence is very sound and I'd personally like to see all people accorded the right of habeus corpus, but, again, that's not the point of my piece.) The issue that I wrote about and that all of you were good enough to take time out to read is about Lindsey Graham's effort to take jurisdiction away from the US courts. Which branch of government should decide on who should receive Constitutional rights is what the argument is about. If all of you think that the courts shdn't be deciding these things and that the executive branch should have unilateral power to make decisions on detainees, as Graham wants, than make that argument. But, again, jurisdiction is te issue here.
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 11/14/2005 @ 4:10pm
I hope this will apply to all terrorists. The terrorists who bombed the Oklahoma City Federal building were lucky to have been given a fair trial. They should have been treated like the animals that they are(were).
Posted by LANCER_MAN 11/14/2005 @ 4:02pm
Timothy McVey was executed! Is that not good enough for you?
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/14/2005 @ 4:14pm
"Whether all the various conservative posters think non-US citizens should or should not receive fair trial is not the issue here"
Does that preclude you then to answer a straight forward question put to you earlier...I guess it does since you are so unwilling to answer it in a intellectually honest way...looks like old fashioned bait and switch to me
Posted by *bushrules* at 11/14/2005 @ 4:20pm
.
The smuggled oil, largely trucked between Iraq, Jordan and Turkey, is a red herring. The issue is the oil sales the UN oversaw.
Volker, supported by a South African and a Swiss chief-examiner, concluded that the UN's operation of the program was, "illicit, unethical and corrupt." Why do you disregard that? Why does that mean nothing? Indeed it means, the UN, at the highest levels stole out of the mouths of millions of hungry and sick Iraqis. It proved itself incompetent and venal at the very top. Which is why its prestige is at a nadir. But you insist it did fine!
Benano Sevan, the UN's oil for food boss, collared far more than $46,000, as you say. It was $160,000 during each of the years he headed the program. He claimed the money came from an aunt in Cyprus. Moreover Volker also accused Sevan of a "grave conflict of interest" in steering business to Boutros-Ghali's brother-in-law, Efraim Nadler, and to Fakhry Abdelnour, Boutros-Ghali's cousin. Boutros-Ghali was Annan's predecessor as Secretary General.
You challenge me for "another instant" beyond the three UN officials you cited. Consider Iqbal Riza, Annan's chief of staff, who shredded three years' worth of backup documents. He was among several of Annan's most loyal cronies, fired by Malloch Brown who was brought in to clean house. Among those kicked out was Annan's deputy, Louise Frechette who denied the request of the UN's internal oversight unit to review Benano Sevan's program. You ask:
If the home countries of the involved diplomats don't prosecute because their own laws were not injured by their nationals while operating within the sovereign jurisdiction of the UN, that does not mean huge sums were not stolen. But it is yet possible that Iraq will demand their extradition.
A sampling of 760 contracts determined that half were 21% more expensive than they should have been. The Iraqi people, dying for want of food and medication, were shortchanged $7 billion of the program's total $67 billion. Saddam's cut was close to $2 billion. That means nothing to you. You excuse it. That was a job well done?
Each of those deals was the responsibility of the UN. It had hired Copectna, the firm of Kofi Annan's son, to evaluate those contracts. There is no knowing how the contract winners rewarded Copectna for doing a shabby job.
That is communist defamation and a distraction. Hussein's culpability in this matter, is secondary. You are making smoke to hide the real issue: the UN's bad faith, its slimy leadership, its dishonesty, its dismal failure as the world's premier humanitarian organization. Which also explains your sudden pirouetting to:
It is ridiculous to suggest that Bremer and the US stole those $9.3 billion when the first thing the US did was to allocate 80 billion taxpayer dollars to Iraq. Of that sum $24 billion was for humanitarian and reconstruction efforts.
Canadian General Romeo Dallaire, did check out "a little history." More than you! So did Philip Gourevitch who wrote a scathing denunciation of Annan's performance in Rwanda for The New Yorker. Dallaire, the UN's force commander in Rwanda at the time thought a great deal could have been done to at least limit that genocide. Annan commanded the one force in place that could have changed events. His performance, or non-performance, was why the tragedy unfolded as it did, with the UN troops standing aside. And the same again the following year in Bosnia.
But you instantly and automatically deny everything. Like most communists, your heart is full of unwashed socks. You are a racist son of a bitch.
.
Posted by nacl at 11/14/2005 @ 4:34pm
.
You realize nothing, not even that you've exposed yourself as a patent liar. (If you wanted to get back to me with a riposte you had to have read me and could not possibly have had me on ignore.)
I didn't just spit a label at you; you are demonstrably cheek to jowls with fanatics who hate democracy and mass murder for a living. That is not slander or fabrication, that is the Iraqi bunch you supported and yet support. They are the closest example of fascists since Heydrich hanged democrats, and you are their collaborator. That makes you their fellow fascist.
That you spit "Un-American" back at me is in the fascist tradition of bullying with empty gestures and unjustified labels.
You don't realize that it is not un-American to support democracy and to give a helping hand to people being torn to shreds because they have for the first time elected a govt, and want to keep it. You and that genius, and moral exemplar, Peter Rothberg demand that we pull out and leave them to the tender mercies of the Zaqawies. You guys call that "peace."
