Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditToday the Senate Judiciary Committee passed an important bill to restore habeas corpus, the sacrosanct Constitutional right to challenge government detention in court, by a vote of eleven to eight.
Habeas corpus was revoked by last year's Military Commissions Act, which has been assailed as unconstitutional and un-American by leaders across the political spectrum. Today's habeas bill was backed by the Judiciary Committee's Democratic Chairman, Patrick Leahy, and its Republican Ranking Member, Arlen Specter. "The drive to restore this fundamental right has come from both sides of the aisle," said Sharon Bradford, an attorney at the bipartisan Constitution Project, in response to today's vote. "Restoring America's commitment to the rule of law is not a partisan cause; it is a patriotic one," she added.
Today's vote means the habeas bill can now be brought to the Senate floor at any time. One source with knowledge of the legislative plan said Majority Leader Harry Reid has committed to bringing the bill to a vote within the month.
Some Democrats are pushing Reid to go further, advocating more comprehensive human rights protections and a repeal of the entire Military Commissions Act. Senator Chris Dodd, the most aggressive defender of the Constitution in the presidential race, is pushing legislation that would not only restore habeas, but also ban the use of evidence obtained through torture and recommit the U.S. to the Geneva Conventions. "We must recognize that our security is enhanced by upholding our nation's historic legal principles as we vigorously pursue terrorists," he said in a statement today. Dodd is giving a major address about his proposal at the Cardozo School of Law Commencement exercises in New York on Thursday, part of a larger effort to prioritize Constitutional rights on the national agenda – and in the presidential campaign. The Dodd Campaign has gathered over 10,000 "citizen cosponsors" for his bill, the Restoring the Constitution Act, while using YouTube, blog and netroots outreach to rally more support.
Obama, Clinton and Biden, the other Senators in the presidential race, have cosponsored the habeas legislation but not Dodd's bill, which currently has eleven cosponsors. The legislation faces an uphill battle in the Armed Services Committee, a much less hospitable venue for Constitutional rights than the Judiciary Committee. But there is one influential Armed Services member who opposed the Military Commissions Act and could jump start the effort to restore Constitutional rights: Hillary Clinton.
Share this article
- 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
And again, where will newly-elected US Senator from Ohio, Sherrod Brown be on that vote?....For or against?
Against?...and reverse his vote in the House last year?
Posted by Mask at 06/07/2007 @ 12:13pm
Could be interesting.
Who among the "leading candidates" is going to grab the "restore the constitution" mantle.
More poignantly, why is it taking so long to seize on this broadly popular touchstone of democracy?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/07/2007 @ 12:15pm
The Military Commissions Act says that anyone including Americans, can be classified as an "enemy combatant" by the Commander in Chief. Everywhere, including America, is a battlefield and you dont have rights on a battlefield. They don't have to tell anyone where you are. You can't sue for detention conditions or interrogation methods.
Americans had more freedom than this. Americans have lost freedom as a result of Conservatives in governmment. At the same time as troops are fighting for freedom in Iraq, Americans have lost freedom.
Posted by conshame at 06/07/2007 @ 12:34pm
Con,
"Americans have lost freedom as a result of Conservatives in governmment."
You have never expeience a conservative government if you were born after 1988..
Posted by john maasch at 06/07/2007 @ 12:40pm
Sure seems like the Dems, along with some RINOs, are hell bent on treating "enemy combatants" as if they are Constitutionally protected! Damn, the Dems are `Tough on Terror'!
Posted by Happy at 06/07/2007 @ 12:41pm
So happy, by 'tough on terror' (whatever that slogan is supposed to mean) you're willing to gut the constitution?
Posted by jaymo at 06/07/2007 @ 1:11pm
At the same time as troops are fighting for freedom in Iraq, Americans have lost freedom.
Posted by CONSHAME 06/07/2007 @ 12:34pm | ignore this person
the troops are not fighting for freedom in Iraq.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/07/2007 @ 1:11pm
Posted by HAPPY 06/07/2007 @ 12:41pm
HAPP, you got any problem treating them like....POWs?
Posted by Mask at 06/07/2007 @ 1:16pm
So happy, by 'tough on terror' (whatever that slogan is supposed to mean) you're willing to gut the constitution?
Posted by JAYMO 06/07/2007 @ 1:11pm
Show me where in the Constitution exactly, are enemies of our country are `protected'? If you need some leeway, you can consider any war-time foreign enemies, in or out of uniform!
Posted by Happy at 06/07/2007 @ 1:16pm
Show me where in the Constitution exactly, are enemies of our country are `protected'? If you need some leeway, you can consider any war-time foreign enemies, in or out of uniform!
~Sad Sack 06/07/2007 @ 1:16pm
We have met the enemy, and they is us.
Go ahead dumbass, undermine the Constitution and see where it lands ya, fool. As you talk shit, you bury yourself in it.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/07/2007 @ 1:25pm
Show me where in the Constitution exactly, are enemies of our country are `protected'? If you need some leeway, you can consider any war-time foreign enemies, in or out of uniform!
Happy, since moral and ethical arguments, likely don't sway you...
This is the Constitutional Article that binds us legally to the rules of the Geneva Convention. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Consider also that most of the detainees that we lock up and torture, are being released, because they are innocent. We pay a million dollar bounty for suspected terrorists. I think its very likely that there are many US Citizens that would swear you are a terrorist, if paid a million dollars to do so.
Locking up and torturing innocent people, only to let them go, out of a parnoid fear of imagined threats, is not a reasonable way to conduct ourselves.
Posted by Weaseldog at 06/07/2007 @ 1:49pm
BTW, that was article VI.
Posted by Weaseldog at 06/07/2007 @ 1:50pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/07/2007 @ 12:40pm
Baloney. Bush I and II were/are both conservatives. At least Republicans thought so when things were going well.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/07/2007 @ 2:03pm
Baloney. Bush I and II were/are both conservatives. At least Republicans thought so when things were going well.
Posted by HMAN23 06/07/2007 @ 2:03pm
Baloney...and the dems thought Clinton was uber lib too, at least thats what the dems voters thought...
come on ..Bush, neither of them, are conservative and you know that...so do all the conservatives in America.
