Habeas Corpus, R.I.P. (1215 - 2006)

[Nbadan]

Molly Ivins: Habeas Corpus, R.I.P. (1215 - 2006)
Email this item Email Print this item Print
Posted on Sep 27, 2006
By Molly Ivins

With a smug stroke of his pen, President Bush is set to wipe out a safeguard against illegal imprisonment that has endured as a cornerstone of legal justice since the Magna Carta.


AUSTIN, Texas—Oh dear. I’m sure he didn’t mean it. In Illinois’ Sixth Congressional District, long represented by Henry Hyde, Republican candidate Peter Roskam accused his Democratic opponent, Tammy Duckworth, of planning to “cut and run” on Iraq.

Duckworth is a former Army major and chopper pilot who lost both legs in Iraq after her helicopter got hit by an RPG. “I just could not believe he would say that to me,” said Duckworth, who walks on artificial legs and uses a cane. Every election cycle produces some wincers, but how do you apologize for that one?

The legislative equivalent of that remark is the detainee bill now being passed by Congress. Beloveds, this is so much worse than even that pathetic deal reached last Thursday between the White House and Republican Sens. John Warner, John McCain and Lindsey Graham. The White House has since reinserted a number of “technical fixes” that were the point of the putative “compromise.” It leaves the president with the power to decide who is an enemy combatant.

This bill is not a national security issue—this is about torturing helpless human beings without any proof they are our enemies. Perhaps this could be considered if we knew the administration would use the power with enormous care and thoughtfulness. But of the over 700 prisoners sent to Gitmo, only 10 have ever been formally charged with anything. Among other things, this bill is a CYA for torture of the innocent that has already taken place.

Death by torture by Americans was first reported in 2003 in a New York Times article by Carlotta Gall. The military had announced the prisoner died of a heart attack, but when Gall saw the death certificate, written in English and issued by the military, it said the cause of death was homicide. The “heart attack” came after he had been beaten so often on this legs that they had “basically been pulpified,” according to the coroner.

The story of why and how it took the Times so long to print this information is in the current edition of the Columbia Journalism Review. The press in general has been late and slow in reporting torture, so very few Americans have any idea how far it has spread. As is often true in hierarchical, top-down institutions, the orders get passed on in what I call the downward communications exaggeration spiral.

For example, on a newspaper, a top editor may remark casually, “Let’s give the new mayor a chance to see what he can do before we start attacking him.”

This gets passed on as “Don’t touch the mayor unless he really screws up.”

And it ultimately arrives at the reporter level as “We can’t say anything negative about the mayor.”

The version of the detainee bill now in the Senate not only undoes much of the McCain-Warner-Graham work, but it is actually much worse than the administration’s first proposal. In one change, the original compromise language said a suspect had the right to “examine and respond to” all evidence used against him. The three senators said the clause was necessary to avoid secret trials. The bill has now dropped the word “examine” and left only “respond to.”

In another change, a clause said that evidence obtained outside the United States could be admitted in court even if it had been gathered without a search warrant. But the bill now drops the words “outside the United States,” which means prosecutors can ignore American legal standards on warrants.

The bill also expands the definition of an unlawful enemy combatant to cover anyone who has “has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.” Quick, define “purposefully and materially.” One person has already been charged with aiding terrorists because he sold a satellite TV package that includes the Hezbollah network.

The bill simply removes a suspect’s right to challenge his detention in court. This is a rule of law that goes back to the Magna Carta in 1215. That pretty much leaves the barn door open.

As Vladimir Bukovsky, the Soviet dissident, wrote, an intelligence service free to torture soon “degenerates into a playground for sadists.” But not unbridled sadism—you will be relieved that the compromise took out the words permitting interrogation involving “severe pain” and substituted “serious pain,” which is defined as “bodily injury that involves extreme physical pain.”

In July 2003, George Bush said in a speech: “The United States is committed to worldwide elimination of torture, and we are leading this fight by example. Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right. Yet torture continues to be practiced around the world by rogue regimes, whose cruel methods match their determination to crush the human spirit.”

Fellow citizens, this bill throws out legal and moral restraints as the president deems it necessary—these are fundamental principles of basic decency, as well as law.

I’d like those supporting this evil bill to spare me one affliction: Do not, please, pretend to be shocked by the consequences of this legislation. And do not pretend to be shocked when the world begins comparing us to the Nazis.

To find out more about Molly Ivins and see works by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

[RandomGuy]

This proposed bill is the kind of stuff the helps the terrorists.

[boutons_]

It's the American Way!

America, that shining light on the hill, the model for all civilizations on earth.

It will take decades for successors to erase the shit stains the Repugs are smearing on America.

[smeagol]

Where was the Magna Carta signed? By whom?

Man, I remember my 6th grade History.

[boutons_]

check the internets

[Guru of Nothing]

He stumbled out of the gate with his opening sentence, but after that, he had my attention.

Meet your next president, assuming the Democratic party does not fuck it up.


Mr. President, I am proud to be sponsoring this amendment with the senior senator from West Virginia. He's absolutely right that Congress has abrogated its oversight responsibilities, and one way to reverse that troubling trend is to adopt a sunset provision in this bill. We did that in the Patriot Act, and that allowed us to make important revisions to the bill that reflected our experience about what worked and didn't work during the previous 5 years. We should do that again with this important piece of legislation.

But I want to take a few minutes to speak more broadly about the bill before us.

I may have only been in this body for a short while, but I am not naive to the political considerations that go along with many of the decisions we make here. I realize that soon, we will adjourn for the fall, and the campaigning will begin in earnest. And there will be 30-second attack ads and negative mail pieces, and we will be criticized as caring more about the rights of terrorists than the protection of Americans. And I know that the vote before us was specifically designed and timed to add more fuel to that fire.

And yet, while I know all of this, I'm still disappointed. Because what we're doing here today - a debate over the fundamental human rights of the accused - should be bigger than politics. This is serious.

If this was a debate with obvious ideological differences - heartfelt convictions that couldn't be settled by compromise - I would understand. But it's not.

All of us - Democrats and Republicans - want to do whatever it takes to track down terrorists and bring them to justice as swiftly as possible. All of us want to give our President every tool necessary to do this. And all of us were willing to do that in this bill. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to the American people.

In the five years that the President's system of military tribunals has existed, not one terrorist has been tried. Not one has been convicted. And in the end, the Supreme Court of the United found the whole thing unconstitutional, which is why we're here today.

We could have fixed all of this in a way that allows us to detain and interrogate and try suspected terrorists while still protecting the accidentally accused from spending their lives locked away in Guantanamo Bay. Easily. This was not an either-or question.

Instead of allowing this President - or any President - to decide what does and does not constitute torture, we could have left the definition up to our own laws and to the Geneva Conventions, as we would have if we passed the bill that the Armed Services committee originally offered.

Instead of detainees arriving at Guantanamo and facing a Combatant Status Review Tribunal that allows them no real chance to prove their innocence with evidence or a lawyer, we could have developed a real military system of justice that would sort out the suspected terrorists from the accidentally accused.

And instead of not just suspending, but eliminating, the right of habeas corpus - the seven century-old right of individuals to challenge the terms of their own detention, we could have given the accused one chance - one single chance - to ask the government why they are being held and what they are being charged with.

But politics won today. Politics won. The Administration got its vote, and now it will have its victory lap, and now they will be able to go out on the campaign trail and tell the American people that they were the ones who were tough on the terrorists.

And yet, we have a bill that gives the terrorist mastermind of 9/11 his day in court, but not the innocent people we may have accidentally rounded up and mistaken for terrorists - people who may stay in prison for the rest of their lives.

And yet, we have a report authored by sixteen of our own government's intelligence agencies, a previous draft of which described, and I quote, "...actions by the United States government that were determined to have stoked the jihad movement, like the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay..."

And yet, we have Al Qaeda and the Taliban regrouping in Afghanistan while we look the other way. We have a war in Iraq that our own government's intelligence says is serving as Al Qaeda's best recruitment tool. And we have recommendations from the bipartisan 9/11 commission that we still refuse to implement five years after the fact.

The problem with this bill is not that it's too tough on terrorists. The problem with this bill is that it's sloppy. And the reason it's sloppy is because we rushed it to serve political purposes instead of taking the time to do the job right.

I've heard, for example, the argument that it should be military courts, and not federal judges, who should make decisions on these detainees. I actually agree with that. The problem is that the structure of the military proceedings has been poorly thought through. Indeed, the regulations that are supposed to be governing administrative hearings for these detainees, which should have been issued months ago, still haven't been issued. Instead, we have rushed through a bill that stands a good chance of being challenged once again in the Supreme Court.

This is not how a serious Administration would approach the problem of terrorism. I know the President came here today and was insisting that this is supposed to be our primary concern. He's absolutely right it should be our primary concern - which is why we should be approaching this with a somberness and seriousness that this Administration has not displayed with this legislation.

Now, let me be clear - for those who plot terror against the United States, I hope God has mercy on their soul, because I certainly do not. And for those who our government suspects of terror, I support whatever tools are necessary to try them and uncover their plot.

But we also know that some have been detained who have no connection to terror whatsoever. We've already had reports from the CIA and various generals over the last few years saying that many of the detainees at Guantanamo shouldn't have been there - as one U.S. commander of Guantanamo told the Wall Street Journal, "Sometimes, we just didn't get the right folks." And we all know about the recent case of the Canadian man who was suspected of terrorist connections, detained in New York, sent to Syria, and tortured, only to find out later that it was all a case of mistaken identity and poor information.

In the future, people like this may never have a chance to prove their innocence. They may remain locked away forever.

