Who loves Tyranny and Torture?

[VeeKaChu]

Apparently anyone who supports the current criminal administration does. (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/17/olbermann-the-day-habeas-corpus-died/)

I'd love to hear how the Bush Apologists are going to rationalize this despicable "law". Traitors, speak up!

Oh and spare me your "it only applies to foreign enemy combatants" bullshit. As it's written, it applies to whomever Bush or Rumsfield says it applies to, period. That's Omar, Pierre, Takashi, or good old YOU.

[Zogo]

when does the title change to "king" or "potenate?" just wondering..

PS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39ESOKkU1ho

[Kartikeya-OD]

Neither the President nor the Sec of Def. has ability to declare you an illegal enemy combatant. Sec.948a(1)(ii). The point of the law was to put everything through a military tribunal. How quickly did we forget the recent Supreme Court decision which ruled against the Government for this precise reason?

Nor does this apply to US citizens (Section 5(a)). Furthermore US Citizens are exempt from a majority of the laws enacted by this act (sections 948b(a) & 948c).

I'd be more concerned with the applications of the UCMJ then I would be about your soapbox.


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:S.3930:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006

[VeeKaChu]

Kart, why does your Wiki link directly cotradict you?

An “unlawful enemy combatant” can be any person – not excluding American citizens - determined to be one by a “competent tribunal” established by the President or the Secretary of Defense [Sec.948a(1)(ii)]. What comprises a competent tribunal – or by what criteria they would make such a determination - is not defined.

And why is pointing out that the criminal president and his supporters are traitors "soapboxing"? "America", as the founders intended it, is the greatest social experiment ever tried, and it's being destroyed by these power-mongers. It's sad that so many people don't seem to care...

[larcain]

Nah, that would have been Lincoln, who suspended habeas corpus etc. Course, in destroying "the great experiment", he was trying to save it. That tyrrant!! That power monger!!

BTW that wiki article says THIS:

An “unlawful enemy combatant” can be any alien (see [Sec.948a(3)], [Sec.948b(a)] and [Sec.948c]) determined to be one by a “competent tribunal” established by the President or the Secretary of Defense [Sec.948a(1)(ii)]. What comprises a competent tribunal is described in sections 948i through 948m.

AND

The Act does exclude these rules from being applied when trying unlawful enemy combatants who are American citizens, per sections 948b(a) and 948c.

[koruptid]

I don't agree with this act, but where in the hell are you getting that it applies to U.S. citizens? According to the text of the bill, it applies to "alien" illegal enemy combatants, and specifically defines aliens as individuals who are not citizens of the U.S.

edit: Plus what larcain said.

[dys]

Wow. lol

Time to lynch larcain, the APOLOGIST TRAITOR.
I don't agree with this act, but where in the hell are you getting that it applies to U.S. citizens? According to the text of the bill, it applies to "alien" illegal enemy combatants, and specifically spells out aliens as individuals who are not citizens of the U.S.
He's getting it from his ass. The WIKI article that he quoted was edited, per Veek, to make it suit his case.

While I do have some issues with the act itself, I do not view it as terrible as others do. To each their own though, and I can understand why some people would oppose it. Personaly I'd like to see it time-stamped and be up for debate again in X amount of months/years. It shouldn't go in as a permanent legislation.

[schtoofa]

Who loves Tyranny and Torture?

Apparently some of your power-monger buddies do:

Carper (D-DE), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea

[larcain]

Time to lynch larcain, the APOLOGIST TRAITOR.

Personaly I'd like to see it time-stamped and be up for debate again in X amount of months/years. It shouldn't go in as a permanent legislation.

Neither one of these is a bad idea!!

[|RES|arod]

I lost my tin foil cap a few weeks ago. I think it has been found!

[VeeKaChu]

Apparently some of your power-monger buddies do:

Carper (D-DE), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), YeaWow, you showed me. No wait, no you didn't, they are traitors too and should be deposed with the rest of the seditious 'ruling party'. Why would they be my "buddies"?

Arod, the thread isn't about your opinion of me. It's about whether or not you support the the law that makes America into a torture state that allows it's "leader" to "disappear" people just like in medieval times!

So are you a traitor too, or do you oppose this legislation? It's an easy question.


I'm not going to argue the exclusion or not of US citizens in this despicable act, it's immaterial. The Bill codifies extreme human rights violations, and every American should feel ashamed.