Posted by john maasch at 06/07/2007 @ 2:07pm
...you got any problem treating them like....POWs?
Posted by MASK 06/07/2007 @ 1:16pm
NO, IF they qualify as POWs! You are good at searches, surely you can find when and where OBL signed on to the Geneva Convention.
Dum, dum,...dum dum...dum, dum, dum, dummmmm...., Mr. MASK, if you choose to accept this mission, you and your team...........
Posted by Happy at 06/07/2007 @ 2:10pm
Baloney. Bush I and II were/are both conservatives. At least Republicans thought so when things were going well.
I don't know what it means to be a conservative anymore. It seems to mean freewheeling spending, increasing the size of government, giveaways to international corporations, feeding the war machine, undermining the US Constitution. Overriding Habeas Corpus is just one example.
Republicans borrow and spend, Democrats tax and spend.
Either way, we pay. As the money supply increases from government largesses, the price of everything goes up and wages stagnate.
The US Government uses half the fuel bought by the US, and they need more. They can borrow infinite quantities of money to buy gasoline and diesel and they will. They are directly competing with private industry and individuals, and winning by driving up prices.
I usedto think I knew what Conservatism is, but now its become something else entirely.
Posted by Weaseldog at 06/07/2007 @ 2:12pm
Weasels Ripped (Happy's) Flesh ~Frank Zappa
Thanks, Weasel
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/07/2007 @ 2:13pm
NO, IF they qualify as POWs! You are good at searches, surely you can find when and where OBL signed on to the Geneva Convention. - Happy
Sorry, I thought you were talking about the US Constitution and the United States of America.
I didn't realize that OBL was your leader. Which nation's constitution ar you referring to?
Posted by Weaseldog at 06/07/2007 @ 2:15pm
This is the Constitutional Article that binds us legally to the rules of the Geneva Convention.
Consider also that most of the detainees that we lock up and torture, are being released, because they are innocent....
Posted by WEASELDOG 06/07/2007 @ 1:49pm
See my response to MASK, equally applicable to you!
As for your presumption of innocence because detainees are released, you are off the mark! Most detainees are captured on the field of battles without post-battle support from your favorite CSI teams.....you do know that, right?
I'll tell you a dirty little secret. I was arrested while in colleg but the charge was later dismissed. Guess what? I was NOT innocent! I suppose you might have led a pristine life and have never been actually guilty of something you were accused of, right? Being release or have charges dismissed do NOT = innocent. Only an actual trial with a verdict on establish `Innocence' can do that....and even then, doubts are left in numerous instances.
This ain't TV's neat, lettle 60-min. and it's over shows! I believe you actually expect our troops to do instant gunpowder residual tests on each `capture' and document anyone who may serve as witnesses....of course, most such witnesses will be the exact same US/Coalition troops that did the capture! God bless America that your types aren't leading the fight!
Posted by Happy at 06/07/2007 @ 2:29pm
I didn't realize that OBL was your leader. Which nation's constitution ar you referring to?
Posted by WEASELDOG 06/07/2007 @ 2:15pm
Mr./Ms. WEASEL,
I don't waste time with idiots and I think you are one! If your arguments don't take on any sense, you will be my next "Detainee"!
Posted by Happy at 06/07/2007 @ 2:31pm
HAPPY: Show me where in the Constitution exactly, are enemies of our country are `protected'? If you need some leeway, you can consider any war-time foreign enemies, in or out of uniform!
Constitutional Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2): "...(A)ll Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land...."
Constitutional Suspension Clause (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2): "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
UN Charter (a treaty to which we are a signatory, thus "the supreme law of the land": see relevant portions of the charter here [en.wikipedia.org]).
Third Geneva Convention (Article 5): ""Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act..." are prisoners of war, "...such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal" (something that the military court's current ruling on OBL's driver and the 15-year-old admits to not being).
Posted by rbarthjr at 06/07/2007 @ 2:32pm
Posted by HAPPY 06/07/2007 @ 2:10pm
Last I checked OBL doesn't run a court system either. Does he need to have a court system and recognize habeas corpus before we should? In fact, should OBL - or anyone else for that matter - be the standard by which we determine the best way to govern ourselves?
Also, did you happen to catch this article, "Soviet-Style ‘Torture' Becomes ‘Interrogation'" by Scott Shane?
It talks about torture - how it was viewed in 1956, the very same techniques we use now as a matter of policy. Here's a key quote:
"How did something used as an example of what an unethical government would do become something we do?" he asked...His question is only underscored by a 1956 article, "Communist Interrogation," in The Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, recently turned up by the Intelligence Science Board, which advises the spy agencies. Written by doctors working as Defense Department consultants, Lawrence E. Hinkle Jr. and Harold G. Wolff, the article shows that methods embraced after 2001 were once considered torture that would produce false information."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/weekinreview/03shane.html
Posted by srjenkins at 06/07/2007 @ 2:33pm
Thank you for your answer Happy. you're under the misapprehension that all of the detainees were picked up on the battlefield. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and a few politicians keep saying that. But other reports detailing how these people get picked up, doesn't align with that dramatic bit of propaganda.
You suggested earlier you want the US to be governed by the standards set by OBL. You argued that OBL didn't sign the Geneva Convention. So the US should break that treaty. Should the US break all the treaties that OBL didn't sign?
Would you elaborate a bit on how you would like OBL's standards to be applied to US Government?
Posted by Weaseldog at 06/07/2007 @ 2:37pm
HAPPY: Mr./Ms. WEASEL,
I don't waste time with idiots and I think you are one! If your arguments don't take on any sense, you will be my next "Detainee"!
As a typical Fightin' 101st Keyboarder, your masturbatory power delusions about having your very own "detainees" is rather pathetic, just as your non-argument is. You express only broad opinions, unsupported by any facts. It is, in fact, people like you, operating on faith, who represent the greatest dangers to our constitutional representative democracy, because you would so blindly and slavishly follow the "unitary executive."