And the sad part about all of this is that this betrayal of American values is unnecessary. We could've drafted a bipartisan, well-structured bill that provided adequate due process through the military courts, had an effective review process that would've prevented frivolous lawsuits being filed and kept lawyers from clogging our courts, but upheld the basic ideals that have made this country great.

Instead, what we have is a flawed document that in fact betrays the best instincts of some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle - those who worked in a bipartisan fashion in the Armed Services Committee to craft a bill that we could have been proud of. And they essentially got steamrolled by this Administration and by the imperatives of November 7th.

That is not how we should be doing business in the U.S. Senate, and that's not how we should be prosecuting this war on terrorism. When we're sloppy and cut corners, we are undermining those very virtues of America that will lead us to success in winning this war. At bare minimum, I hope we can at least pass this provision so that cooler heads can prevail after the silly season of politics is over. Thank you.

[boutons_]

Many Rights in U.S. Legal System Absent in New Bill

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 29, 2006; A13

The military trials bill approved by Congress lends legislative support for the first time to broad rules for the detention, interrogation, prosecution and trials of terrorism suspects far different from those in the familiar American criminal justice system.

President Bush's argument that the government requires extraordinary power to respond to the unusual threat of terrorism helped him win final support for a system of military trials with highly truncated defendant's rights. The United States used similar trials on just four occasions: during the country's revolution, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War and World War II.

Included in the bill, passed by Republican majorities in the Senate yesterday and the House on Wednesday, are unique rules that bar terrorism suspects from challenging their detention or treatment through traditional habeas corpus petitions. They allow prosecutors, under certain conditions, to use evidence collected through hearsay or coercion to seek criminal convictions.

The bill rejects the right to a speedy trial and limits the traditional right to self-representation by requiring that defendants accept military defense attorneys.

Panels of military officers need not reach unanimous agreement to win convictions, except in death penalty cases, and appeals must go through a second military panel before reaching a federal civilian court.

By writing into law for the first time the definition of an "unlawful enemy combatant," the bill empowers the executive branch to detain indefinitely anyone it determines to have "purposefully and materially" supported anti-U.S. hostilities. Only foreign nationals among those detainees can be tried by the military commissions, as they are known, and sentenced to decades in jail or put to death.

At the same time, the bill immunizes U.S. officials from prosecution for cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of detainees who the military and the CIA captured before the end of last year. It gives the president a dominant but not exclusive role in setting the rules for future interrogations of terrorism suspects.

( the Repugs have dragged America down to the level of Saddam, Idi Amin, Franco,

Written largely, but not completely, on the administration's terms, with passages that give executive branch officials discretion to set details or divert from its protections, the bill is meant to provide what Bush said yesterday are "the tools" needed to handle terrorism suspects U.S. officials hope to capture.

( big, powerful, beautiful America is now snivelling, cheating, lying, inhumane monster. Thank you, Repugs. May you all be captured by OBL )

For more than 57 months after the 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Bush maintained that he did not need congressional authorization of such tools. But the Supreme Court decided otherwise in June, declaring the administration's detainee treatment and trial procedures illegal, and ruling that Bush must first seek Congress's approval.

Now Bush has received much of the authority he desired from party loyalists and a handful of Democrats on Capitol Hill. "The American people need to know we're working together," Bush told senators before yesterday's vote.

But Tom Malinowski, the Washington office director for Human Rights Watch, said that Bush's motivation is partly to protect his reputation by gaining congressional endorsement of controversial actions already taken. "He's been accused of authorizing criminal torture in a way that has hurt America and could come back to haunt our troops. One of his purposes is to have Congress stand with him in the dock," Malinowski said.

The bill contains some protections unavailable to the eight Nazi saboteurs who came ashore in the United States in 1942 and were captured two weeks later. Six were executed that year after a closed military trial on the fifth floor of Justice Department headquarters. That proceeding was upheld by the Supreme Court in a decision it explained two months after the electrocutions.

Under the new procedures, trials are supposed to be open, but can be closed to protect individuals or information expected to harm national security. Defendants have a right to be present, unless they are disruptive, and have the right to examine and respond to the evidence against them. Proof of guilt must exceed a reasonable doubt.

( but "proof" can be hearsay and info extracted by torture )

Many constitutional experts say, however, that the bill pushes at the edges of so much settled U.S. law that its passage will not be the last word on America's detainee policies. They predict it will shift the public debate to the federal courts, a forum where the administration has had less success getting its way on counterterrorism policies.

"This is a full-employment act for lawyers," said Deborah Perlstein, who directs the U.S. Law and Security Program at the New York-based nonprofit group Human Rights First.

Former White House associate counsel Bradford A. Berenson, a supporter of the bill and one of the authors of the rules struck down by the Supreme Court, agreed. "Some of the most creative legal minds are going to be devoted to poking holes in this," he said.

Anticipating court challenges, the administration attempted to make the bill bulletproof by including provisions that would sharply restrict judicial review and limit the application of international treaties -- signed by Washington -- that govern the rights of wartime detainees. The bill also contains blunt assertions that it complies with U.S. treaty obligations.

University of Texas constitutional law professor Sanford V. Levinson described the bill in an Internet posting as the mark of a "banana republic." Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh said that "the image of Congress rushing to strip jurisdiction from the courts in response to a politically created emergency is really quite shocking, and it's not clear that most of the members understand what they've done."

In contrast, Douglas W. Kmiec, a professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University, said that Congress "did reasonably well in terms of fashioning a fair" set of procedures. But Kmiec and many others say they cannot predict how the Supreme Court will respond to the provision barring habeas corpus rights, which he said will leave "a large body of detainees with no conceivable basis to challenge their detentions."

There are other likely flashpoints. In the Supreme Court's June decision overturning previous administration policies, four members of the court who joined the majority opinion said that conspiracy is not a war crime. The new bill says that it is.

Georgetown University law professor Neal Katyal said the bill's creation of two systems of justice -- military commissions for foreign nationals and regular criminal trials for U.S. citizens -- may violate the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which requires equal protection of the laws to anyone under U.S. jurisdiction.

"If you're an American citizen, you get the Cadillac system of justice. If you're a foreigner or a green-card holder, you get this beat-up-Chevy version," he said.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

======================

The Repugs are the shame of America, if America had any shame or honor left.

You're doing a heckuva job, dubya

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

The shame of America is dumbfucks like you who thinks it's a bad idea to treat scum like scum.

It's pretty simple, don't try and blow up Americans with a bomb strapped to your chest, and the government probably won't be fucking with you.

[RandomGuy]

The shame of America is dumbfucks like you who thinks it's a bad idea to treat scum like scum.

It's pretty simple, don't try and blow up Americans with a bomb strapped to your chest, and the government probably won't be fucking with you.

Unless of course their neighbors turned them in to US forces because they wanted to steal the guy's goats, and not because he actually did anything.

But I guess the ideals our nation was founded on are not something you ascribe to. If you don't like it move, you terrorist-lover.

[Mr. Peabody]

The shame of America is dumbfucks like you who thinks it's a bad idea to treat scum like scum.

It's pretty simple, don't try and blow up Americans with a bomb strapped to your chest, and the government probably won't be fucking with you.

I'm sure Maher Arar would agree with this statement.

From the Washington Post --

Arar was also listed as "an Islamic extremist individual" who was in the Washington area on Sept. 11. The report concluded that he had no involvement in Islamic extremism and was on business in San Diego that day, said the head of the inquiry commission, Ontario Justice Dennis O'Connor.

Arar, now 36, was detained by U.S. authorities as he changed planes in New York on Sept. 26, 2002. He was held for questioning for 12 days, then flown by jet to Jordan and driven to Syria. He was beaten, forced to confess to having trained in Afghanistan -- where he never has been -- and then kept in a coffin-size dungeon for 10 months before he was released, the Canadian inquiry commission found.

O'Connor concluded that "categorically there is no evidence" that Arar did anything wrong or was a security threat.

[xrayzebra]

Holy Smokes. Molly (the plagiarist) Ivins. You really got to be hurting to post
something she wrote.

I know many of you folks are crying in your beer, cause you wanted the terrorist bill of
rights. But win some lose some.....

[turambar85]

God help us.

Many Christians believe that the end times are a result of war and the degradation of society...well, Mr. Bush doesn't want to die, he wants to be taken up to Heaven in a flaming glory in the rapture.

How can this be rationalized. The one thing that sets us apart is our supposed compassion and loving view towards human rights.

It is not justified to torture one to save the lives of others, and I will stand beside that claim.

And, even if it were justified, we don't know that the 1 is truly what we think he is, and we also dont know if it will end up saving any lives regardless.

It is truly absurd and obscene.

[boutons_]

"treat scum like scum."

you mean: "treat non-American, un-tried, un-convicted scum like scum"

Americans don't treat their tried, convicted, imprisoned scum like that, and those scum actually have killed and/or raped innocent American civilians.

ie, their "rights" really are, for the Repugs and assorted dubya suckers like yourself and
Yoni, completely "alienable" on whatever whim the Repugs want to alienate those rights.

We already saw how the Repugs invading Iraq on "whims" and "beliefs" and "hearsay" worked out, especially when executed with the mind-boggling incompetence of Repug political operatives and Rummy.

Do you really think the Repug torturers will torture restricted by the Repug laws of toruture? Of course, the Repug torturers will continue torturing captives (who aren't even combatants) to death as they have 20+ times already.

ie, American citizens are better human beings who deserve American rights treatment than non-American, rights-alienated human beings.

Somehow this Repug approach to humanity, somewhat different from what the world has come to expect from the USA, greatly ingratiates moderate Muslims, and the rest of the world, to The Great American Way (as shit upon by the Repugs).