[MidnightStalker]

Don't mind the lefist extremist there. He will contort any fact to accomodate his false beliefs.

[VeeKaChu]

I've contorted nothing.
Are you going to address the subject of the thread at all, or just call-names like the rest of the hacks who have no actual point to stand on?

[Kartikeya-OD]

Wow. lol

Time to lynch larcain, the APOLOGIST TRAITOR.

He's getting it from his ass. The WIKI article that he quoted was edited, per Veek, to make it suit his case.


Ouch.

Thanks Larcain. :)

This is why I posted a link to the actual law first....

[Tone-Loc]

The WIKI article that he quoted was edited, per Veek, to make it suit his case.


:( Say it ain't so, Veek!

[dys]

I'm not going to argue the exclusion or not of US citizens in this despicable act, it's immaterial.
Actually, it was part of your opening statement:

Oh and spare me your "it only applies to foreign enemy combatants" bullshit. As it's written, it applies to whomever Bush or Rumsfield says it applies to, period. That's Omar, Pierre, Takashi, or good old YOU.
I've contorted nothing.
Are you going to address the subject of the thread at all, or just call-names like the rest of the hacks who have no actual point to stand on?
The whole thing is contorted with obvious innuendos. You edited a source that was plain as day (quoted below) and haven't really stated many facts as opposed to opinion, all the while calling anyone that doesn't agree with you a traitor.. Who's the hack?
Originally Posted by all-knowing-WIKI
An “unlawful enemy combatant” can be any person – not excluding American citizens - determined to be one by a “competent tribunal” established by the President or the Secretary of Defense [Sec.948a(1)(ii)]. What comprises a competent tribunal – or by what criteria they would make such a determination - is not defined.

If we're to have a discussion about the real facts, then let's do it. But drop the rhetoric and your own name calling and let's get down to it.

You say it's violating human rights issues. To an extent, I agree. The fine line has to do with deeming someone an enemy combatant, which is the latest cliche. Are those captured representative of another nation, or are they acting individually without government support/dictation?

It is my opinion that those that are acting independently should not fall under any previously signed treaty related to prisoners of war. If we were hypothetically at war with a nation's goverment, prisoners would be deserving of the rights associated to the geneva convention.

Someone acting on their own, call them a terrorist or whatever you want, are not deserving of such rights due to the extreme lengths they will go to. If they're aware of something so extreme on the brink of execution, we should do anything possible to find out what it is as soon as possible.

Given the fact that this is obviously a debatable topic, with validity on both sides, that is why I suggest legislation like this be up for review after X amount of time. Veek would you be accepting of it if that clause was included; in efforts to maintain a check and balance on possible abuses of it being directed towards Americans in the future?

[xero]

To be completely honest this is not the first time a president has abused war powers (Truman, FDR, and Lincoln all did this too) to do essentially whatever they wanted. And traditionally, the Supreme Court upholds the powers of the President to do this type of stuff as long as Congress supports his actions, because Congress has equal warmaking powers within the Constitution.

When Congress quits supporting Bush in these outrageously over-the-top symbolic nonsensical laws and policies, the Supreme Court will strike them down. I think they're definitely unethical (the spirit of the Constitution and various international conventions and treaties is not "lets see how many loopholes we can find to brazenly act against them"), and the no doubt violate international laws in a myriad of ways (specifically the European Convention on Human Rights and the Geneva Convention), but as far as our government is concerned, right now they're legitimate 'war' tactics.

If it makes you feel better Veek, the military is doing an about-face when it comes to discussion of the 'GWOT.' They're straying from the idea because the military is full of no-nonsense goal-oriented people who are willing to understand that labelling everyone on the planet you don't like as a terrorist and treating them in the same inhumane way is likely to cause more problems than it fixes.

You can officially start worrying about presidential tyranny when the president ignores term limits, ends elections, and/or institutes unnecessary martial law. In the case of any of the above, I'll be on the first flight to Europe I can get.

[schtoofa]

So are you a traitor too, or do you oppose this legislation? It's an easy question.

It's a false dichotomy, actually, but who's counting?

Are you going to address the subject of the thread at all, or just call-names like the rest of the hacks who have no actual point to stand on?

Not sure if I'm one of the "hack"s you're referring to, but here we go... Let's see if you have a point to stand on :)

As it's written, it applies to whomever Bush or Rumsfield says it applies to, period.