Posted by rbarthjr at 06/07/2007 @ 2:40pm
I'll tell you a dirty little secret. I was arrested while in colleg but the charge was later dismissed. Guess what? I was NOT innocent!
Happy, you are cracking me up!!! I'm sitting in my cubicle LMAO. But what does this have to DO with anything? The country hasn't fallen apart because guilty people (including yourself) have gone free.
Posted by habiba at 06/07/2007 @ 2:41pm
So far Happy is a confessed criminal that wants to detain and torture people, like he imagines that Osama Bin Laden does.
I don't mind if such people think I'm an idiot. Many criminals think that law abiding citizens are suckers.
But I wonder Happy, what makes you think Osama Bin Laden is still alive? We've had nothing but crappy audio attributed to him, since 2000. Since cheap tape recorders from the 1960s on produce clean audio, I think its safe to assume that the noise was artificially added to the tapes.
Its well known fact that video cameras work fine in caves. So why no video?
Do you have actual evidence that he has been alive since 1999?
Posted by Weaseldog at 06/07/2007 @ 2:48pm
Posted by HAPPY 06/07/2007 @ 2:10pm
HAPPY, maybe let's pursue it from the opposite angle...
if the Military captures any person in a foreign land, and puts them in a military prison located overseas....
does that person have any rights whatsoever or are they merely a subject of whatever justice the Military decides to mete out to them or even keep them imprisoned incommunicado forever?
If not...why not?
Posted by Mask at 06/07/2007 @ 2:56pm
I can see why crows aren't flocking around this board; there are just too many strawmen...
You are good at searches, surely you can find when and where OBL signed on to the Geneva Convention. Posted by HAPPY 06/07/2007 @ 2:10pm
This later becomes strawmanned into "did Osama ever sign any treaty?" Part of the reason for that strawman, though, may be the fact that this point wasn't impacted the right way. The Geneva Convention, as I pointed out on a thread some time ago and never got any adequate response to, has standards to determine who has to be treated as a POW. It also sets up groups of people who aren't protected, which would include members of al Qaeda. The right argument thus isn't "Osama didn't sign the treaty so we don't have to adhere to it," but rather "active members of al Qaeda are not protected by the Geneva Convention."
I'll tell you a dirty little secret. I was arrested while in colleg but the charge was later dismissed. Guess what? I was NOT innocent!
Happy, you are cracking me up!!! I'm sitting in my cubicle LMAO. But what does this have to DO with anything? The country hasn't fallen apart because guilty people (including yourself) have gone free.
Posted by HABIBA 06/07/2007 @ 2:41pm
Happy's point isn't a terribly strong one either, but it's badly mischaracterized. The point he was responding to was that having to let lots of prisoners go meant that many of the people we captured weren't terrorists. His response was that letting people go isn't definitive proof that they aren't guilty (as his own example was meant to show). I don't really buy his response, but it was there and could have been responded to.
Beyond the strawman-fest, though, I thought some interesting issues were raised. For example:
I usedto think I knew what Conservatism is, but now its become something else entirely.
Posted by WEASELDOG 06/07/2007 @ 2:12pm
I think this is really interesting, and reflects questions similar to those that we had to ask about the term "progressive." Can a political label be defined solely based on how it is applied?
I'd actually argue that Bush II isn't conservative, because I think that "conservative" (like "liberal") can be defined independently of how particular politicians act. What I think is really interesting about conservatism (and liberalism) is the complexity of philosophy that underlies them, and that they're trying to tap into. Both Democrats and Republicans, for the most part, tend to be wary of government overreaching. However, this interacts with conflicting concerns. For many Democrats, this conflicts with what they understand as meaningful equality (in areas such as health-care), so they will often favor government intervention in the "economic sphere." Many Republicans are particularly concerned about the moral health of communities, and believe that the government can take positive steps to improve that. As a result, they will allow government intervention in the "social sphere." It's especially interesting to see how different politicians try to strike these balances; there has been a large debate within conservativism, for example, as to whether intervention in the affairs of other countries is justified. One thing I hope will come of the last 6 years is a real internal debate within the Republican Party (both the establishment and the voting population) as to what conservatism should really mean, and how to improve inter-party cooperation of the kind that has been sorely lacking (though both sides bear at least some responsibility for this).
Posted by Thrawn at 06/07/2007 @ 3:19pm
Last I checked OBL doesn't run a court system either. Does he need to have a court system and recognize habeas corpus before we should? In fact, should OBL - or anyone else for that matter - be the standard by which we determine the best way to govern ourselves?
Posted by SRJENKINS 06/07/2007 @ 2:33pm
As an aside to the two new WEASELs that popped up, I have nothing further to say nor time to spare. Goodbye!
SRJ,
As a business pro, I honor all contracts, even when deals turn south on me....As a country, honoring treaties should always be a matter of policy and credibility. That said, I believe when treaties/agreements involve numerous parties, most especially involving the UN where rational decisions are often the EXCEPTIONS, and where the UN itself as an institution has lost all respect from rational people, I think it is just and right for us to oppose the UN and go our own separate ways.....on a case by case basis....this is quite similar to what many Leftists claim on innumerable issues ("bad" free trade deals or whatever, over-leniency for ILLEGAL immigrants, etc...).
Now, specifically with regard to the Geneva Convention, I don't know for a fact, but my assumption (surely shared by many if not most) is that it applies to signatory nations and any violations are subject to some kind of `punishment' or at least, reprimands. Had AQ, or any other non-state enemy groups, decided to legitimate their struggles against whatever grievances by sitting down and hammer out some `War on Terror' standard of conduct (no videotaped beheadings would be Article I), then it's a different story.
From extensive posting of yours, you are pretty clearly a Pacifist. Me, I am not. I would do what it takes to defeat my enemies and I won's spout any BS on "I'm for the War on Terror as long as we treat them as if they are US Citizens!" Remember Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men" lecturing Tom Cruise in court? Here, I'm not talking about to US Marines, but to radical Islamic terrorists! They flat out don't take your types' `humanity' as a sign of strength. I play to win! And yes, the End in fact, do justify the means in SOME-to-MANY INSTANCES! Purists don't agree but that's how the world works, hypocracies and all! You can be a dreamer all your life and if it works, I'm truly HAPPY for you! I would been very HAPPY to have dropped the bomb!