[Mr. Peabody]

I know many of you folks are crying in your beer, cause you wanted the terrorist bill of
rights. But win some lose some.....

I think what people are worried about are the rights of those who aren't terrorists, but have somehow ended up in the system.

[turambar85]

Holy Smokes. Molly (the plagiarist) Ivins. You really got to be hurting to post
something she wrote.

I know many of you folks are crying in your beer, cause you wanted the terrorist bill of
rights. But win some lose some.....

I personally find it interesting when somebody fails to say what is wrong with something, just makes some quasi-clever name to use as a screaming quotation.

Says a lot about how much they know about the issue.

[xrayzebra]

It will happen. Just as now, innocents do end up in prison under our "just" criminal
law system, where many checks and balances exist. Also many innocents are killed
by the terrorist we are attempting to kill and capture.


stop the holier than thou crap and face what goes on in the real world.

[xrayzebra]

I personally find it interesting when somebody fails to say what is wrong with something, just makes some quasi-clever name to use as a screaming quotation.

Says a lot about how much they know about the issue.

There was never an issue to me. We needed the law to protect those
that were trying to protect you and I.

[boutons_]

"terrorist bill of rights"

no, a human bill of rights, as in:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,"

It doesn't say "all American citizens are created equal"

[FromWayDowntown]

It will happen. Just as now, innocents do end up in prison under our "just" criminal law system, where many checks and balances exist.

Without a meaningful opportunity to seek habeas, what checks and balances are there? If someone who has been imprisoned has no opportunity to ask the government to bring his case to trial, to ask that the government assert its charges against him, to ask that he be shown the evidence against him, he's essentially a prisoner for so long as our government decides to hold him, whether he's done anything wrong or not. That's hardly a just criminal system and it's certainly not one that incorporates any checks or balances.


Also many innocents are killed by the terrorist we are attempting to kill and capture.

So, as a result, we are justified in endlessly imprisioning and torturing some who are innocents?

[Mr. Peabody]

It will happen. Just as now, innocents do end up in prison under our "just" criminal
law system, where many checks and balances exist. Also many innocents are killed
by the terrorist we are attempting to kill and capture.


stop the holier than thou crap and face what goes on in the real world.

I agree that it will happen. That's my point.

You do not have to throw the baby out with the bath water on this issue. It is possible to have a system that sees that justice is carried out, while protecting the rights of the innocent.

As far as stopping my "holier than thou crap" and facing "what goes on in the real world," I do see what goes on in the real world. I see it everyday. And quite frankly, that is what concerns me about the abrogation of these rights.

[Ya Vez]

can't help those democrats.. they are a little slow.....

What is rendition?

Developed in the mid-1990s during the Clinton administration, the CIA's rendition program allowed the agency to capture high-value targets anywhere in the world and bring them to a third country for interrogation. Critics argue that rendition is "outsourcing torture"; suspects are believed to have been taken to countries including Egypt, Morocco, Syria and Jordan, which have all been accused by the U.S. State Department and human rights organizations of torture.

[Ocotillo]

The following Democrats voted for this unconstitutional legislation.

Tom Carper (Del.)
Tim Johnson (S.D.)
Mary Landrieu (La.)
Frank Lautenberg (N.J.)
Joe Lieberman (Conn.)
Bob Menendez (N.J)
Bill Nelson (Fla.)
Ben Nelson (Neb.)
Pryor (Ark.)
Jay Rockefeller (W. Va.)
Ken Salazar (Co.)
Debbie Stabenow (Mich.)

Shame on everyone one of the them for the moral cowardice they exhibit with this vote. Pat Leahy said that within the caucas the Dems who would not support a fillibuster were fearful what happened to Max Cleland would happen to them.

There are things that are of greater importance than winning an election and this is clearly one of them. These people stained the reputation of America in exchange so the Republicans wouldn't run negative ads against them. Guess what cowards, they will anyway.

For over two centuries we have been able to fight all enemies of this country without sacrificing the rights that separated this country from every other one of the face of the earth. Now we are expected to give up habeas because extremists wish us harm?

Now we have to stoop to the same methods of the sworn enemies of this country to try and extract confessions or information?

Buried in this bill is American citizens can be treated the same as foreign terrorists. Now Bush will be able to have the thugs come to your door, take you in the middle of the night to a secret prison and hold you indefinitely without due process or counsel. All that has to be done is you declared a terrorist. And we are not that far from people who oppose this administration within this country being declared terrorists.

This is a disaster........

[RandomGuy]

It will happen. Just as now, innocents do end up in prison under our "just" criminal
law system, where many checks and balances exist. Also many innocents are killed
by the terrorist we are attempting to kill and capture.


stop the holier than thou crap and face what goes on in the real world.

The real world has eveything to do with the ideals you spit on in this post.

We are nothing without those ideals.

[boutons_]

"We are nothing without those ideals."

These Repugs are proving themselves to be truly, value-free "nothing", extremely un-American. The Repugs have allowed America to be dragged down to the level of Saddam, Franco, and banana republic dictators.

[RandomGuy]

"terrorist bill of rights"

no, a human bill of rights, as in:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,"

It doesn't say "all American citizens are created equal"

Exactly.

These rights are given to all by God himself.

To deny them to someone based on the fact they aren't an American citizen, is to deny someone of their God-given humanity.

It is not for us to choose who is denied these rights. If they are suitable for one, they are suitable for all, regardless of the evil in their souls. To believe any less denies some very basic principles.

[boutons_]

"Developed in the mid-1990s during the Clinton administration, the CIA's rendition program ..."

But I thought Clinton didn't do enough, didn't do anything to fight terrorism? Which is it?

If Clinton had been challenged on CIA rendition/torture, knocked down by the SC as dubya was, and then went to the witch-hunting, Repug-controlled Congress for a new law legalizing rendition and torture the way dubya has, I'm sure the Repugs would have voted it down simply becase it was Clinton asking for it.

And those mid-90s Repugs would argue against Clinton with EXACTLY the same arguments that dissenters are arguing against the dubya and current Repugs.

[gtownspur]

I think what people are worried about are the rights of those who aren't terrorists, but have somehow ended up in the system.


You mean the people who somehow ended up in the battlefeild w/ terrorist, shooting at our troops who are really innocent and signed a horrible timeshare aggreement?

[RandomGuy]

You mean the people who somehow ended up in the battlefeild w/ terrorist, shooting at our troops who are really innocent and signed a horrible timeshare aggreement?


So you are calling the US military a bunch of liars?

[Ocotillo]

You mean the people who somehow ended up in the battlefeild w/ terrorist, shooting at our troops who are really innocent and signed a horrible timeshare aggreement?

If one follows the news you will realize many from Gitmo were determined not to be terrorists and were released. Others were and have not been released. Afghanistan is a battlefield as is Iraq and with bounties being paid for terror suspects, Afghan war lords captured many innocents and sold them to us and they were wisked off and abused with no rights or legal representation.

The beauty of our rights that we used to have was they were there to protect us from the government. We had due process to defend ourselves in the case the state had it wrong. Boutons, Dan, myself, any Amercian that is crtical of this legislation could give a rats ass what happens to terrorists. Kill 'em, whatever. We are concerned with terror suspects because they are not all guilty terrorists.

[Mr. Peabody]

You mean the people who somehow ended up in the battlefeild w/ terrorist, shooting at our troops who are really innocent and signed a horrible timeshare aggreement?

Not all of the detainees were out on a battlefield shooting at our troops. According to this report Profile of Detainees (http://law.shu.edu/news/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf#search=%22terr orist%20detainees%20study%22) --



1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any
hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.

2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining
detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive
affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.

3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a
large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist
watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably.
Eight percent are detained because they are deemed “fighters for;” 30% considered “members of;” a
large majority – 60% -- are detained merely because they are “associated with” a group or groups the
Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist
group is unidentified.

4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the
detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States
custody.
This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the
United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected
enemies.

5. Finally, the population of persons deemed not to be enemy combatants – mostly
Uighers – are in fact accused of more serious allegations than a great many persons still deemed to
be enemy combatants.

[gtownspur]

If one follows the news you will realize many from Gitmo were determined not to be terrorists and were released. Others were and have not been released. Afghanistan is a battlefield as is Iraq and with bounties being paid for terror suspects, Afghan war lords captured many innocents and sold them to us and they were wisked off and abused with no rights or legal representation.

The beauty of our rights that we used to have was they were there to protect us from the government. We had due process to defend ourselves in the case the state had it wrong. Boutons, Dan, myself, any Amercian that is crtical of this legislation could give a rats ass what happens to terrorists. Kill 'em, whatever. We are concerned with terror suspects because they are not all guilty terrorists.


Well since we did release those determined innocent, then the system is working. And whose to say that everyone there is being tortured?

THis is all assumption isn't it?

[RandomGuy]

Dudes, you didn't let him fall into my trap... :bang

He was going to say:
"of course not"

So I was going to ask him to clarify:

"So if they are captured by the US military "on the battlefield", they are guilty" and therefore don't deserve rights?"

He would say "yes, that is right"

and THEN I would point out, as you did, that the military has 100% cleared no small number of people "captured on the battlefield" and say that if Gtown was right then he is calling the US millitary a bunch of liars for clearing them.

At which point I would have caught him in the steel-trap of logic, and he would not be able to back track.

You gotta give 'em enough rope to hang themselves, so that they actually see the logically inconsistant things they believe in. :lol

[RandomGuy]

Well since we did release those determined innocent, then the system is working. And whose to say that everyone there is being tortured?