Just curious, Veek -- have you actually read through the bill in its entirety? Or are you making your opinion based on others' claims of what's actually in the bill?

`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.

The bill defines "alien" to be a person who is not a citizen of the United States, so those military commissions cannot apply to American Citizens, even if they are unlawful enemy combatants. Can you point to me the text that endangers American Citizens (perhaps whatever might have been the inspiration to the wiki quote you chose to rebut Kart's post with)? I've been looking through the bill, and I'm not finding it.

The bill also states that any statement obtained through the use of torture is inadmissible.


`(b) Exclusion of Statements Obtained by Torture- A statement obtained by use of torture shall not be admissible in a military commission under this chapter, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made*.

`(A) TORTURE- The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.

(*Admittedly, I don't understand what the exception means)

There is also a portion that explains how individuals in custody must be treated:

(1) IN GENERAL- No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

In fact, this bill restricts the President's ability to interpret portions of this law. The bill specifically prohibits the President from interpreting portions of the Geneva Conventions ("grave breaches of Common Article 3"):

(C) Any Executive Order published under this paragraph shall be authoritative (except as to grave breaches of common Article 3) as a matter of United States law, in the same manner as other administrative regulations.


`(d) Common Article 3 Violations-

`(1) PROHIBITED CONDUCT- In subsection (c)(3), the term `grave breach of common Article 3' means any conduct (such conduct constituting a grave breach of common Article 3 of the international conventions done at Geneva August 12, 1949), as follows:

`(A) TORTURE- The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.

`(B) CRUEL OR INHUMAN TREATMENT- The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions), including serious physical abuse, upon another within his custody or control.

`(C) PERFORMING BIOLOGICAL EXPERIMENTS- The act of a person who subjects, or conspires or attempts to subject, one or more persons within his custody or physical control to biological experiments without a legitimate medical or dental purpose and in so doing endangers the body or health of such person or persons.

`(D) MURDER- The act of a person who intentionally kills, or conspires or attempts to kill, or kills whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause.

`(E) MUTILATION OR MAIMING- The act of a person who intentionally injures, or conspires or attempts to injure, or injures whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, by disfiguring the person or persons by any mutilation thereof or by permanently disabling any member, limb, or organ of his body, without any legitimate medical or dental purpose.

`(F) INTENTIONALLY CAUSING SERIOUS BODILY INJURY- The act of a person who intentionally causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, serious bodily injury to one or more persons, including lawful combatants, in violation of the law of war.

`(G) RAPE- The act of a person who forcibly or with coercion or threat of force wrongfully invades, or conspires or attempts to invade, the body of a person by penetrating, however slightly, the anal or genital opening of the victim with any part of the body of the accused, or with any foreign object.

`(H) SEXUAL ASSAULT OR ABUSE- The act of a person who forcibly or with coercion or threat of force engages, or conspires or attempts to engage, in sexual contact with one or more persons, or causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, one or more persons to engage in sexual contact.

`(I) TAKING HOSTAGES- The act of a person who, having knowingly seized or detained one or more persons, threatens to kill, injure, or continue to detain such person or persons with the intent of compelling any nation, person other than the hostage, or group of persons to act or refrain from acting as an explicit or implicit condition for the safety or release of such person or persons.

Help me out, Veek. Toss my way at least one troublesome excerpt from this bill. For example an excerpt that ...makes America into a torture state that allows it's "leader" to "disappear" people just like in medieval times!

[Cyberdemon]

When Congress quits supporting Bush in these outrageously over-the-top symbolic nonsensical laws and policies, the Supreme Court will strike them down.

On the one hand, the SC does defer to Congress because lawmakers could just as easily strip them of the power to challenge the president here. On the other, even if power shifts hands next month and Bush finds himself facing down an unfriendly Congress, with the recent appointments to the bench I don't think any response will be that swift or decisive.

Just to kick the dead horse in the nuts, when the act references section 948a for its definition of "alien" this is what it has in mind:


ALIEN.-The term 'alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.

I'm not a fan of the act or Bush's interpretation of it either, but it applies to foreigners.

[MidnightStalker]

and specifically stipulates torture is impermissible.

[MightyCawdoR]

Originally Posted by Military Commissions Act 2006
`(b) Exclusion of Statements Obtained by Torture- A statement obtained by use of torture shall not be admissible in a military commission under this chapter, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made*.