Posted by Happy at 06/07/2007 @ 3:24pm
"active members of al Qaeda are not protected by the Geneva Convention." - Thrawn
I apreciate this argument. Still most of the people we picked up and put in Gitmo, weren't Al Qaeda, unless Al Qaeda is defined as anyone we pick up and put in Gitmo.
For instance, we arrested and tortured a lot of Iraqi civilians before Al Qaeda got into Iraq. They couldn't be Al Qaeda because Saddam executed terrorists wherever he found them. Brutal tyrants tend to hate terrorists as a rule. Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until the US opened the door to them.
Then finally, does Al Qaeda actually exist? Or is it an organization you belong to, simply because you say you do, or because Bush says you do? Am I next supposed to believe that all the drunks in bars that say they are ex-CIA or Navy Seals, really are telling the truth?
Posted by Weaseldog at 06/07/2007 @ 3:38pm
Posted by THRAWN 06/07/2007 @ 3:19pm
...but rather "active members of al Qaeda are not protected by the Geneva Convention."
Care to share which "competent tribunal" made this determination? If I remember correctly, everyone gets POW treatment until a "competent tribunal" determines their status either as a POW (Third Convention) or civilian (Fourth Convention). So, I'd love to hear your arguments around both how they are not covered by the Geneva Convention and who supposedly made this determination.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/07/2007 @ 3:39pm
HAPPY (as a pig in shit, no doubt, and twice as bright): "...(T)he UN itself as an institution has lost all respect from rational people...." Evidence, please, of the numbers of your rational People's loss of respect for the UN?
HAPPY: "...(M)y assumption (surely shared by many if not most) is that it applies to signatory nations...." First, you know what happens when you assume, right, being the clever "business pro" (whatever that is) that you are? Second, how do you know what "many, if not most," assume? Done any scientific sampling, or is that just your gut(-lessness) speaking?
In fact, there are provisions in the Geneva Conventions that apply to those who have not been adjudicated by a competent tribunal as "lawful" enemy combatants (POWs). Instead of assuming, read the thing. Or continue talking out your ass; perhaps you like the anal sensation derived therefrom.
Posted by rbarthjr at 06/07/2007 @ 3:43pm
Happy, why aren't you in Iraq? Why haven't you enlisted?
You're bragging, "I would do what it takes to defeat my enemies".
I don't believe you at all. If you truely meant this, and felt that Muslims are all your enemies, then I don't believe you'd be cowering from the fight. But you are. You are not living up to your words.
Why do you brag and cower?
Posted by Weaseldog at 06/07/2007 @ 3:46pm
..if the Military captures any person in a foreign land,...does that person have any rights whatsoever...?
Posted by MASK 06/07/2007 @ 2:56pm
Since the rise of militant Islam, there has certainly been created a new class of state-less combatants; regardless of whose passports they hold....this fact underlies the contentious issues of Gitmo and Renditions. On top of this never-faced-before phenomenon, we are also faced with very public displaies of cruelties that make the on-the-street execution of a Viet Cong suspect seem so.... Grapefruit League-like!
Now, in answer to your question, IMO, the captured person do have some basic rights of regular food, shelter and medical treatments. Now as for their release, this becomes really complicated....once again, they were not fighting for a state at war with us! One would hope those that actually have to deal with this problem, will eventually hit upon a compromise (w/bleeding Libs and coutries from whence they come from) after all the court and Congressional battles are fought. Let's just say, I sympathize with whatever our military is trying to do because absolutely nobody will be totally HAPPY!
BTW, stocks are in the 3rd day of being `On Sale', did anybody BUY?
Posted by Happy at 06/07/2007 @ 3:49pm
The country hasn't fallen apart because guilty people (including yourself) have gone free.
Posted by HABIBA 06/07/2007 @ 2:41pm
Overlooked you! Glad to give you a laugh! No one should take this stuff too seriously!
I just wish everyone will take that attitude to heart! Life is not fair and not all guilty people go to jail! Some even make their fortunes because they went to jail!
Posted by Happy at 06/07/2007 @ 3:55pm
Since the rise of militant Islam, there has certainly been created a new class of state-less combatants - Happy
I don't know how you can prove this. Militant Islam has been with us for thousands of years. To prove this, I think you'd have to prove that religious leaders didn't command armies before Islam came into being.
Even Popes during the Crusades directed armies against the Holy Land in a similar stateless war. Volunteers from many countries all followed the banner of the Pope into battle, representing not their own coutnries but instead the Pope and Jesus. They abandoned their own countries to fight a war for a religious leader.
I've heard people express similr views as yours, I think such a lack of knowledge of the world outside the US, is a serious indictment against our education system.
Posted by Weaseldog at 06/07/2007 @ 3:58pm
Let's just say, I sympathize with whatever our military is trying to do because absolutely nobody will be totally HAPPY!
Posted by HAPPY 06/07/2007 @ 3:49pm
Okay, so just that we're clear. The US military can (in your view) seize any foreigner, take them to a military prison (outside of the US or within), hold them, interrogate them (by ANY means?), keep them from legal counsel, and delay or even postpone any tribunal for months, even years...and be accountable to no one but the Commander-in-Chief?
Yes?
Posted by Mask at 06/07/2007 @ 4:10pm
Posted by HAPPY 06/07/2007 @ 3:24pm
The Geneva Convention has nothing to do with the U.N., so I don't understand your argument. It is a treaty we have agreed to that has been signed by practically every country in the world.
It also very clearly applies in this case, particularly this quote: "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act..." is a prisoner of war "...such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
Either you are a prisoner of war or you are a civilian. If you a civilian, then either you have coverage under the Fourth Geneva convention or the laws of the state in which you are a citizen apply.