You are disgusting in your stupidity and perversity.
.
Posted by nacl at 11/14/2005 @ 4:35pm
Well said NACL
Posted by *bushrules* at 11/14/2005 @ 4:46pm
Just curious on the vote...
all Dems against Graham, all Repubs for the amendment?
Posted by Mask at 11/14/2005 @ 4:47pm
MASK:
You can click the roll call link in Peter's article to check my work, but it went along those lines, except:
YES: Conrad (D-ND) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (D-CT) Nelson (D-NE) Wyden (D-OR)
NO: Smith (R-OR) Specter (R-PA) Sununu (R-NH)
DID NOT VOTE: Alexander (R-TN) Corzine (D-NJ) Domenici (R-NM) Enzi (R-WY) Hagel (R-NE) Inouye (D-HI) Lugar (R-IN) Santorum (R-PA) Thomas (R-WY)
Posted by Hman23 at 11/14/2005 @ 4:59pm
Thanks HMAN...missed the link.
Interesting politics there on those "pro-Dems" and "anti-Repubs" as well as the "No shows".
Posted by Mask at 11/14/2005 @ 5:10pm
Allow me to admit right up front that when we get into constitutional issues, and questions of jurisdiction, I am almost certainly out of my league. So my comments will necessarily be tentative, and I will not take offense if I am shown to be utterly mistaken.
But before I continue, allow me to say that lectures from "Bushrules" (or "*Bushrules" or "*Bushrules*" or "Bushrules>" or any of the appellations that this thoroughly dishonest poster has assumed in order to avoid his well-deserved place on the "ignore" lists of sensible posters) on "intellectual honesty" is just a bit rich.
First, under no circumstances should any additional ceding of another Branch's authority to the Executive Branch be permitted. The Executive Branch must remain open to scrutiny if we are to remain even a nominal democracy. Even if you're a righty who does not believe that Executive authority has been in any way abused by any Republican president ever, history should provide sufficient evidence of the danger of such proceedings. The founders were clearly concerned about the dangers of an overreaching Executive Branch. And since so many righties are constitutional originalists, even relatively sane comments (like those of Len Mosse) seem to me surprising.
Second, although it should go without saying that Bushrules' comments are nonsensical, it is by no means "insane" to cling to the hope that in our attempts to punish our enemies, we will steadfastly refuse to become like them. But even this comment, sensible as it seems to me, is off-topic.
Existing constitutional checks on Executive power must remain in place, if this country is to remain America.
Posted by LisaJo at 11/14/2005 @ 6:07pm
NACL, you are frothing. Hysterical name-calling adds nothing to any discussion. If you can't understand that people can disagree with you for many reasons, and yet not be racist sons-of-bitches, you'd best crawl back under your rock.
Posted by LisaJo at 11/14/2005 @ 6:12pm
ZERO--That's exactly the thing I find most interesting in this thread--it's the left that is defending core American values like the right to a fair trail and to judicial review--while the right seems to be arguing that there's no reason whatsoever to extend those core values beyond our borders. I thought exporting democracy was one of their current projects.
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 11/14/2005 @ 6:38pm
Lisa--You don't write as if you're out of your league. I wonder what these guys would think about extending executive privilege and cutting the courts out of their Constitutional role if Bill Clinton was still in the White House and Ted Kennedy had propsoed the same bill that Lindsey Graham is pushing.
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 11/14/2005 @ 6:40pm
Peter--An excellent point; I often marvel at the short-sightedness of some of the posters here. It's as if they are really convinced that their guys will never, ever be voted out of office, so they can establsh all sorts of hair-raising precedents without so much as a backward glance. Gosh; that pit-bull I've been training would never turn on me!
But the point you've made that holds the greatest moral weight is simply this: Bushrules, NACL, and their ilk simply don't understand that if our country's principles mean anything at all, they must apply beyond our own narrow borders. You cannot save the Constitution by destroying it.
I have more thoughts, but I'm going to have to think about them for a few minutes.
Posted by LisaJo at 11/14/2005 @ 6:58pm
If W continues to slide in the polls and ratchet up his attacks on those who question his decisions, I wonder if there might not be adjustments to this legislation when it reaches the House. Perhaps we can extend this new strain of American justice to all who, in the heads of NACL and other participants in this Riefenstahl-esque production, don't demonstrate the proper commitment to the Mutter or Vaterland (ILP--both were used). I am starting to believe in that trite little slogan, that which does not kill us makes us stronger. If this country actually survives such bungling during the next 38 months, then we might just survive 'til the end of time.
Goodness, W is now channeling Knute Rockne, further confusing war with game. For the life of me, I cannot understand how anyone connected with the military can tolerate such vacant rhetoric from a soft, upperclass failure who shied away from combat like Frankenstein from a flame.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/14/2005 @ 7:17pm
I'd like to commend you on your participation PR.
Having said that, why be an apologist for evil people?
Posted by USAPRIDE at 11/14/2005 @ 7:21pm
The legislative branch makes law. The Executive branch enacts law. The Judiciary upholds law unless it is determined to be Unconstitutional. Have I got that right? If so it seems simple. If Congress want to take power from the Judiciary, they can if the Executive (and the Constitution) agree. We can advise our representatives as to our wishes.