THis is all assumption isn't it?

The problem is that the world at large doesn't really know that the ones we still have aren't just as innocent, and neither do you. That ISN'T assumption.

[gtownspur]

Dudes, you didn't let him fall into my trap... :bang

He was going to say:
"of course not"

So I was going to ask him to clarify:

"So if they are captured by the US military "on the battlefield", they are guilty" and therefore don't deserve rights?"

He would say "yes, that is right"

and THEN I would point out, as you did, that the military has 100% cleared no small number of people "captured on the battlefield" and say that if Gtown was right then he is calling the US millitary a bunch of liars for clearing them.

At which point I would have caught him in the steel-trap of logic, and he would not be able to back track.

You gotta give 'em enough rope to hang themselves, so that they actually see the logically inconsistant things they believe in. :lol


The same army intelligence at one time did conclude that soviets were infiltrating the army and other institutions, and that Joe McCarthy's assumptions were right. Are you calling every servicemen serving in that time period a liar?

I doubt it. ANd so much for your trap.

[gtownspur]

The problem is that the world at large doesn't really know that the ones we still have aren't just as innocent, and neither do you. That ISN'T assumption.

That's for the army to find out, who you trust by the way and took every point from their report to heart.

We should trust the army, since they aren't liars.

It's the army doing it. They can't be wrong.

[RandomGuy]

That's for the army to find out, who you trust by the way and took every point from their report to heart.

We should trust the army, since they aren't liars.

It's the army doing it. They can't be wrong.

But they were when they apprehended the people in the first place.

Which is it?

They were right or they were wrong?

[Crookshanks]

I'm so sick of the bleeding heart libs who think these scum of the earth terrorists deserve the same protections as American citizens. Tell you what, we'll release them and let them come live with YOU - you can be their mentor and help them assimilate. Maybe you'll even be able to find out why they hate us so much and you can solve the problem - that is if they don't cut your throat first!

[RandomGuy]

I'm so sick of the bleeding heart libs who think these scum of the earth terrorists deserve the same protections as American citizens. Tell you what, we'll release them and let them come live with YOU - you can be their mentor and help them assimilate. Maybe you'll even be able to find out why they hate us so much and you can solve the problem - that is if they don't cut your throat first!

Why do we believe in fair trials for Americans?

[Ya Vez]

broutons... still can't see the light... and why weren't you arguing against rendition in the mid 1990s... why did you have to wait until bush got into office.. would you be saying the same thing if gore was in office or kerry.... your silence in the mid 90's about this program .. speaks volumes....

[boutons_]

"you arguing against rendition in the mid 1990s"

I didn't know about it. How about you? Were you knowledgable and approving/defending Clinton's CIA renditions in the mid-90s?

You motherfuckers keep trying to nail me as Dem, liberal, pro-terrorist, traitor, etc, and you can't do it except between your own solipsistic ears.

[MannyIsGod]

broutons... still can't see the light... and why weren't you arguing against rendition in the mid 1990s... why did you have to wait until bush got into office.. would you be saying the same thing if gore was in office or kerry.... your silence in the mid 90's about this program .. speaks volumes....At this point wouldn't the issue be whether or not this is constitutional and not what smaller forms of this have been committed by previous administrations?

[RandomGuy]

broutons... still can't see the light... and why weren't you arguing against rendition in the mid 1990s... why did you have to wait until bush got into office.. would you be saying the same thing if gore was in office or kerry.... your silence in the mid 90's about this program .. speaks volumes....

I thought it was wrong then and still think so. I actually wrote my congressperson about it, if memory serves.

It doesn't matter who is/was/will be in office.

[MannyIsGod]

I dno't get how removing an appeals process and putting out a burden of proof hurts our war on terror. If these people are really guilty of what we believe them to be, why can't we simply prove it?

[valluco]

I dno't get how removing an appeals process and putting out a burden of proof hurts our war on terror. If these people are really guilty of what we believe them to be, why can't we simply prove it?
I was wondering the same thing. I guess that would take too much work.

[RandomGuy]

I dno't get how removing an appeals process and putting out a burden of proof hurts our war on terror. If these people are really guilty of what we believe them to be, why can't we simply prove it?

Exactly.

Not doing so simply lets the Al Qaeda types truthfully call us hypocrites.

We will never convince those who hate us to not hate us, but when we do things like this that go against what we stand for, that is seen by everybody.

This is a war of ideas, and you have to fight every enemy idea (Americans don't really believe in human rights) with every weapon possible.

[Ocotillo]

I dno't get how removing an appeals process and putting out a burden of proof hurts our war on terror. If these people are really guilty of what we believe them to be, why can't we simply prove it?

Because it's not about protecting us from terrorists, it's about developing grist for the election campaigns this fall. Hopefully the true extent of what was passed by Congress yesterday gets explained to each and every citizen out there. Highly unlikely, that would require the news media to actually practice something called journalism rather than stenography.

[nkdlunch]

The shame of America is dumbfucks like you who thinks it's a bad idea to treat scum like scum.

It's pretty simple, don't try and blow up Americans with a bomb strapped to your chest, and the government probably won't be fucking with you.

yeah because they will always interrogate the guilty :rolleyes

they will violate human rights interrogating the innocent as well genius.

[MannyIsGod]

What worries me most about what is happening is how easy the executive branch has horded power during the post 9/11 era and how willing the general public has been with the changes. There really have been sweeping changes to the way our government is structured which have moved this country rapidly away from freedom. But the average person is content because they still enjoy the benefits of living in one of the richest countries in the world.

There is no mechanism for revolution here. There's nothing to spur change. Even now when the country is very discontent does anyone here believe we're anywhere near a critical mass to bring about sweeping changes that allow true freedom in this country? No.

It is becoming so damn Orwelian that it really is scary how quickly and silently and willingly this country is going. And very few seem to notice.

[01Snake]

There really have been sweeping changes to the way our government is structured which have moved this country rapidly away from freedom.

What changes and how have the affected you personally? Just curious.

[Ocotillo]

What changes and how have the affected you personally? Just curious.

If freedoms are taken away and I am not affected directly, that makes it ok to you?

Today it's habeas corpus, tomorrow it may be public dissent, who knows. As Manny alluded to, it's a gradual erosion. Bush isn't going to declare a police state because he could not get away with that. But if he inches toward it rationalizing it as protecting us with a congress that is unwilling or unable to provide any sort of a check or balance. it is entirely possible.

[valluco]

What changes and how have the affected you personally? Just curious.

This hasn't affected us yet...

But, imagine how easy it would be for someone innocent to get arrested on "suspicion" of being a terrorist and being held indefinately and subjected to torture.

I'd say that could affect any of us.

[MannyIsGod]

What changes and how have the affected you personally? Just curious.I - and everyone else - am now in larger danger of being held against my constitutional rights by my own government. I'd say thats a large effect.

[RandomGuy]

Okay, to lose to opponent.
Must not lose to fear!
Sincerely,
Mr. Miyagi

[turambar85]

I'm so sick of the bleeding heart libs who think these scum of the earth terrorists deserve the same protections as American citizens. Tell you what, we'll release them and let them come live with YOU - you can be their mentor and help them assimilate. Maybe you'll even be able to find out why they hate us so much and you can solve the problem - that is if they don't cut your throat first!

That is the epitome of the stupid emotional post that I was talking about seeing from Yonivore, gtown, or X-ray earlier. (Sorry to the two of you that are not in the wrong this time, but youre just so damn similar it kills me.0

Bleeding heart libs....
1st. That is not an insult. The amazing thing is that most people who say this are right-wing Christians. What was Jesus but a "bleeding heart lib"?
I guarantee you that every thing that "dems" do to warrant that "insult" is something that Christ himself would spearhead.

2nd- If youre right and they are acting from pure emotion, so are you. But theyre acting from an emotion of cooperation and respect, youre acting from hatred and ignorance...hmm...

3rd- It is not bleeding heart politics to want to follow the fucking constitution as well as international law. Dear God man, the principles on which this country were founded blatantly disagree with you.

4th- This isn't about them being the same as regular citizens, but the same as regular criminals and murderers. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHERE THE ENEMY COMES FROM, JUST THAT HE IS AN ENEMY!

5th- WE DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT THEY ARE ALL ENEMIES, WE ROUND THEM UP IN DAMN HORDES.

I hate to have to yell, but it has been said so many times that I wonder if you are deaf.

[FromWayDowntown]

At this point wouldn't the issue be whether or not this is constitutional and not what smaller forms of this have been committed by previous administrations?

That's among the great ironies here: to defend this Administration, its supporters are largely left to rely on precedent established during the Clinton Administration, which they decry generally as corrupt and specifically as a non-starter in combating terrorism.

[boutons_]

"precedent established during the Clinton Administration"

Same tactic as that bitch Condi this week defending her sleepwalking as NSA head between Jan and Sep 01, saying Repugs were at least as aggressive as Clinton on terrorism (proveably false), after all the Repugs and the entire right wing had trashed Clinton as essentially pro-terrorist. But for her defense, Clinton's anti-terrorist performance is now some kind of basis of comparison?

GMAFB

[Medvedenko]

This indeed is a sad day...I'm shocked something like this even passed. What the hell is going on in your country.

[Yonivore]

This indeed is a sad day...I'm shocked something like this even passed. What the hell is going on in your country.
Just legislating what we've been doing for over 200 years. Since when did we ever give constitutional protections to the foreign enemy combatants?