So, the problem is twofold. One, you have no judgment made by a competent tribunal. If a tribunal makes a determination that the Geneva Conventions don't apply - the assumption is that the laws of the state on which that person is a national do - which leaves the question, why hasn't the U.S. turned so called "unlawful combatants" to ther home countries and the applicable justice systems within it?
You see, the Administration wants it both ways. If you are going to detain people, Geneva Conventions apply. If Geneva Conventions don't apply, then they should be extradited to the state of citizenship - just like when any other law is broken.
...you are pretty clearly a Pacifist...
Call it pacifism to a point. From my posts, you are also aware that I served in the military. I am also against gun control - because weapons are necessary to revolt against the government. That's not quite pacifism.
But again, what we have here is the problem of abstractionism. If you want to be a "realist", you should be prepared to do the acts yourself, have friends and family join you and where it is possible, do those acts in your neighborhood. If none of that sounds like a good idea, then you have a problem.
So long as it is about what you "would have done" in some hypothetical circumstance, it's all bullshit. As my grandmother used to say, "Would have, could have, should have, that and a nickel will get you a cup of coffee." A nickel was the price of coffee then. In other words, it doesn't mean squat.
It's like the Iraq war. Many military eligible people in support of the war, aren't in it. But they all have some weak-ass excuse about what they would do "if they were called". I don't buy tough guy talk from people that aren't in the fights they advocate and have no skin in the game. I certainly am not going to let them make make comments about my so-called idealism without calling them on it when they are merely advocating another form of idealism, personified within the context of a Hollywood drama (oh, and even in that movie that guy went to jail, by the way).
Posted by srjenkins at 06/07/2007 @ 4:17pm
Yes?
Posted by MASK 06/07/2007 @ 4:10pm
Yes, until some other `system' comes into play!
Posted by Happy at 06/07/2007 @ 4:22pm
His response was that letting people go isn't definitive proof that they aren't guilty (as his own example was meant to show).
Thrawn-- in a word: DUH.
Do you really think I was under the impression that letting someone go means they're innocent (or convicting them means that they're guilty)? What was that about straw men?
Posted by habiba at 06/07/2007 @ 4:26pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 06/07/2007 @ 4:17pm
The Geneva Convention is a relic, like the Cold War! Too bad Microsoft/Sony can't just update it into Vista or Playstation III. While much of it would still apply in any conventional warfare among countries, the reality is those instances are rare to non-existent!
Look, I'm sure you can go on and on and interpret them to favor your end of the spectrum but the fact is, four years later, Gitmo is still there....and (paid) people have been attacking this divisive issue for about as long.....Anyway, my focus have always heavily oriented to the future....You want to shut it down, what's then? They are not POWs' nor Americans and I'd be rather pissed to grant these Detainees the same rights that we Americans have!
Posted by Happy at 06/07/2007 @ 4:39pm
come on ..Bush, neither of them, are conservative and you know that...so do all the conservatives in America.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/07/2007 @ 2:07pm | ignore this person
this has by now become a tired cliche. move on the the next index card.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/07/2007 @ 4:55pm
Posted by HAPPY 06/07/2007 @ 4:22pm
Okay, fair enuf.
So in your view, the United States military...should be the implementor of a world-wide police state? With only the President as final authority?
If you like you may define the terms "police state" and "empire" and TRY to point out how we are neither, despite the powers and authority you have just granted our military.
Posted by Mask at 06/07/2007 @ 4:58pm
Happy, so you'd be unhappy. Big deal.
What are you gonna do? Enlist?
Or are you just gonna puuf up your chest and strut while others fight for you?
Posted by Weaseldog at 06/07/2007 @ 5:34pm
Maasch -
Claiming Bush is not a conservative is a cop-out. His failure is not only his own. Take some responsibility.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/07/2007 @ 5:51pm
Why weren't any "conservatives" saying this about Bush in 2002?
Posted by Hman23 at 06/07/2007 @ 5:51pm
Posted by HAPPY 06/07/2007 @ 4:39pm
Then grant them the rights that their own countries offer them. Rule of law has to mean something Happy, and just law ultimately requires due process and humane treatment.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/07/2007 @ 5:59pm
Then grant them the rights that their own countries offer them.
Posted by SRJENKINS 06/07/2007 @ 5:59pm
In most instances, if the end result is what you propose, I really don't have a problem w/this....even if many are set free w/minimum stays in prisons. However, my understanding is many of these Detainees' home country either don't want them back or the Detainees themselves, don't want to return.
Now, given their home countries are Islamic and, if what you propose actually come to pass, and these countries summarily begin to execute these ex-Detainees, what will then, be your position? The Saudis are at war w/AQ and if you are an AQ Detainee and Saudi citizen, would you want to go back? Short of knowing for certain one will go free shortly after being back in the home country, if I'm a Detainee, I'll bite my tongue and stay at Club Gitmo! These Detainees are hot potatoes and their only `friends' are Dems and Liberals!
Posted by Happy at 06/07/2007 @ 6:21pm
So in your view, the United States military...should be the implementor of a world-wide police state? With only the President as final authority?
Posted by MASK 06/07/2007 @ 4:58pm
"a world-wide police state?", "a world-wide police state?"????
You morphing into a moonbat? All the "final authority" that Bush has, has brought nothing but challenges after challenges. It's the type of "final authority" nobody in their right mind would want! What most (the 70%) will never appreciate or can remotely imagine, is being in his shoes, post-9/11!
As far as I'm concerned, outside of the Iraq War, the War on Terror has succeeded beyond my `best case' guess and I sure hope it continues....but who knows, perhaps a Spanish style vote-influencing terror plot will succeed next fall and we will just have to see how American voters react!
Posted by Happy at 06/07/2007 @ 6:33pm
Posted by HAPPY 06/07/2007 @ 6:21pm
As long as the process is judicial (not political) and seeks just solutions that take into consideration the human rights problems involved and the threat these individuals pose within the framework of international law, I don't think anyone can ask for more than that.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/07/2007 @ 6:56pm
Posted by HAPPY 06/07/2007 @ 6:33pm
Define success. More terrorists? Check. More terrorist activity? Check. Better trained terrorists? Check.