That being the case, I think changing the balance of power to suit a short term goal is gambling with our way of life in the long run. Terrorist existed when the framers wrote the Constitution and acted in equally despicable ways. The Framers, however, chose not to differentiate a standard of justice for terrorist from the citizenery at large. Is due process dependant on how safe we feel? (Dues process makes me feel safe from false accusations.) Is the idea that we would rather let ten guilty men go free than falsely imprison an innocent man unamerican now? Why does the Congress have so little faith in the Judiciary? Short sighted people looking only to solidify their power by changing the balance.
Also, I'm not straight on "creating rights". The Amendment IX says:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
To me that means unless it determined specificly not to be a right by law, then it is a right.
Posted by zhong at 11/14/2005 @ 7:25pm
"evil people"
Posted by USAPRIDE 11/14/2005 @ 7:21pm
How is this adjective defined? Is this a legal term? It should be if we are discussing actions against our government. And as such, this is the point at which the judiciary steps in. Or the GOP steps in and judges for itself and let's the judiciary spend more of its time to do its good work. Either way. Same difference.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/14/2005 @ 7:33pm
I don't need legal description of evil.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 11/14/2005 @ 7:35pm
But our government does.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/14/2005 @ 7:43pm
The hatred of Bush by the left is, and always has clouded reality.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 11/14/2005 @ 7:49pm
So...are we "evil" too?
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/14/2005 @ 7:53pm
Give it up, man. Most of the so-called conservative protesters here, these alleged defenders of individual interests, are just fine with whatever rights the government wants to take away, so long as their money and their property are left alone. At the end of the day, that's all they're really defending. Fuck them. I'm tired of trying to reason with such people.
Posted by Stellarsjay at 11/14/2005 @ 8:00pm
No, I don't feel your basic citizen is evil.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 11/14/2005 @ 8:00pm
Stellarsjay,
I'm not feeling well tonight and am a little bored. If I were working at full speed, my posts might be more in-line with your recent posts on the Corn blog.
USAPRIDE,
But what about your non-basic citizen. I'll come right out and say it, "I hate the president. I hate the vice-president. I hate anyone who has ever shared a smile or a handshake with either of those arguments against evolutionary development. I think anyone who even considered voting for the resolution to authorize Bush to do his dumbest should be forced to earn an honest living in a convenience store or as a summertime roofer in southern Texas."
Is this your basic citizenry stuff? If not, how close is it gettin' to eeee-villl?
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/14/2005 @ 8:15pm
What's truly scary is that the people running the country have tapped into this uber-nationalistic, myopic, xenophobic fanaticism, and some of them aren't just giving it lip service. They have the balls to claim to be defending democracy at the came time they are all too willing to take away people's rights. I wish you people would make up your minds - kill all the "enemies" or turn them into allies. You can't do both. And I am not defending terrorists - they should be given fair trials, and if found guilty, sentenced extremely harshly. To just ignore their human rights makes us as bad as they are.
Posted by Turk33 at 11/14/2005 @ 8:20pm
"And I am not defending terrorists"
LIARS
George? Is that you? Shouldn't you be busy doing something else to ruin the country instead of making a complete fool of yourself? Oh wait, too late for that.
And you must know what a fool you are because you fail to even have the balls to give your name. Don't bother to respond, you win the record for fastest monkey to be put on the ignore list.
Posted by Turk33 at 11/14/2005 @ 8:25pm
Who is the poster with no name? Gosh, it couldn't possibly be BushRules, could it?
USA, you don't need a legal description of evil. So you get to apply it whenever you want, wherever you want. Why can you not understand that some of us are a little worried that one of these days, that word that has no legal description might be applied indiscriminately to anyone who disagrees with the current regime? There are reasons why we demand that crimes be defined in legal terms.
Posted by LisaJo at 11/14/2005 @ 8:28pm
See, it has surfaced. I know what is good and what is evil. I don't need anyone to define it for me. Good 'ol common sense goes a long way.
I've never had to hold meetings to define how I feel about things. The demos do, but I don't. They are called core values people. To hell with all these emotional attempts at defining our world. What it is, is what it is.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 11/14/2005 @ 8:37pm
You don't belong on this thread, USA. You know what you know what you know. Unlike most people, you can identify evil by sight.
Sure, you're saying that about terrorists now. And we agree with you, now. But one of these days you will expand your definition, and you will start adding to your list of "evils" that you can identify without any assistance. And the fact is, I at least do agree with your characterization of terrorists as evil.
But you are incapable of understanding that the reason we need legal definitions of "evil" now is because one of these days, people like you will start expanding your definition. May God save us all from people, like you, who not only know how they feel, but also know that their feelings are always right.
Posted by LisaJo at 11/14/2005 @ 8:47pm
I don't often feel crushed, but USA has crushed me. There is no reasoning with people who believe that their "core values" allow them to condemn people wholesale. Good night, all.
Posted by LisaJo at 11/14/2005 @ 8:51pm
LISA, I'm 42 years old. If I am lucky enough to live to 100, I will always know what evil is and the definition will never change.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 11/14/2005 @ 8:58pm
LISA, I'm 42 years old. If I am lucky enough to live to 100, I will always know what evil is and the definition will never change.
Posted by USAPRIDE 11/14/2005 @ 8:58pm
You scared her away!