[Guru of Nothing]

It is becoming so damn Orwelian that it really is scary how quickly and silently and willingly this country is going. And very few seem to notice.

http://www.andishkadeh.ir/upfiles%5CFrog/Boiling_Frog.jpg

[PixelPusher]

http://www.andishkadeh.ir/upfiles%5CFrog/Boiling_Frog.jpg

Oh, don't get Yoni started on the "Boiling Frog" analogy. His water his alway ice cold. Of course some people aren't as sensetive to "heat" as others.

[Yonivore]

Oh, don't get Yoni started on the "Boiling Frog" analogy. His water his alway ice cold. Of course some people aren't as sensetive to "heat" as others.
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me of a single liberty or freedom they've lost as a result of actions taken by the Bush administration.

[Nbadan]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me of a single liberty or freedom they've lost as a result of actions taken by the Bush administration.

:lmao

Did he even bother to read the rest of the thread?

[spurster]

What rights have we lost? Here's one list.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/opinion/28thu1.html

...

Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of "illegal enemy combatant" in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.

The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret - there's no requirement that this list be published.

Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.

Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.

Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable - already a contradiction in terms - and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.

Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.

Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.

[xrayzebra]

This indeed is a sad day...I'm shocked something like this even passed. What the hell is going on in your country.

None of your damn business, it is our country and not yours. We will
handled our problems. No American has lost anything in the way of their
freedoms. Regardless of what you read in your papers or on this forum.
This is simple enought to figure out, look at all the critical remarks made
about our government, President, Congress and not one person I am aware
of has had a official call made at their place of employment or home in
regards to those comments.

So be shocked and amazed, but it is our business and no one else.

[Yonivore]

What rights have we lost? Here's one list.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/opinion/28thu1.html

...

Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of "illegal enemy combatant" in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.

The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret - there's no requirement that this list be published.

Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.

Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.

Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable - already a contradiction in terms - and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.

Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.

Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.
Unless you're an enemy combatant, who has more rights under our constitution than ever before allowed, I don't see a one that YOU'VE lost.

[Drachen]

The shame of America is dumbfucks like you who thinks it's a bad idea to treat scum like scum.

It's pretty simple, don't try and blow up Americans with a bomb strapped to your chest, and the government probably won't be fucking with you.


Gotta love that word!

[spurster]

Unless you're an enemy combatant, who has more rights under our constitution than ever before allowed, I don't see a one that YOU'VE lost.
The government can label any non-US citizen as an enemy combatant. If you follow the news any, there have been several cases of mislabeling.

How do you know if I'm a US citizen or not?

Few of the rights in the Constitution require citizenship. If the government can take them away from a specific group, then what's to stop the government from taking them away from the rest of us.

First They Came for the Jews

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

[RandomGuy]

This indeed is a sad day...I'm shocked something like this even passed. What the hell is going on in your country.

The right wing has finally turned its back on the ideals our country has stood for. That is what is happening.

[RandomGuy]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me of a single liberty or freedom they've lost as a result of actions taken by the Bush administration.

Freedom from torture, freedom to have a fair trial...

[RandomGuy]

The shame of America is dumbfucks like you who thinks it's a bad idea to treat scum like scum.

It's pretty simple, don't try and blow up Americans with a bomb strapped to your chest, and the government probably won't be fucking with you.

The shame of america is cowards like you who turn your back on our common principles at the first sign of danger. :oops

I am deeply ashamed that you are an American. We are better than that.

[gtownspur]

The right wing has finally turned its back on the ideals our country has stood for. That is what is happening.


Please tell me and enlighten me of the passage in the constitution that expresses that we "Should grant constituitional priveleges to foreign combatants."

Please Enlighten me of a phrase that even gives credence to such Idea before you go on and spout off non sensical rhetoric.

[gtownspur]

The shame of america is cowards like you who turn your back on our common principles at the first sign of danger. :oops

I am deeply ashamed that you are an American. We are better than that.


We sure are. In WW11 we extradited nazi criminals and brought them over here to give them constitutional priveleges, i think that trial was called Nurem......oh that's right.

[xrayzebra]

The government can label any non-US citizen as an enemy combatant. If you follow the news any, there have been several cases of mislabeling.

How do you know if I'm a US citizen or not?

Few of the rights in the Constitution require citizenship. If the government can take them away from a specific group, then what's to stop the government from taking them away from the rest of us.

First They Came for the Jews

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

Gee, now the constitution is extended to all that fight against us or any
we may capture on the battlefield. Wonder how they handled that
during previous wars. Oh, that's right, I forgot we aren't at war and
they have human rights. Horse Hockey!

And by the way who cares if you are citizen or not. If you are, you haven't
lost anything. If your aren't.....well don't mess with Texas or the US of A.
Okay!

[01Snake]

Gotta love the word "torture" being thrown around. Some of you make it sound as if we are crushing hands in vises, chopping of limbs, burning, maiming, etc. Get a fucking grip. Were our captured soilders treated fairly after being captured? Fuck no! They were mutilated, decapitated or drug behind vehicles. Then, after all is said and done, a video is distributed showing what they did. When are you going to get it? These people don't give a fuck about anything but killing us. They are probably sitting back and laughing at us waiting for us to implode from within. We need to stop being pussies and drop the fucking hammer down on this plague to society. We seem to care more about our enemy and their rights than we do about our own.

I wish both parties would cut the he said she said crap and get this shit done. Yes, we are gonna piss some people off but god damn I'm so tired of all of this terrorist BS.

Sorry...had to rant. :lol

[Yonivore]

The government can label any non-US citizen as an enemy combatant.
Sounds fair. So, where, again, are U.S. Citizens losing their constitutional rights?


If you follow the news any, there have been several cases of mislabeling.
Name them. Oh, and if you follow the news, you'll know that more than a dozen former detainees, released because of bleeding heart liberals, have ended up back on the battlefield shooting at our soldiers.


How do you know if I'm a US citizen or not?
If I find you on the battlegrounds of Afghanistan or Iraq or some other place, I'm not going to be too worried about your nationality. I figure the burdens on you to prove your citizenship.


Few of the rights in the Constitution require citizenship. If the government can take them away from a specific group, then what's to stop the government from taking them away from the rest of us.
Uh, the Constitution. Where does it say the constitution applies to non-citizens?


First They Came for the Jews

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller
Sounds like you're talking about the Democratic approach to Islamofascists to me. They probably won't speak out until Mohammed is sawing off their head...and then, it'll be too late, there'll be no one left to speak out for you.

[Yonivore]

Gotta love the word "torture" being thrown around. Some of you make it sound as if we are crushing hands in vises, chopping of limbs, burning, maiming, etc. Get a fucking grip. Were our captured soilders treated fairly after being captured? Fuck no! They were mutilated, decapitated or drug behind vehicles. Then, after all is said and done, a video is distributed showing what they did. When are you going to get it? These people don't give a fuck about anything but killing us. They are probably sitting back and laughing at us waiting for us to implode from within. We need to stop being pussies and drop the fucking hammer down on this plague to society. We seem to care more about our enemy and their rights than we do about our own.

I wish both parties would cut the he said she said crap and get this shit done. Yes, we are gonna piss some people off but god damn I'm so tired of all of this terrorist BS.

Sorry...had to rant. :lol
Rant on, Snake! Rant on!

[FromWayDowntown]

Uh, the Constitution. Where does it say the constitution applies to non-citizens?

So, if an English national is legally visiting the United States, would it be your position that he has no due process rights if he happens to be arrested (can be imprisoned for a crime without an indictment, tried without the benefit of counsel, be deprived of process to obtain testimony from witnesses in his favor) and can be punished differently than an American citizen if convicted of a crime?

[FromWayDowntown]

Gotta love the word "torture" being thrown around. Some of you make it sound as if we are crushing hands in vises, chopping of limbs, burning, maiming, etc. Get a fucking grip. Were our captured soilders treated fairly after being captured? Fuck no! They were mutilated, decapitated or drug behind vehicles. Then, after all is said and done, a video is distributed showing what they did. When are you going to get it? These people don't give a fuck about anything but killing us. They are probably sitting back and laughing at us waiting for us to implode from within. We need to stop being pussies and drop the fucking hammer down on this plague to society. We seem to care more about our enemy and their rights than we do about our own.

I wish both parties would cut the he said she said crap and get this shit done. Yes, we are gonna piss some people off but god damn I'm so tired of all of this terrorist BS.

Sorry...had to rant. :lol

So, we'd be justified in flying planes into their buildings then, too, right?

[MannyIsGod]

BTW, those of you who think the government won't misuse power you give them you should go ahead and read up on how the BetOnSports CEO was arrested. Fighting Terrorism eh?

[RandomGuy]

Please tell me and enlighten me of the passage in the constitution that expresses that we "Should grant constituitional priveleges to foreign combatants."

Please Enlighten me of a phrase that even gives credence to such Idea before you go on and spout off non sensical rhetoric.

All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.

The principles the constitution embodies go farther than the language.

Do you really want to go into the "if it's not illegal, it must be ok" fallacy?

[RandomGuy]

We sure are. In WW11 we extradited nazi criminals and brought them over here to give them constitutional priveleges, i think that trial was called Nurem......oh that's right.

We didn't give "constitutional priviledges".

We gave them basic human rights.

Hiding behind the letter of the law is the way of moral cowardice.

[RandomGuy]

Gee, now the constitution is extended to all that fight against us or any
we may capture on the battlefield. Wonder how they handled that
during previous wars. Oh, that's right, I forgot we aren't at war and
they have human rights. Horse Hockey!

And by the way who cares if you are citizen or not. If you are, you haven't
lost anything. If your aren't.....well don't mess with Texas or the US of A.
Okay!

So if you aren't a US citizen, you have no rights.

How is that any different than a man beheaded with no trial?