In the meantime, we have left such a wake of destruction that it would be more accurately called a "War of Terror". Kind of like the Death Squad Democracy of supporting the Contras under Ronald Reagan, funded - ironically - by weapons sales to the Iranian government. Forgotten Iran-Contra already? Yet another success!
Posted by srjenkins at 06/07/2007 @ 7:06pm
The article states: Dodd, the most aggressive defender of the Constitution in the presidential race, is pushing legislation that would not only restore habeas, but also ban the use of evidence obtained through torture and recommit the U.S. to the Geneva Conventions.
I am sure Senator Dodd is a defender of the Constitution, but he is not, as the article states, "the most aggressive defender of the Constitution in the presidential race". IMO...I would have to say that Presidential Candidate Senator Ron Paul from Texas is much more aggressive in protecting the Constitution of the United States and he has the voting record to prove it.
It is about time the Congress rights the wrong they did last year in suspending Habeas Corpus.
Posted by merrysunshine at 06/07/2007 @ 7:40pm
Can libs ever get it right?
1. No American is deprived of Habeas under the MCA.
Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
Any alien unlawful enemy combatant engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States is subject to trial by military commission as set forth in this chapter.
Sec. 948a. Definitions
In this chapter:
(1) ALIEN- The term `alien' means an individual who is not a citizen of the United States.
2. Unlawful enemy combatants is a modern definition used to describe combatants who do not meet the definition of POW in Geneva
Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:
4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.
So as to the mistaken comments like this one:
of Third Geneva Convention (Article 5): ""Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act..." are prisoners of war, "...such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal" (something that the military court's current ruling on OBL's driver and the 15-year-old admits to not being).
Posted by RBARTHJR 06/07/2007 @ 2:32pm
It has nothing to do with Habeas rights. A POW doesn't have habeas rights. Article 5 just says that they need to enjoy the protections of Geneva until they have a tribunal. But Geneva leaves the timing of tribunals as an open ended requirement.
Those who take prisoners do not have to conduct tribunals until the end of hostilities.
the ignorance of libs on this subject boggles the mind of any thinking person who can actually read.
And I never see any lib come up with a better classification of these terrorists than unlawful enemy combatant. Because everyone agrees that Geneva doesn't define this type of enemy.
Posted by antiliberal at 06/07/2007 @ 8:14pm
And all of you libs who dare...show me where anyone subject to Geneva has Habeas rights.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebList?ReadForm&id=375&t=art
Posted by antiliberal at 06/07/2007 @ 8:26pm
Posted by HAPPY 06/07/2007 @ 6:33pm
HAPP, no "moonbattiness" here....I'm merely asking you questions about this authority to capture and detaine ANY foreign national for indefinite incarceration, that you wish to grant to our military.
The ONLY defense you seem to offer is "THEY are out to get us" and "I'll trust the Military to do the right thing". One may have some basis in fact, but if used as a standard means that pretty much ANYTHING (including removal of our civil rights...in order to protect us).
The other means that you feel that any person who joins the military is INCAPABLE of immorality or abuse of their power. Otherwise, you would accept oversight by more of the civilian authority than JUST the CIC.
Both are rather telling, since it indicates a person who, in the name of "security", would accept almost any investment of power in the Government and Military....which is an odd thing for someone who calls themselves a "conservative".
Posted by Mask at 06/07/2007 @ 8:29pm
Those who take prisoners do not have to conduct tribunals until the end of hostilities.
Posted by ANTILIBERAL 06/07/2007 @ 8:14pm
And since there will be no end to the "Global War on Terror" for decades...they will never have their tribunals...right?
Posted by Mask at 06/07/2007 @ 8:33pm
..asking you questions about this authority to capture and detaine ANY foreign national for indefinite incarceration, that you wish to grant to our military.
...."I'll trust the Military to do the right thing"
Posted by MASK 06/07/2007 @ 8:29pm
Your "moonbattiness" seemed clear by adopting a typically Liberal tactic of expannnnnnnding the capture of "foreign nationals" on fields of battles, into an imaginary "world-wide police state". Is our military battling & capturing "foreign nationals" in London? in Thailand? Indonesia? Spain? Bottom line: folks carrying Yemen, Morocco, Saudi....passports caught in battle zones need to be locked up w/NO defined rights! Now, if Yemen, Morocco & Saudi are at war w/us, they would be POWs....comprende?
You don't seem to approve military's jailing of these enemy combatants in a centralized pen, hmmmmm.....I suppose we could scatter them into your local county or state jails or even San Quentin.....that's the ticket!
The Military...., you may recall my preference for the Gov't to be involved in just two things: print money and DO national defense/security. Along that line, I would trust our military above any and all other Gov't agencies that come after. Does this mean I think the military will do no wrong, of couse not! What it means is the remainder of Gov't is despicably UNTRUSTWORTHY....rampant with political players, leakers, backstabbers, and out and out liers basing decisions on 2-4-6 year cycles!
Posted by Happy at 06/07/2007 @ 9:38pm
MASK
You raise SOME good critics but you offer no plausible real-world solutions. I contend that there exists plenty of `informal' oversight in the form of both on-duty leaks and those that come after retirements or resignations. For better or worse, folks seem to revel in being at the centers of controversies!
It's not just my being older and paying more attention....today, leaks are the de-facto oversight in every Gov't agency/function and have even been codified--Whistle Blower Protection statute, etc.
Hey, has anyone called you the Master of Criticism? If not, remember who tagged you!
Posted by Happy at 06/07/2007 @ 9:57pm
And since there will be no end to the "Global War on Terror" for decades...they will never have their tribunals...right?
Posted by MASK 06/07/2007 @ 8:33pm
Why should they get more rights than in Geneva? Is that what you believe and want?
From what source do you establish these greater rights?
Posted by antiliberal at 06/07/2007 @ 9:59pm
Posted by HAPPY 06/07/2007 @ 9:38pm
HAPPY, you didn't say anything about "limited of course to non-allied nations"....care to start adding caveats to where and when our soldiers can arrest and hold indefinitely foreign nationals?