Posted by Will C. at 11/14/2005 @ 9:03pm
Mr. Rothberg----I understand your point. I believe that I have understood your point from the very beginning. Correct me if I am wrong---you believe that the Congress, by not allowing enemy combatants the right of habeas corpus in civilian courts, is taking power away from the Supreme Court and giving it to the executive. You believe that this is an infringement on the balance of power. Let us see if you can understand my point. The Congress can not take away a power that the Court never had. It is not within the power of the Supreme Court to create a right that is not in the text of the Constitution, or can be reasonably implied, or established by precedent. You make a statement that it is within the power of the Supreme Court to determine what our rights are. If the Court can create rights then I guess they can take them away---so I guess the creation of the right to choose which is an implied right from another implied right(right to privacy)will be fair game since the court gets to decide what rights we have???????? My guess is that on that issue you will be singing a different tune on the power of the Court to create rights since it would logically lead to the conclusion that the court can also elimate rights. It would also be important the people not confuse this issue with the rights of American citizens and the rights of POW'S. Please do not make it look like that the administration is trying to deny an existing right to these enemy combatant. What you are asking for is to create a right that not even POW's are granted.
Posted by Len Mosse at 11/14/2005 @ 9:05pm
Damn, I hope I didn't really "crush" her. Not my intent.
Lisa, come back. I alrady miss you! Only sharing ideas.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 11/14/2005 @ 9:05pm
Posted by USAPRIDE 11/14/2005 @ 9:05pm
She was sharing ideas. You were sharing certitudes.
Posted by Will C. at 11/14/2005 @ 9:09pm
ZHong---Interesting post with a great amount of truth--however, the rights that you talk about belonging to citizens and those who are lawfully visiting, do not belong to POW's and they do not belong to enemy combatants. Please do not confuse the issue.
Posted by Len Mosse at 11/14/2005 @ 9:11pm
Will, it's called a belief system. You've got one don't you?
Posted by USAPRIDE at 11/14/2005 @ 9:13pm
I noticed that the headline in the smith article made it look as if the Graham Amendment was taking away the right of American citzens to a fair trial----talk about misuse of intelligence.
Posted by Len Mosse at 11/14/2005 @ 9:17pm
Will, it's called a belief system. You've got one don't you?
Posted by USAPRIDE 11/14/2005 @ 9:13pm
No, I have ideals and standards. I don't believe in shit just to believe it.
My faith is always tempered by clear vision and calm reflection
Posted by Will C. at 11/14/2005 @ 9:20pm
Will - exactly.
This is a breakthru moment!
All you libs: See Will.
Now we're getting somewhere - too bad we can't stop, we're in bat country. Say nothing to no one.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 11/14/2005 @ 9:28pm
This is a breakthru moment!
Posted by USAPRIDE 11/14/2005 @ 9:28pm
For you maybe. It's a day in the life for me
Posted by Will C. at 11/14/2005 @ 9:30pm
Good night and God Bless You All.
I know that gets yer panties in a bunch - luv it!
Posted by USAPRIDE at 11/14/2005 @ 9:34pm
Good night and God Bless You All.
I know that gets yer panties in a bunch - luv it!
Posted by USAPRIDE 11/14/2005 @ 9:34pm
Not only clueless, a pussy.
Night night Watch out for those bedbugs
Posted by Will C. at 11/14/2005 @ 9:36pm
...the rights that you talk about belonging to citizens and those who are lawfully visiting, do not belong to POW's and they do not belong to enemy combatants. Please do not confuse the issue.
Posted by LEN MOSSE 11/14/2005 @ 9:11pm
But if we are to spread Democracy throughout the world of the oppressed, should we not show the way with our actions. If the only difference is the matter of citizenry, then how can we spread Democracy if not by our example. The rights we believe all men/women should possess can not be contingent on citizenship to a democratic country, if indeed they are "rights". I reject this double standard you support, if something can't be done right, it's not worth doing.
Posted by zhong at 11/14/2005 @ 9:58pm
Len--I understand that you want to grant detainees as few rights as possible. Maybe even no rights. All at the whim of the President with no judicial review. I understand you disgaree with the Supreme Court's decision granting habeaus corpus to detainees. I'm asking for the courts to be allowed to fulfill their constitutional mandate to review the decisions of the president. It's about an expansion of powers by the executive. Would you feel the same way if Clinton had pushed this bill through Ted Kennedy in 1998?
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 11/14/2005 @ 10:22pm
Len,
You're making it too complicated. Here's how I look at it. You, USAPride, GWB, dickCheney and all of your pals are on a baseball team. GWB is your pitcher and Lindsey Graham is your manager. You guys are playing my team. Peter R is the home plate umpire.
Moments before the game starts, Lindsey Graham goes to Peter and says, "I want to change the rules. From now on, after you've called two strikes on a batter, it will be the pitcher's decision whether or not each subsequent pitch thrown to that batter is a ball or a strike."
If this rule goes into effect, then you have deprived the umpire of calling a batter out on strikes. You like the rule, at first, because we are the visiting team so your guy is pitching first. What you're not thinking about is the fact that we are only three outs away from our guy getting to do the same to your batters. Is this the way baseball should be played?