The people we fight have no morals, so we shouldn't either? Is that what you would have us become?

[RandomGuy]

Gotta love the word "torture" being thrown around. Some of you make it sound as if we are crushing hands in vises, chopping of limbs, burning, maiming, etc. Get a fucking grip. Were our captured soilders treated fairly after being captured? Fuck no! They were mutilated, decapitated or drug behind vehicles. Then, after all is said and done, a video is distributed showing what they did. When are you going to get it? These people don't give a fuck about anything but killing us. They are probably sitting back and laughing at us waiting for us to implode from within. We need to stop being pussies and drop the fucking hammer down on this plague to society. We seem to care more about our enemy and their rights than we do about our own.

I wish both parties would cut the he said she said crap and get this shit done. Yes, we are gonna piss some people off but god damn I'm so tired of all of this terrorist BS.

Sorry...had to rant. :lol

"Dropping the hammer" is all well and good, but it is a bit like throwing water on a grease fire.

Having such a one-dimensional strategy ignores the most effective tool in fighting people with no morals: people know ethics when they see it. If we consistantly demonstrate we have none, we prove Al Qaeda right in the world's eyes.

This isn't about winning militarily, dumbass, it is about damping extremism.

[Yonivore]

So, if an English national is legally visiting the United States, would it be your position that he has no due process rights if he happens to be arrested (can be imprisoned for a crime without an indictment, tried without the benefit of counsel, be deprived of process to obtain testimony from witnesses in his favor) and can be punished differently than an American citizen if convicted of a crime?
If he's here to commit an act of terroism. Yes.

[boutons_]

what's terrorism by an English national?

Was MacVeigh a terrorist? Did MacVeigh have any rights? Seems to me he and Macnicols were fully covered by US law.

Yoni's "principles" are nothing chavinistic foggy bullshit.

[FromWayDowntown]

If he's here to commit an act of terroism. Yes.

Oh. So constitutional rights are available (or may be curtailed) on an ad hoc basis, depending on what the government thinks your intentions might be -- providing, of course, that if the government decides to act, it apparently has no obligation to ever explain why it thinks your intentions were terroristic, because it can deny constitutional rights to presumed terrorists on a case-by-case basis.

Yes, you've convinced me that there's absolutely no need to be concerned with the erosion of constitutional rights. None whatsoever.

When I'm living in a police state, I'll be secure in the knowledge that those my government thinks might be terrorists are being tortured somewhere in the name of protecting me from dying in a terrorist attack.

[RandomGuy]

Oh. So constitutional rights are available (or may be curtailed) on an ad hoc basis, depending on what the government thinks your intentions might be -- providing, of course, that if the government decides to act, it apparently has no obligation to ever explain why it thinks your intentions were terroristic, because it can deny constitutional rights to presumed terrorists on a case-by-case basis.

Yes, you've convinced me that there's absolutely no need to be concerned with the erosion of constitutional rights. None whatsoever.

When I'm living in a police state, I'll be secure in the knowledge that those my government thinks might be terrorists are being tortured somewhere in the name of protecting me from dying in a terrorist attack.

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/fascism_not_us_1.jpg

[Yonivore]

Oh. So constitutional rights are available (or may be curtailed) on an ad hoc basis, depending on what the government thinks your intentions might be -- providing, of course, that if the government decides to act, it apparently has no obligation to ever explain why it thinks your intentions were terroristic, because it can deny constitutional rights to presumed terrorists on a case-by-case basis.

Yes, you've convinced me that there's absolutely no need to be concerned with the erosion of constitutional rights. None whatsoever.

When I'm living in a police state, I'll be secure in the knowledge that those my government thinks might be terrorists are being tortured somewhere in the name of protecting me from dying in a terrorist attack.
Good, I'm glad you understand.

[gtownspur]

All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.

The principles the constitution embodies go farther than the language.

Do you really want to go into the "if it's not illegal, it must be ok" fallacy?


Ok, in that case let's halt abortions.

You didn't want to open up that can of worms did you?

[gtownspur]

So if you aren't a US citizen, you have no rights.


Bingo! Ask Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, James madison that same question.


How is that any different than a man beheaded with no trial?

The people we fight have no morals, so we shouldn't either? Is that what you would have us become?

We are waging war with these countries and are racking collateral damage, that is much more harmful to human beings than waterboarding.

[gtownspur]

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/fascism_not_us_1.jpg


:lol ,

No tom tommorow, Modern World?

[gtownspur]

Oh. So constitutional rights are available (or may be curtailed) on an ad hoc basis, depending on what the government thinks your intentions might be -- providing, of course, that if the government decides to act, it apparently has no obligation to ever explain why it thinks your intentions were terroristic, because it can deny constitutional rights to presumed terrorists on a case-by-case basis.

Yes, you've convinced me that there's absolutely no need to be concerned with the erosion of constitutional rights. None whatsoever.

When I'm living in a police state, I'll be secure in the knowledge that those my government thinks might be terrorists are being tortured somewhere in the name of protecting me from dying in a terrorist attack.


Take this up with Abraham Lincoln.

[RandomGuy]

Good, I'm glad you understand.

(hands Yoni his brownshirt)

Have at it.

[RandomGuy]

So if you aren't a US citizen, you have no rights.--RG

Bingo! Ask Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, James madison that same question.

They would be ashamed of such things. Rights cannot be separated from men based on place of birth. Do some more reading on the whole Enlightenment thing.


How is that any different than a man beheaded with no trial?

The people we fight have no morals, so we shouldn't either? Is that what you would have us become?--RG

We are waging war with these countries and are racking collateral damage, that is much more harmful to human beings than waterboarding.

That is precisely why we are losing the war on terror. People like you don't understand that it is a war of ideas, and not a military conflict, so you keep supporting policies that not only fail to achieve what they intend, but are actually incimal to them.

[gtownspur]

They would be ashamed of such things. Rights cannot be separated from men based on place of birth. Do some more reading on the whole Enlightenment thing.



That is precisely why we are losing the war on terror. People like you don't understand that it is a war of ideas, and not a military conflict, so you keep supporting policies that not only fail to achieve what they intend, but are actually incimal to them.


I think people like you are the only ones up in arms about our detainee programs.

We are trying to change minds in the mid east, not yours.

[PixelPusher]

I think people like you are the only ones up in arms about our detainee programs.

We are trying to change minds in the mid east, not yours.

...and doing a swell job of it too.


Poll: Iraqis back attacks on U.S. troops (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060927/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraqi_opinion;_ylt=AlfkmTOtfkK91wA5yPnR0r2s0NUE;_y lu=X3oDMTA3OTB1amhuBHNlYwNtdHM-)

_Almost four in five Iraqis say the U.S. military force in
Iraq provokes more violence than it prevents.

_About 61 percent approved of the attacks — up from 47 percent in January. A solid majority of Shiite and Sunni Arabs approved of the attacks, according to the poll. The increase came mostly among Shiite Iraqis.

[Nbadan]

We are trying to change minds in the mid east, not yours.

:lol

Yeah, by radicalizing as many people as possible.

[01Snake]

"Dropping the hammer" is all well and good, but it is a bit like throwing water on a grease fire.

Having such a one-dimensional strategy ignores the most effective tool in fighting people with no morals: people know ethics when they see it. If we consistantly demonstrate we have none, we prove Al Qaeda right in the world's eyes.

This isn't about winning militarily, dumbass, it is about damping extremism.

WOW!! I'm a dumbass. Apperantly you are an expert on Foreign Policy but you cant even keep up with your fucking credit card payments. Look, you can pretend to be the SpursTalk political guru with all the answers to ending terrorism but when you throw out an epic post like the one below, you've pretty much lost all accountability across the board.


I don't care about my credit rating.

I will not be buying a new car on credit ever, nor will I be buying a house anytime within the next five years (six years is the plan at the moment), and even then I will be buying a small house with a large down payment.

So you have ALL the answers to winning the fight on terrorism but you decided defaulting on a credit card would be a good idea and you don't care about your credit rating? Holy fuck Batman! I suggest you spend less time dwelling on politics and enroll in some personal finance courses.

Back to politics, which you seem to be an expert on...please tell me when Intro to Ethics 101 is being offered at the local Al Qaeda training camp. I bet that fucking class is so full people are sitting on the floor. Also, please explain how we (the US) is "constantly" demonstrating we have no ethics. Are you more concerned with what Pierre in France thinks of us or defeating terrorism? I'm thinking you might have a thing for Pierre. :lol

Look, as I said before, I enjoy your post but please refrain from calling people a dumbass for expressing their opinion. Just because you "think" you have all the answers....you don't.

Out

[RandomGuy]

WOW!! I'm a dumbass. Apperantly you are an expert on Foreign Policy but you cant even keep up with your fucking credit card payments. Look, you can pretend to be the SpursTalk political guru with all the answers to ending terrorism but when you throw out an epic post like the one below, you've pretty much lost all accountability across the board.
Fallacy: Ad Hominem

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).


So you have ALL the answers to winning the fight on terrorism but you decided defaulting on a credit card would be a good idea and you don't care about your credit rating? Holy fuck Batman! I suggest you spend less time dwelling on politics and enroll in some personal finance courses.

(see above)


Back to politics, which you seem to be an expert on...please tell me when Intro to Ethics 101 is being offered at the local Al Qaeda training camp. I bet that fucking class is so full people are sitting on the floor. Also, please explain how we (the US) is "constantly" demonstrating we have no ethics. Are you more concerned with what Pierre in France thinks of us or defeating terrorism? I'm thinking you might have a thing for Pierre. :lol

Look, as I said before, I enjoy your post but please refrain from calling people a dumbass for expressing their opinion. Just because you "think" you have all the answers....you don't.