What if Gordon Brown of the UK wants to give some terror suspect a fair trial, but we need him to do a "Jack Bauer" on to find out about a bomb plot at the Smithsonian?
Posted by Mask at 06/07/2007 @ 10:31pm
Dr. Ron Paul is arguably the most ardent supporter of the Constitution in the Presidential race; for that matter, he's arguably the most ardent defender of the Constitution in the Congress, and perhaps the entire Federal Government. Dodd, and everyone else in both Houses pale in comparison.
Posted by drgroove at 06/07/2007 @ 10:49pm
"Senator Chris Dodd, the most aggressive defender of the Constitution in the presidential race"
Apparently Ari Melber has not been keeping up with the presidential race, otherwise he would know that the most aggressive defender of the Constitution is Ron Paul
Posted by mwgeeohd at 06/07/2007 @ 11:55pm
What if Gordon Brown of the UK wants to give some terror suspect a fair trial, but we need him to do a "Jack Bauer" on to find out about a bomb plot at the Smithsonian?
Posted by MASK 06/07/2007 @ 10:31pm
Well, then we would owe the UK one, wouldn't we? What are friends for?
Posted by Happy at 06/08/2007 @ 12:26am
What does Grandpa McCain and Rudy Toody think about restoring rights to all Americans?
Posted by tempest624 at 06/08/2007 @ 01:21am
Posted by ANTILIBERAL 06/07/2007 @ 8:26pm
Interesting how you choose not to highlight the problems in your selective cutting & pasting from the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the Geneva Conventions. Let's take a moment to take a look at two points shall we?
1. Definition of "unlawful enemy combat" under Sec. 948a. Definitions
"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"
There are people that think if you question the validity of acts like these, you are "purposefully and materially" supporting the enemy. What is the standard? When then happens to people that are citizens like Padilla, who are designated an "unlawful enemy combatant", by that standard?
I'd love for you to explain how Padilla enjoyed the rights of habeas corpus that he is entitled as a citizen of the United States. I'd also love for you to explain how given the definition of who can be classified as a "unlawful enemy combatant" how this same treatment will not be applied to other U.S. citizens in the future. What laws are applicable to "unlawful enemy combatants" and what court has juristiction - because as you point out, it's not the military tribunals. We do know that Padilla didn't have access to any courts.
2. The Fourth Geneva Convention.
There are actually two applicable pieces of the Geneva Convention the Third and the Fourth. Your argument against classifying them as POWs is fine, but then you need to explain why the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply. Particularly, this section:
"Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention...In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention."
And also Article 71
"Accused persons who are prosecuted by the Occupying Power shall be promptly informed, in writing, in a language which they understand, of the particulars of the charges preferred against them, and shall be brought to trial as rapidly as possible."
In short, the Geneva Conventions themselves have a form of habeaus corpus in them.
And I never see any lib come up with a better classification of these terrorists than unlawful enemy combatant.
Now, you have. Unlawful enemy combatant is a little bit of Bush legal trickery, it has no basis in international law. The Fourth Geneva Convention, on the other hand, does.
I know it is easy to make these silly claims about "liberals", but there are significant issues - rather inconvenient to your argument - that you are skipping over.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/08/2007 @ 09:53am
Who's the eight that voted against???? Thats the ones we need to contact and let them know an election is not that far away.
Posted by mcp1615 at 06/08/2007 @ 11:50am
Posted by SRJENKINS 06/08/2007 @ 09:53am
You have mounted an interesting but incorrect defense. There are no prisoners at Gitmo from a US occupation. No Iraqi's are at Gitmo, they are in Iraq and not being subjected to the MCA.
Secondly regarding Padilla you again provide at the very least, misleading statements of supposed fact.
Padilla has not been the subject of MCA. He was arrested years before it's enactment. He was provided his habeas rights as has been noted by others.
Padilla did have access to the courts who denied his petitions until a SCOTUS ruling that was not directly related to his case. He is currently on trial in a civil court in Miami.
Finally, MCA is very specific about alien unlawful combatants and the exclusion of US citizens from the act. Therefore the lib alarmist talk is not reality based.
Posted by antiliberal at 06/08/2007 @ 12:08pm
Posted by ANTILIBERAL 06/08/2007 @ 12:08pm
You have mounted an interesting but incorrect defense.
From your post, it doesn't look like you understand the points I raised. All try to make it as clear as possible. Here's the argument:
Regardless of where someone is kept, there is one question that needs to be asked. Are they a U.S. citizen or not?
1. If they are not a U.S. citizen, and they are being detained by the U.S. government, then you need to explain why the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding civilians does not apply.
I'll also remind you that MCA is U.S. law, which you can talk about only after you establish why U.S. law should apply to these alien individuals that in most cases were not captured on soil where the U.S. is sovereign.
2. If they are a U.S. citizen, you have to explain how, given the example of Padilla, you can argue that the broad definition of the MCA does not apply to U.S. citizens.
It is a fact that President Bush argued that as an "illegal enemy combatant" José Padilla was not entitled to protections under United States law.
But let's assume best case for you. Let's assume that it is as straight-forward as you say and that the MCA doesn't ever apply to non-citizens. Here's the trick, you revoke U.S. citizenship.
Military tribunals can do this according to the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 349, and for the exact circumstances where MCA would apply - plotting against the U.S. government.
You see the problems this creates for judical oversight, especially given sections of the MCA that state:
"Except as otherwise provided in this chapter and notwithstanding any other provision of law (including section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this chapter."
Therefore the lib alarmist talk is not reality based.
I'm reasoning with you, and I'm pointing out the huge gaping hole in your argument. I don't expect you to be a lawyer, but I do expect that you can understand the basic points that are being presented here and acknowledge that it might not be as clear cut as cutting and pasting a line from the MCA.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/08/2007 @ 2:27pm
Posted by ANTILIBERAL 06/08/2007 @ 12:08pm
What's remarkable about right-wingers and their "un-concern" over the powers invested in the Executive branch is...
they seem to think that "President Hillary" won't abuse them either???
Come on guys, all it'll take is ONE abortion clinic bombing or one shooting of an "abortion doctor", and guess who'll come under scrutiny as "terror suspects"???