Posted by seattlescribe at 11/15/2005 @ 01:38am
Hello. There is no such thing as legal limbo, luvs, plain and simple. This is not precisely a matter of the rules of American citizenry. Primarily this is a matter of the Geneva convention regulation, which does still apply. When the courts are totally reduced to uselessness, then welcome to the days of tyranny. Personally, I say, go ahead, luvs, do your worst. Dispel all known civil rights until the only freedom Americans have left is the freedom to go to work (though no freedom to go home will exist. Merely to get a few hours rest.)
Here's the dirty secret. Every evil conservatives cast out reflects back against them three fold when their children become adults (which explains the sixties, really.) After all the rights are gone, suddenly, the conservatives shall find themselves the politically emasculated minority party, granted it takes fifty or so years to get there . . . and when they do, only then will they see what we on the left see now . . . but by then, we on the left will have the power to lock them up for all time in legal limbo. Dwell on that. They crush us now, and justice crushes them later. But that's no consolation here and now.
Posted by Kristev at 11/15/2005 @ 05:48am
It's seems that the present administration has been really efficient stripping his "base" of their rights to think by themselves...mixing everything they can in order to lose their people in their semantic and even creating concepts if necessery. It guess it worked pretty good as Bushrules talk about terrorist when Peter talks about "unlawful combattants". Len Mosse has been talking about geneva convention and POW when the administration created the concept of "enemy combattant" especially to deny them the POW status, and thus the rights under the geneva convention. I won't challenge any point of law; yours laws aren't mine just as your constitution. But as one put it Good 'ol common sense goes a long way. so let's talk about common sense : if i understand you well guys, correct me if i'm wrong... Bushrules calls them terrorists.. so they are civilians who have commited barbarian acts and so deserve a civilian trial and get a sentence corresponding to their wrong doing. but bushrules says "The court has no business telling the the commander in chief how to conduct a war period." so he implicitly joins Len when he's talking about POW. In fact, these detainees in guantanamo have been mainly captured by the military, during as bushrules says it "a war period" Right?? so they should be POW. Be locked under detention camps while they get rights under the geneva convention, get a Military trial, been sentenced (released, life time, death penalty.. whatever the military court rules). But These combattants have no rights but the detention camp. Worse they are kept in detention then sent back to their countries, At charge for their own gov to decide what to do with them, jail and freedom. So good ol' common sense : no matter who you are (terrorist, enemy combattant, good citizen) You can be put in jail, locked for years and get released without a trial... am i right so far?? Your supreme court put a halt of it. They got denied the right of Military trial so they can have a civilian one. Good ol' sense bushrules.. if you're not a civilian, you're military and if your not in the military, you're civilian..Right?? (or did i miss a category????) And Graham's bill tries to put them back into the loophole this administration created specifically for them. Now cPT, you talking about military lawyers, understanding they don't like the such law because they are lawyers, and you have an opinion about it, an you explain me how you can agree with a law created specifically to put people under NO law? so please, could you let me know, bushrules, Len, CPT.. what do you stand for? 1) they are civilians ? and should get a civilian trial.. 2) they are military men ? and should get a military trial.. 3) we don't care we created a specific law for them so they are under no law and have no rights; we keep them in jail and eventually, one day, we will release them (maybe feet first) with or without a trial. (do i need to point that the 3rd proposition is typical of dictature?)
And for the ones who would call me apologist of terrorism, or would say i don't know what i'm talking about, or maybe even that 09/11 changed everything.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2378997.stm
I live there, and i used the metro (and still do), and i know some people who's been so terrorized that they still can't take it to cross Paris. And i knew the only frenchie who dies in the WTC..... (And i do regret, at times, that we don't have the death penalty anymore.)
Posted by Fabrice at 11/15/2005 @ 06:33am
True. People are either civilians or they are soldiers. Terrorists are not a brand-new third class. If they are civilians, then 1) America must IMMEDIATELY extradite them home, or 2) send them to REAL courts (military courts and kangaroo courts have always proven to be the same thing.)
If they are military prisoners, then they are still subject to the Geneva conventions. There is no legal limbo, people. There is merely lawless tyranny.
Posted by Kristev at 11/15/2005 @ 06:57am
"It's seems that the present administration has been really efficient stripping his "base" of their rights to think by themselves..."
This is the one dimension of our current political discourse most likely to make me forget my manners. I welcome other people's thoughts, and hope to learn from them. Nowadays, however, those who presume to define me or tell me what I think are basically begging me to punch them.
Thanks for the observation, Fabrice.
Posted by drhammer at 11/15/2005 @ 07:49am
Peter Rothberg/ZERO
You cannot apply a law, meant for domsestic dogs, to hyenas and jackals.
That is the BASIC concept here!
To NOT recognize this simple reality is naive. You should be glad that CONGRESS is finally taking steps to address it. Is it unfortuante that this move is even necessary? Of course, but hey that is the world we find oursleves in today.