Other than spending most of the post on childish personal attacks, there is little to respond to.

If we bend our ethics, as Bush has done to allow for Guantanamo and torture, or rendition, it makes the claims of Al Qaeda types seem more plausible.

We will take hits in the PR war no matter what we do, but if we show that we are willing to comprimise our own principles, that demonstrates cowardice and fear.

You mention France, and surprisingly enough, we now not only have to deal with the radicals in the middle east, we have to deal with muslims in the West as well who see all that is taking place and have stopped sitting on the fence.

As I have said before, this is a war of ideas, and your ideas don't seem to be winning it, do they?

[RandomGuy]

Ad hominem

If you spent a little less time on personal attacks, and more on actually thinking logically, I might respect your opinion more.

All you end up "proving" is that you can't control your temper.

On that note the "dumbass" on my part was just as bad, and simply a symptom of my frustration. My apologies.

[mookie2001]

The shame of America is dumbfucks like you who thinks it's a bad idea to treat scum like scum.

It's pretty simple, don't try and blow up Americans with a bomb strapped to your chest, and the government probably won't be fucking with you.:wakeup Ive been drinking a lot of coffee lately...

[Trainwreck2100]

The shame of America is dumbfucks like you who thinks it's a bad idea to treat scum like scum.

It's pretty simple, don't try and blow up Americans with a bomb strapped to your chest, and the government probably won't be fucking with you.


And if the gov. fucks up and goes after the wrong guy?

[RandomGuy]

I think people like you are the only ones up in arms about our detainee programs.

We are trying to change minds in the mid east, not yours.

It is not just "people like me". It is the whole world.

Tell ya what, how about you and I go in search of newspaper articles from around the world about Gitmo.

What do you think the balance of those stories will say?

The people whose minds we are trying to change read those papers, and Gitmo is a huge PR loss every day that it is open and no trials are given.

Once again, this war on terror is a war of ideas.

How does holding people indefinitely without fair trials and torturing them combat the idea that we are evil?

[FromWayDowntown]

Good, I'm glad you understand.

Understand what? That you're willing to accept wholesale pullback of constitutional rights, claiming that all such limitations on rights are somehow essential to fighting a war on terror? If that's what you think I understand, I'm certain that I understand that you and I will never see eye-to-eye on that point. Of course, my understanding of that point isn't exactly news to me. Fighting a war on terror is a curious proxy for imposing the sort of quasi-totalitarian principles that you are so willing to espouse.

My opposition to the limitation of civil rights would seem to be my prerogative -- for now at least. I have the sense that if the Administration could compel me to toe the line and accept its view that rights are available at the whim of government, it would.

[spurster]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/us/02terror.html

Wait Ends for Father and Son Exiled by F.B.I. Terror Inquiry

By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
Published: October 2, 2006

LOS ANGELES, Oct. 1 - Two American citizens of Pakistani descent returned to the United States on Sunday, five months after they were denied permission to fly home to California unless they submitted to an interrogation by F.B.I. terrorism investigators.

...

Legal experts said the matter raised questions about balancing terrorism investigations against American citizens’ right to travel freely without having been charged with a crime or detained as a suspect.

...

[Yonivore]

Understand what? That you're willing to accept wholesale pullback of constitutional rights, claiming that all such limitations on rights are somehow essential to fighting a war on terror? If that's what you think I understand, I'm certain that I understand that you and I will never see eye-to-eye on that point. Of course, my understanding of that point isn't exactly news to me. Fighting a war on terror is a curious proxy for imposing the sort of quasi-totalitarian principles that you are so willing to espouse.

My opposition to the limitation of civil rights would seem to be my prerogative -- for now at least. I have the sense that if the Administration could compel me to toe the line and accept its view that rights are available at the whim of government, it would.
Wholesale? Totalitarian?

Please explain to me what changes have occurred in your life that translate to a wholesale rollback of your rights and the application of totalitarian principles?

Hyperbole doesn't really support an argument well.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/us/02terror.html

Wait Ends for Father and Son Exiled by F.B.I. Terror Inquiry

By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
Published: October 2, 2006

LOS ANGELES, Oct. 1 - Two American citizens of Pakistani descent returned to the United States on Sunday, five months after they were denied permission to fly home to California unless they submitted to an interrogation by F.B.I. terrorism investigators.

...

Legal experts said the matter raised questions about balancing terrorism investigations against American citizens’ right to travel freely without having been charged with a crime or detained as a suspect.

...


Notice Yoni didn't respond to this one either... I know he has me on ignore, but seems to have *reality* on ignore as well.

[PixelPusher]

Notice Yoni didn't respond to this one either... I know he has me on ignore, but seems to have *reality* on ignore as well.

Ignore-ance is bliss.

[FromWayDowntown]

Wholesale? Totalitarian?

Please explain to me what changes have occurred in your life that translate to a wholesale rollback of your rights and the application of totalitarian principles?

Hyperbole doesn't really support an argument well.

Wholesale might be hyperbole, but I can't exactly say that I've taken any great pains to consider or carefully edit my words here. Nevertheless, I never said totalitarian -- I said "quasi-totalitarian," which isn't hyperbole. If the government is holding individuals and torturing them based on political views, that's strikingly similar to the sorts of reprehensible things that occur in totalitarian states. That those individuals might not be American citizens does not change my view on that point.

I'm not sure why you're fixated on my proving some change in my life to demonstrate that Constitutional rights have been rolled back. The truth is that in most circumstances, the manner in which I live my day-to-day life does not (yet) involve me in legal issues of constitutional magnitude. So, if you believe that you can contend that my point is without merit because I haven't dealt with the sorts of infringements that have been cited by many others via stories posted in this forum, I'm certain that your argument is ridiculous. That the government is demonstrably limiting rights doesn't rise or fall on what goes on in my life or in yours. Its rather simplistic, I think, to make such an argument.

[Guru of Nothing]

I'm not sure why you're fixated on my proving some change in my life to demonstrate that Constitutional rights have been rolled back. The truth is that in most circumstances, the manner in which I live my day-to-day life does not (yet) involve me in legal issues of constitutional magnitude. So, if you believe that you can contend that my point is without merit because I haven't dealt with the sorts of infringements that have been cited by many others via stories posted in this forum, I'm certain that your argument is ridiculous. That the government is demonstrably limiting rights doesn't rise or fall on what goes on in my life or in yours. Its rather simplistic, I think, to make such an argument.

CAT5 response; ironically, it's calm, cool and collected.

[RandomGuy]

Wholesale might be hyperbole, but I can't exactly say that I've taken any great pains to consider or carefully edit my words here. Nevertheless, I never said totalitarian -- I said "quasi-totalitarian," which isn't hyperbole. If the government is holding individuals and torturing them based on political views, that's strikingly similar to the sorts of reprehensible things that occur in totalitarian states. That those individuals might not be American citizens does not change my view on that point.

I'm not sure why you're fixated on my proving some change in my life to demonstrate that Constitutional rights have been rolled back. The truth is that in most circumstances, the manner in which I live my day-to-day life does not (yet) involve me in legal issues of constitutional magnitude. So, if you believe that you can contend that my point is without merit because I haven't dealt with the sorts of infringements that have been cited by many others via stories posted in this forum, I'm certain that your argument is ridiculous. That the government is demonstrably limiting rights doesn't rise or fall on what goes on in my life or in yours. Its rather simplistic, I think, to make such an argument.


This is one of the better posts I have seen a while.
Seriously though. :tu

[PixelPusher]

Wholesale might be hyperbole, but I can't exactly say that I've taken any great pains to consider or carefully edit my words here. Nevertheless, I never said totalitarian -- I said "quasi-totalitarian," which isn't hyperbole. If the government is holding individuals and torturing them based on political views, that's strikingly similar to the sorts of reprehensible things that occur in totalitarian states. That those individuals might not be American citizens does not change my view on that point.

I'm not sure why you're fixated on my proving some change in my life to demonstrate that Constitutional rights have been rolled back. The truth is that in most circumstances, the manner in which I live my day-to-day life does not (yet) involve me in legal issues of constitutional magnitude. So, if you believe that you can contend that my point is without merit because I haven't dealt with the sorts of infringements that have been cited by many others via stories posted in this forum, I'm certain that your argument is ridiculous. That the government is demonstrably limiting rights doesn't rise or fall on what goes on in my life or in yours. Its rather simplistic, I think, to make such an argument.

http://www.andishkadeh.ir/upfiles%5CFrog/Boiling_Frog.jpg


(^fixed to make steam come out of Yoni's ears)

[Yonivore]

If the government is holding individuals and torturing them based on political views, that's strikingly similar to the sorts of reprehensible things that occur in totalitarian states.
Where are you alleging this is occurring?


That those individuals might not be American citizens does not change my view on that point.
Non-Americans held as enemy combatants is fine by me. I don't see that as a political issue but a security issue.


I'm not sure why you're fixated on my proving some change in my life to demonstrate that Constitutional rights have been rolled back. The truth is that in most circumstances, the manner in which I live my day-to-day life does not (yet) involve me in legal issues of constitutional magnitude.
First, because this is the mantra of the left. George W. Bush has trashed the constitution and abolished many of our rights. I'd just like to know how those who are claiming this have been adversely affected by these claims.


So, if you believe that you can contend that my point is without merit because I haven't dealt with the sorts of infringements that have been cited by many others via stories posted in this forum, I'm certain that your argument is ridiculous.
I'd settle for some sign that more than the odd individual American has had to contend with these losses of freedom, liberty, and rights.