Posted by Mask at 06/08/2007 @ 3:07pm
Mask, you and SRJenkins keep repeating all the "boogeyman" worst case scenarios you can conceive. However that doesn't make them real or even a real possibility.
SR,
Regarding those imprisoned in Iraq, they are not subject to the MCA but to Iraqi law. It therefore has nothing to do with the subject.
As to this comment:
Military tribunals can do this according to the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 349, and for the exact circumstances where MCA would apply - plotting against the U.S. government.
Nonsense, you would appropriately prosecute that person for treason.
Posted by antiliberal at 06/08/2007 @ 3:16pm
Posted by ANTILIBERAL 06/08/2007 @ 3:16pm
Can you explain how the scenario I described is not a real possibility? I didn't even call into question your weak argument around aliens. I gave that to you. Yet, still there is this hole in the argument - and if it is a legal possibility, it will be done at some point, by someone.
Care to talk about Fourth Geneva Convention in places where the U.S. is keeping captive non-U.S. nationals not on the soil of countries that they are nationals of? Such as the non-Iraqis in U.S. prisons in Iraq? Such as Gitmo? Perhaps a secret prison or two?
Do you know how few people have been successfully convicted of treason in the United States?
Your wishful thinking doesn't form the basis of rational argument. I'm waiting for you to "get it right" here.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/08/2007 @ 3:35pm
but who knows, perhaps a Spanish style vote-influencing terror plot will succeed next fall and we will just have to see how American voters react!
Posted by HAPPY 06/07/2007 @ 6:33pm | ignore this person
Happy, You are full of crap. First, I'd like to point out that the attack on 9/11 was during Bush's presidency. He sat on his ass and did absolutely nothing until after someone slammed a few planes into a few buildings over here. Most of the suicide plane folks were from Saudi Arabia...how come we aren't at war with them?! Since this tough-talking, war hawk adminstration that is very brave at sending other peoples' kids off to die has been in office, the "terrorists" or enemies to the U.S. has probably grown exponentially. All this from an administration full of men who ducked their time to serve during the Vietnam war. One more thing about the cowardly democrats you war hawk types are always rambling on about, Wilson, FDR and Truman were all dems and we seemed to fair pretty well under their command. Even Bush senior was smart enough not to stir up the Iraq hornets nest, but evidently junior missed out on the family brain power. If you feel so strongly about the war on terror, go down to the nearest marine or army recruiter and sign up. Hey, you believe in this war so much, put your life on the line....you are asking other people to, so why don't you. P.S. Even if you've served before, you still shouldn't expect to send others to go fight a war you yourself aren't willing to fight. Also, if you are hoping that someone will attack the U.S. so the republicans can get into office, I'd have to say that you are very close to being an enemy of the country. Why would someone want an attack on his own country so that his party could win an election? That is sick!
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/08/2007 @ 4:40pm
"Senator Chris Dodd, the most aggressive defender of the Constitution in the presidential race,"
Maybe since last week, but in reality a grossly inacurate statement, Congressman Ron Paul, one of the republican candidates, has a perfect record of more than 20 years as a true champion of the constitution and civil liberties. How did the author miss that? In any case I'm totally opposed to the idea that constitutional protections FROM GOVERNMENT are only for US citizens. The constitution's protections are simply a recognition of inalienable rights that are inherent in all humanity and not a gift from any particular government.
Posted by Matt S. at 06/09/2007 @ 12:12pm
Posted by ANTILIBERAL 06/08/2007 @ 3:16pm |
Fine, AL....but you were warned. Hillary gets the power you've granted Bush and ...Randall Terry can get spied on by the NSA and Homeland Security might be investigating the Sword of Joshua Independent Full-Gospel Assembly every time they march outside of some women's clinic.
As Isaac Asimov once said, "It's a poor blaster that can't be pointed BOTH ways!"
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2007 @ 3:19pm
To argure for or against the "rule of law", you must know exactly what it is. Otherwise, it will be used as a pretext to achieve the contrary. Ditto for freedom...
The "rule of law" is a precisely defined law. It is the highest law of mankind, stated below:
"the suppression of forceful and fraudulent methods of goal seeking"
"all are treated equally by the law". This means ALL, including king and judges
"absolute property rights"
This in turn is based on the fact that human behavior (the topic of law) is about goal seeking. In the seeking of any goal, there are only three possible methods: force, fraud and honest trade. Any transaction that is not an honest, mutually agreed trade will cause a self-defensive response (conflict) from the victim whose survival has been affected.
"The Rule of Law" is the glue that keeps all of mankind acting together in common interest, tied together by mutual dependence of trade, on an evolutionary path to excellence. Force and fraud creates conflict and destroys civilizations. Mankind is now on a devolutionary path to extinction because the co-operation once forced by "the rule of law" has been replaced by legitimizing force and fraud for those who incorrectly believe they wield power.
Rule of Law, Defined: http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/c1/34
Purpose of, Reasons For: http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/36
Bill Ross (Electronics Design Engineer)
Posted by rossb at 06/09/2007 @ 4:03pm
Posted by ROSSB 06/09/2007 @ 4:03pm
A site called nazisociopaths.org doesn't strike me as the FIRST source I would consult on legal definitions. Not that I disagree with your point, just looks....odd.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/09/2007 @ 5:22pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 06/09/2007 @ 5:43pm
Thought you'd left?...hmm?
And a lot of American Muslims have "nothing to hide" either, LVLIB....but if you're willing to be a suspect (as they are) under a Hillary Administration, with ALL the powers you've kindly given the Presidency....
and you think you can sleep soundly...you're fooling yourself.
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2007 @ 9:54pm
Guess the irony is lost. If the most agressive, pugnaceous organization in the history of mankind can be called "Department of Defense", I can name a site calling them on this "NaziSociopaths.org" which refutes their rationalizations and re-iterates the basic truths civilization depends on. More often than not, important concepts are named the opposite of their reality. War is peace.
B.
Posted by rossb at 06/10/2007 @ 08:39am