Posted by CPT at 11/15/2005 @ 08:11am
Seattlescribe--It is your side who wants to change the rules.Giving enemy combatants habeas corpus rights would be changing the rules.We have never allowed POW'S OR Enemy combatants to have habeas corpus rights in our civilian courts. Rothberg---I believe that enemy combatants deserve the rights that they are entitled to in military tribunals. This is what they have always been entitled to---what you are trying to do is give rights to enemy combatants that have never existed. In fact they have never existed for POW's. I would feel the same way no matter who was President. I do not think that the Supreme Court gets to have veto power over every decision by the other two branches of government. The Supreme Court is limited by the scope and meaning of the Constitution. If a President decides to send troops into combat it is within his/her powers as Commander In Chief. The Congress can make the President withdraw those troops within a reasonable time----However, the Supreme Court would not and has not determined that the actions of the President our unconstitutional. Not all actions by the Executive and Legislative Branch are reviewable by the Court. To do more than this would be expanding the powers of the Supreme Court--why are you not worried about this? after all this is the group that is unelected.
Posted by Len Mosse at 11/15/2005 @ 10:48am
CPT:
You CAN apply the rule of law to jackels, and we SHOULD. The fact that this amendment makes the U.S. look like hypocrites is the simple reality you fail to acknowledge.
I think many here are missing this larger issue. If the amendment passes, I am sure that evenutally the Supreme Court will take it up to address whether or not the amendment is Consitutional. We can all debate the legalities, and maybe at the end of the day, the Court will find that Congress HAS the authority to define the Article III jurisdiction of the federal courts in such a way. However, the important question from a policy perpective is whether Congress should do this. I think many people here (Lisa comes to mind) have made the practical point that if America wants to demonstrate credibility to the world in promoting democracy, it should allow for judicial review of detainees. Why is judicial review something that many on the right are trying so hard to avoid? If the detainees are truly guilty of something, this should not present a problem. It's not like habeas review is an automatic get of jail free card or anything. Can't Len Mosse, CPT, USAPRIDE and others recognize this, and that even the world's perception of this amendment will be negative?
Posted by Hman23 at 11/15/2005 @ 11:02am
LEN MOSSE:
If you are going to be so exacting in your judicial analysis, then you must acknowledge that the detainees are not POWs. The Bush Administration has gone great lengths to define the detainees as NOT being POWs so that the Geneva Conventions do not apply - you cannot have it both ways now.
Posted by Hman23 at 11/15/2005 @ 11:06am
CPT--I think the basic difference bet us on this is that some of us are proud of the best that our country stands for and genuinely do want to export, if you will, those many positive values we associate with America. You seem to want to act in lawless ways toward those you deem to be your enemy--and it's worth remembering that many people in Gitmo are innocent of anything as the scores that the US have already released w/o charge attest--and don't seem as concerned with trying to actually live up to the ideals enshrined in the great documents that define the US. Another difference bet us: I actually believe that all men are created equal.
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 11/15/2005 @ 11:27am
Anthony Lewis, who knows a lot about constitutional issues, had a very interesting op-ed in today's NYT about the Graham Amendment. He very clearly explains why the detainees are indeed covered by Geneva, which does indeed give them habeas corpus rights. This is well worth reading. Here's the URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/15/opinion/15Lewis.html
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 11/15/2005 @ 11:43am
Lisa, come back. I alrady miss you! Only sharing ideas.
Posted by USAPRIDE 11/14/2005 @ 9:05pm
Actually, you are sharing "feelings":
No, I don't feel your basic citizen is evil.
Posted by USAPRIDE 11/14/2005 @ 8:00pm
which stems from your God complex:
See, it has surfaced. I know what is good and what is evil. I don't need anyone to define it for me.
Posted by USAPRIDE 11/14/2005 @ 8:37pm
You are not here to exchange ideas, you are here to preach, because you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. You are here to lecture "liberals" because you have a corner on truth. You've cornered the market on right and wrong, on morality.
Does this sound familiar? Haven't Americans become quite familiar with this attitude in the new milenium? Why, yes, of course we have. Fanatics like this, who know evil when they see it, claim that the US is evil. And on September 11th, 2001, they acted.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/15/2005 @ 12:28pm
HMAN23--I have consistently said that the enemy combatants are not POW's--please re-read my post.There is an appeal procedure for enemy combatants--it is within the military tribunal system. They have the right to a fair trial within the military tribunal system, they have the right to a fair appeal---what they do not have the right to is a trial and an appeal within the civilian court system in the U.S. FABRICE---I have not changed my anaylasis of the status of the enemy combatants, and by the way this is not a new status created by Bush. These enemy combatants are not soldiers of another country and are not technically covered by the Geneva convention.However, I am for letting them have most if not all of the rights guaranteed a Prisoner of WAR. Within the rights of a POW is the right to a fair trial by a military court (not a civilian court)--also with in their rights is the right to an appeal by a military tribunal (again not a civilian court)----This is not new----this has been the law for over 200 years in the U.S.
Posted by Len Mosse at 11/15/2005 @ 1:13pm
This is not about conferring rights on people who have been swept into the bin of 'enemy combatants,' however they got there. Because they fall into no recognized category, they are subject to no recognized code of treatment and are left to the mercies of an executive extremely fond of its own power. A legislative attempt to remove access to the courts violates the separation of powers and means that the prez can do with these guys whatever he feels like--because where can they turn if abused or slated for execution? The powers of the commander-in-chief to conduct war are not at all diminished by the ability of the courts to review the status of prisoners and of the legislative to supervise the conditions of their imprisonment. Right now, these guys are subject to the whim of an intemperate executive.