That the government is demonstrably limiting rights doesn't rise or fall on what goes on in my life or in yours. Its rather simplistic, I think, to make such an argument.
I think you need to demonstrate where the government is demonstrably limiting a significant number of American Citizens' rights before you have an argument.

[FromWayDowntown]

I think you need to demonstrate where the government is demonstrably limiting a significant number of American Citizens' rights before you have an argument.

If the government is demonstrably and unlawfully limiting the rights of any American citizen, it's too much.

I understand that you're willing to cede the liberty of some for your own sense of security. I'm not.

[FromWayDowntown]

Where are you alleging this is occurring?

In the far-off places that the government takes those it believes to be sympathetic to "Islamofacists." Americans and non-Americans alike.


First, because this is the mantra of the left. George W. Bush has trashed the constitution and abolished many of our rights. I'd just like to know how those who are claiming this have been adversely affected by these claims.

Is it your contention, then, that if it hasn't happened to me, that it isn't really happening? that the reporting of such infringements in quarters outside the bounds of my own life is something that is irrelevant? that if it only happens to those who I don't know, it's really not that bad?

[MannyIsGod]

I assume that the people being held in any manner by the US Government are being held because the government has evidence that gives the cause to deny freedom to these individuals. If that is the case, then why are we unwilling to present this evidence in a court in order to provide the detainees with due process. Why is this such a horrendous expectation from our government?

I am not willing to give this government - or any government for that matter - the abilit to imprison persons without having to give cause for taking such an action. Every cause in the history of mankind has been hijacked in the past, so why would the current sense of national insecurity be any different? Is there anyone here who actualy believes that the US government is above using power irresponsibly?

The principles of the Constitution are not in place because we have special rights due to our citizenship. The Declaration of Independence does not state that all men born in the United States are created equal. There are underlying principles that both of those documents point to and acknowlegde are fundemental to all individuals, not just those of American citizenship.

[clambake]

Good post Manny, but this administration has created a culture where no rule is safe. They have the support of the religious right and dare the rest of america to challenge them.

[Yonivore]

I assume that the people being held in any manner by the US Government are being held because the government has evidence that gives the cause to deny freedom to these individuals. If that is the case, then why are we unwilling to present this evidence in a court in order to provide the detainees with due process. Why is this such a horrendous expectation from our government?
Presume the evidence was provided by a source or method by which the exposure of it would seriously hamper our efforts in prosecuting the war.

And, why do you immediately assume the right to due process is being violated? What makes you believe due process in civil litigation or criminal prosecution are the same -- or even should be the same -- as due process for enemy combatants.

In mind opinion, these people are getting way more process than they are due.


I am not willing to give this government - or any government for that matter - the abilit to imprison persons without having to give cause for taking such an action.
The cause is these people were captured on the field of battle and are identified as enemy combatants.

Cause enough for me.


Every cause in the history of mankind has been hijacked in the past, so why would the current sense of national insecurity be any different? Is there anyone here who actualy believes that the US government is above using power irresponsibly?
Nope. But, you've yet to demonstrate this is the case here. And, just because a power may be abused is no reason to eliminate that power.


The principles of the Constitution are not in place because we have special rights due to our citizenship. The Declaration of Independence does not state that all men born in the United States are created equal. There are underlying principles that both of those documents point to and acknowlegde are fundemental to all individuals, not just those of American citizenship.
Back to the question. Are the detainees receiving all the process to which they are due? I say yes.

[Yonivore]

In the far-off places that the government takes those it believes to be sympathetic to "Islamofacists." Americans and non-Americans alike.
Really? So, you equate taking up arms on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, against the United States and other coalition allies merely being "sympathetic to 'Islamofascists'?"

Interesting.


Is it your contention, then, that if it hasn't happened to me, that it isn't really happening? that the reporting of such infringements in quarters outside the bounds of my own life is something that is irrelevant? that if it only happens to those who I don't know, it's really not that bad?
No, it's my contention there is no wholesale rollback of rights, liberties, or freedoms -- especially for American Citizens -- but, even for non-citizens as well.

Anectdotal stories about the odd occurrence notwithstanding, you cannot point to any statute or practice of the federal government that eliminates any constitutional rights for anyone.

I say odd occurrences because, you can find stories of just about anything occurring on a limited or one-time basis. For instance, the Supreme Court recently overturned a lower court regarding the seizure of firearms in a disaster.

This was a violation of a persons right to bear arms. While the law may have been right-minded, it was a rollback of our constitutional rights. I wasn't affected and, further, I don't believe the intention was malicious. I also don't believe such a huge number of persons were involved as it could be equated to being "quasi-totalitarian" either.

It was a situation rectified by the courts as I predict all the other constitutional questions -- regarding the war on terror -- will be. So far, the administration's treatment of detainees has been consistent with previous administrations in previous wars and there has been no intervening legislation that would have directed the administration to treat them any differently than had previous administrations.

As the Supreme Court has dealt with the legal issues raised in the current conflict, the administration has set about accommodating the court's findings.

In a war, I'm not going to ask my government to voluntarily divine new and improved treatments of enemy combatants. They were merely relying on the precendents set by previous administrations and now that they're getting new direction from the Supreme Court, they are making the necessary changes. And, ironically, being criticized for that as well.

They can't win.

[boutons_]

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/

October 9, 2006, 10:43 am

Habeas Corpus in a Terrorist War

University of Chicago law professor Richard A. Epstein, an influential legal conservative, takes to the Op-Ed page of The Wall Street Journal to ask the Supreme Court to overturn the provision in the recently passed Military Commissions Act that denies prisoners the right to judicial review of their detentions: “The Supreme Court should enforce the constitutional guarantee that Congress has authorized the president to ignore.” [$]

The Military Commissions Act “strips [prisoners] of their right to habeas corpus — unwisely removing an indispensable and long-standing check on the abuse of executive power,” Epstein writes. He later adds, “Lawful imprisonment, second only to lawful infliction of death, is the hallmark of state power. In any system of limited government, such loss of liberty should be hedged by strong procedural protections unless some grave public necessity requires its suspension.” He continues:

By eliminating habeas review for Guantanamo detainees, the MCA has jettisoned the fundamental right of any prisoner to test the lawfulness of his detention. You may immediately object: Why, if ordinary prisoners of war may be detained for the duration of the conflict without habeas corpus — as in World War II, the Korean War or the Vietnam War — should the writ be available to unlawful enemy combatants captured in the war on terror? Because context matters. In conflicts between states, the prisoners are uniformed soldiers. We know they are combatants, we know what counts as the end of the war, and habeas serves no useful role. In a terrorist war, with nonuniformed combatants and chaotic battlefield conditions, wide military sweeps make sense — but only if we take steps after the heat of battle to allow detainees to challenge their status.

Without meaningful judicial review, innocent people could be arbitrarily or erroneously imprisoned, indefinitely.

Last month at National Review’s The Corner, Jonah Goldberg wanted “an honest broker” to explain “in a clear-headed and nonpartisan manner” to explain whether Americans can be held indefinitely, without habeas corpus, under the Military Commissions Act. Perhaps Epstein, who has contributed to Goldberg’s magazine, will suffice. The Military Commissions Act, Epstein writes, “allows the government to hold any prisoner — even if he is not an unlawful enemy combatant — in custody for the rest of his life, with no due process and no recourse to the courts.”

Epstein also describes the “grossly deficient” process the law established to review an individual’s status as an enemy combatant: “It denies a detainee the assistance of counsel. It prohibits him from seeing the evidence against him. It lets the government alone decide what evidence the tribunal sees; it lets the government rely on evidence consisting of double or even triple hearsay; and it lets military superiors override tribunal decisions and fire tribunal members when they disapprove of their decisions.”

Epstein does see reason for hope: “Happily, the Supreme Court is likely to invalidate this part of the M.C.A. The Constitution states that the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended only when rebellion or invasion endangers public safety. That’s not the case here: A world of difference separates the risk of future terrorist acts from a present invasion on American soil.”

=============

But Puto Gonzalez, and the Yonivores, and right-wing drones reading from lists of Repug talking points, will overhype that every prisoneer under MCA, even 10K miles away from USA, is an immediate mortal threat to entire USA and all its 300 M people.

Falsely "immediate" in the same sense that bogusly invading Iraq 7 months before the 2003 election was the only option, the immediate option, since dubya had an election to win and dickhead needed a platform/pretext to expand Exec power gratuitously, imperially beyond reach of checks and balances.

As the majority of American people see now, the phony Iraq war had/has nothing to do with the war on terror. Iraq is a HUGE strategic fuckup by the Repugs.

[FromWayDowntown]

Who cares what some law professor thinks? [/Yonivore]

[Slomo]

The shame of America is dumbfucks like you who thinks it's a bad idea to treat scum like scum.

It's pretty simple, don't try and blow up Americans with a bomb strapped to your chest, and the government probably won't be fucking with you.
You see that single little word is the core of the problem.

[xrayzebra]

i didn't even like my rights in the first place! so there!

Yep I guess most liberals feel the same way when
it comes to someone they disagree with.

View this little film clip about how the liberals
feel about someone that was invited to come to
a university to present their views.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfnn7wTgoE8

[FromWayDowntown]

A protest doesn't invalidate anyone's rights. The guy still could have said what he wanted to say -- he has no constitutional right to be allowed to say it without interference, so don't act as though his rights were somehow done away with by the protest.

Being made to stop a speech because protesters disagree with your viewpoint is a far cry from willfully curtailing habeas corpus protections for those who are in U.S. custody without being charged or tried for the offenses that form the basis for detention.