Posted by had enough at 11/15/2005 @ 2:16pm
Ok, i think i got an answer for you *bushrules*. Here it is, read carefully, i dont want you to miss it. NOT ALL PEOPLE HELD FOR TERRORISM ARE TERRORISTS. You make the assumption that all those held and arrested for terrorism are terrorists, which is ludacris given our methods for finding and catching terrorists. Your right about the Constitution, it does not say "terrorists have rights," but it also does not say that (insert your name) has the right to free speech if convicted of a crime; rather, it is a somewhat more broad document. As you may or may not know, the constitution is a document that has stood the test of time, which means it has rules/ideas that go for everyone. This means, (ARE YOU STILL WITH ME HERE?) that anyone arrested should have the right to Habeas Corpus, not just those people who you like. Under your argument, i could make an argument, that you committed a crime and since you committed that crime are not under the constitution and not gauranteed those rights. You will always end with rejecting the constitution for your benefit, which is great if your in power, but not if you happen to be outside of power (which includes everyone but Bush and his closest buddies, probably even you).
Posted by mlehman at 11/15/2005 @ 2:18pm
Bushrules, where in the Constitution is the qualification on who gets rights? Once again, that is not the point (another mere slogan). The point is that the Senate passed a resolution that purportedly restricts the Judicial Branch. One would have thought that after the Terry Schiavo rebuke by the courts, they would understand the whole notion of separation of powers, but here we go again. The concept of judicial review has been with us since Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Simply put (and it must necessarily be that for the neocons), the congress cannot tell those "activist" "unaccountable" (the Framers explicitly decided that they must be unaccountable) Republican judges what they may or may nor do. If they do not like what the courts decide, they are free to amend the Constitution. Lindsey Graham is a sharp lawyer. He know this too. This is a political stunt, nothing more.
Posted by Rodriguez at 11/15/2005 @ 2:23pm
"See, it has surfaced. I know what is good and what is evil. I don't need anyone to define it for me.
Posted by USAPRIDE 11/14/2005 @ 8:37pm"
Does this sound familiar? Haven't Americans become quite familiar with this attitude in the new milenium? Why, yes, of course we have. Fanatics like this, who know evil when they see it, claim that the US is evil. And on September 11th, 2001, they acted.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 11/15/2005 @ 12:28am
And that's a problem with religious wars (and governments ruled by religiously motivated people). There is a great missuse of faith. Does the element of faith requires no more than a belief that the leaders know good from evil without the need for definition, or on the word of those officially considered closer to God by their followers? Before you can determine good or evil, you need to know the true facts. Our leaders acted on faith when they missrepresented the facts in order to gain popular support. They Gambled and now don't want to admit they lost because they remain faithfull... And some just did it for the money.
Posted by zhong at 11/15/2005 @ 2:56pm
Lokk you silly fools...dont you get it???The constitution applies to AMERICANS. Where is this concept lost on you out of power crybabies????
Posted by
rodriguez, very fine, it needs to be said
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 5:23pm
Don't you just love the Evangelicals screaming that what we need is more torture so we can kill the right people in the war they started? You can't make this absurd crap up!
Posted by Turk33 at 11/15/2005 @ 6:32pm
look to be nuked nitwit
Posted by
To All:
One of the hallmarks of western culture has always been the universalism of the rule of law. Go back to the great philosophical writers, from Socrates to Kant (yes, even Christ), and practically every single one of them upon whose teachings we have based their teachings and preachings upon a basic concept of justice... fairness and equality under the law. And that concept applies not just to citizens of a single country, but to all people. Even though we rarely have lived up to such lofty ideals (slavery, the separate but equal doctrine, women's sufferage, and now equal protection under international law), to turn our backs on not just our traditions, our heritage, but also that which ostensibly separates us from nations not in the "free world" is a travesty. And those of you who wish to do so should be ashamed of yourselves. You claim to uphold "truth, justice, and the American way", but really, all you are doing is falling victim to fear. You're simply afraid. And that is a weakness of your character.
Posted by jorcheim at 11/15/2005 @ 8:20pm
I have two words for the Evangelical hate mongers that sums up what your take on this issue should be (they're gonna hate this heehee!)- Good Samaritan! That's right, Jesus himself taught us how to treat those that common (and I do mean common) thinking has painted as enemies.
Posted by Turk33 at 11/15/2005 @ 8:40pm
Posted by JORCHEIM 11/15/2005 @ 8:20pm
Very moving statement.
Worthy of an American.
Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 10:20pm
What this administration (which doesn't seem to want to administer anything,) seems hell bent on obtaining, & which Bushrocks seems to encourage, is a DICTATORSHIP & ONE PARTY RULE. Remember Bush is the the one who said "I'm the Commander see ... I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being President ... [I] don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."
Bushrocks is now on my ignore list.
Posted by Chuck at 11/16/2005 @ 12:46am
I meant bushrules.
Posted by Chuck at 11/16/2005 @ 01:20am
right Len, i'm sorry i mixed up, you are talking about "enemy combatant" when your administration called them "unlawful combatant". My bad (still not status created by this administration btw, i searched and read news but next time i'll search better...mea culpa, mea maxima culpa). So they are "enemy combatants" for you right??? But, dixit my encyclopedia : "A combatant (also referred to as an enemy combatant) is a soldier or guerrilla member who is waging war. Under the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII), persons waging war must have the following characteristics to be protected by the laws of war".
Now if you've been mixed up by your administration semantic, and you meant "unlawful combatant", which i can understand pretty well as they shown great skills in it : my same encyclopedia tells me that : "The term "unlawful combatant" has been around for at least 100 years and has been used in legal literature, military manuals and case law. However unlike the terms "combatant" "prisoner of war" and "civilian" the term "unlawful combatant", or similar, is not mentioned in either the Hague or the Geneva Conventions. So while the former terms are well understood and clear under international law, the term "unlawful combatant" is not."
And for a good analysis of their rights or deny of them i would suggest : And instead of putting everybody in one bag (so it's semantically easier to deal with when adressing to the population), this Professor of Law at Columbia University, starts by making 2 different cases, the Talibans and the Al Qaeda members who had been captured in afghanistan. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020123.html According to him they are both unlawful combatants, and i'm perfectly fine with it... but it brings a question then : WHY many of the detainees have been repatriated when Repatriation IS a POW consequence; And why they aren't untitled to indefinite detention as there is no "cessation of active hostilities" yet ?
Posted by Fabrice at 11/16/2005 @ 03:18am
as there is no "cessation of active hostilities" yet ?
I thought the war was over in Iraq, as in "mission accomplished" shouldn't we have let them all go home?
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/16/2005 @ 08:37am
Peter
There is another differnce between us, I recognize, as well as others, that in the war on terror we should not allow those bent on destroying the system we are all so proud of, to use and maniuplate our own laws to do accomplish their goal.
Setting up a DIFFERENT system of tribunals is all together fitting and proper for them to appeal.
You really believe that a FED Judge or jury is better able to ascertain guilt on battlefield when the evidence presented is less than absolute?
Military tribunrials are best desgined for these circumstances and they have a precedent. To allow them in FED courts desgined for simple criminals, would help legitamize them and give them max publicity, were our goal is to minimize them.
Exporting the best of this country? Flowery sentiments to be sure, they make us all feel warm and nice on the inside. But they do not apply here. Tribu. have been used before, they should be used here.
JORCHIEM
Giving into fear? Yeah sure, "Its not about who they are its about who we are" Right?
There is another American tradition, LIFE. And these fucking people are bent on taking it, no matter your poltical affliation or age. Make no mistake about it.
The weakness that is more alarming is the one the spurs you not to recongize the difference. That underlies a disgusting trait in people of your character. Cowardice. You are paralyzed by your irrational fear that the US will become some facists state, a ridiculous proposition. Simple
You dont treat a patient with advanced brain cancer, as though they have mild skin cancer.
I am most proud that Will C. will not give me kudos.
Posted by CPT at 11/16/2005 @ 09:32am
You people (CPT) are so ruled by basic emotions: fear, hate, distrust. Yes, the terrorists are terrible. Yes, we should use every available method to combat them - up to the point where we violate human rights. As I write this, I realize that I'm wasting my breath, because you obviously believe that your enemies don't have any human rights. I think that terrorists are scum, and it would be emotionally satisfying to subject them to every torture known to man, but common sense tells me that sinking to their level makes us just as bad as them. As someone famous (I want to say Truman, but I'm not sure) said (paraphrased): "If you're going to sink to your enemy's level, you'll both end up stinking the same."
Posted by Turk33 at 11/16/2005 @ 12:11pm
CPT--Another disagreement: I think we should always be exporting the best of American ideals and values. There's never a wrong time to do that. Relatedly, I have more fiath than you in the American system and don't think it has to compromised in order to withstand assault.
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 11/16/2005 @ 12:23pm
TURK
What level do we sink to? We give them a orange suit, a prayer mat, shelter from the elements, access to showers and toliets, a cot to sleep on, meals, and even anounce the "calls to prayer" and to top it all off we give them a copy of the Koran. We provide those basic human rights to them. Now please dont cite the Abu Graib, all are aware of that, and that does not represent the whole system.
The factor that rules "our thinking" is reality. Recognizing that we are dealing with wild hyenas rather than domestic dogs, hence you better not try a pet a hyena. Nor do you deal with them the same way.
In response you qoute, whoever may have said it, I understand, but if you at least sink to that level, you can assuredly find them!
Peter
I agree to disagree
Posted by CPT at 11/16/2005 @ 12:50pm
The military can't be trusted. Not in matters of justice, anyway. History alone is record of that. By its very definition, it is prejudiced. When that happens, what you see is a kangaroo court.
Posted by Kristev at 11/16/2005 @ 12:53pm
Furthermore, what people are rightfully begginning to fear is not exactly fascim and one-party state, but theocratic fascism and one party/religion state. In that position lies danger. And it is becoming ever more probable.
Posted by Kristev at 11/16/2005 @ 12:54pm
in a kangaroo court who or what is the kangaroo?
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/16/2005 @ 1:06pm
Turk,
you said:
""If you're going to sink to your enemy's level, you'll both end up stinking the same."
Since we are bringing up eluquent statements by great men of the American past, here's another one...
"I am concerned for the security of our great Nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within. "
General Douglas MacArthur
I'm sure he was refering to liberals...
OR this one:
"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his."
George Patton
Posted by Oksportsguy at 11/16/2005 @ 1:49pm
no takers?
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/17/2005 @ 11:59am