(*Admittedly, I don't understand what the exception means)

I'm no lawyer but I'm guessing it means that a statement obtained from torture can be used to show that torture happened by so and so, or something like that.

[schtoofa]

I'm no lawyer but I'm guessing it means that a statement obtained from torture can be used to show that torture happened by so and so, or something like that.

After re-reading that portion of it, I buy that interpretation. That'd make sense.

[hawk]

I don't even see how the argument over aliens is even relevant. It's simple, do you believe in the writ of habeas corpus or not? Any exceptions goes against every thing that habeas corpus stands for - It's pretty simple. It's sad that we live in such a apathetic nation that the fact that this isn't directly endangering us makes most citizens complacent enough to allow it.

[FluxCapacitor]

Veek btw people still dissapear by some governments. Medieval times actually had less uknown "dissapearings" proportionatly. Just throwing that in.

[Zogo]

the gov't can and will call anyone an "enemy combatant" if they want..they already have in the past.

Nah, that would have been Lincoln, who suspended habeas corpus etc. Course, in destroying "the great experiment", he was trying to save it. That tyrrant!! That power monger!!

lincoln, FDR, clinton, hitler..I don't care who did it.

Apparently some of your power-monger buddies do:

do you think if you disagree with bush that you're automatically a democrat or something?

You can officially start worrying about presidential tyranny when the president ignores term limits, ends elections, and/or institutes unnecessary martial law.

those are the only instances?

[VeeKaChu]

Flux, yes, there are current governments that "dissappear" their political opponents- quite a few in South America. It's a violation of basic human rights that marks them as barbaric and uncivilized. Why we would want to join them is beyond me.

I will allow that my speech in this thread does border on extremism, but the point is that the issues raised by this anti-American legislation needs to be at the fore of our national debate, as it clearly threatens fundamental values upon which this country was founded.

Getting back to the issue of "can or can't an American citizen be held as an illegal enemy combatant" - the Wiki quote I initially posted was later amended on the site to read along the lines "critics of the bill claim that it isn't clear" on the point or words to that effect. If you watch the video I posted initially, Jonathan Turley, a Constitunional Law Proffessor says it can.

Furthermore, in his Special Comments (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/18/countdown-special-comment-death-of-habeas-corpus-your-words-are-lies-sir/) tonight, Keith Olbermann makes the very salient point that because of the way the law is written, despite what it may say, once you're detained under it, citizen or no, you have no recourse to challenge it, regardless of nationality; it's a huge Catch-22.

Torture 'impermissible'? Depends on who's doing the defining of what constitutes torture. As long as your organs don't (ostensibly) fail and you do not die, you haven't been tortured.... yeah, sound benign to me. I'm sure none of us would really mind being hog-tied and left on a concrete floor for 24 or 48 hours at a stretch- it's just like a frat hazing!

But Hawk makes my most basic point more lucidly than I do- suspending Habeus Corpus for anyone is bad, mmmm'kay, and clearly anti-American on its face. We should not tolerate it under any conditions.

[bayz]

i'm with hawk here. the symantics of who the law applies to is irrelevant -- the only constitutionally acceptable time that the habeas corpus can be suspended is during rebellion or invasion, neither of which are currently occuring. (no, 9/11 was not an invasion). that said, lincoln was actually not going against the constitution when he suspended the habeas corpus (rebellion), so whoever compared him to the current situation is... absolutely wrong. (of course, i don't think suspending or eliminating the writ of habeas corpus should occur under any circumstances).

[xero]

i'm with hawk here. the symantics of who the law applies to is irrelevant -- the only constitutionally acceptable time that the habeas corpus can be suspended is during rebellion or invasion, neither of which are currently occuring. (no, 9/11 was not an invasion). that said, lincoln was actually not going against the constitution when he suspended the habeas corpus (rebellion), so whoever compared him to the current situation is... absolutely wrong. (of course, i don't think suspending or eliminating the writ of habeas corpus should occur under any circumstances).No, you're the one who's wrong here.

I'm no Bush apologist (I'm very proud to detest him and I think he's a ridiculously awful president), but Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for quite some time, even past the surrender of the Confederacy. In fact, it was still suspended after he was dead -- the Supreme Court did not rule on his military tribunals and scheduled executions for North dissenting citizens in Ex parte Milligan until well after Lincoln was dead.

The bottom line is rebellion and invasion are your definition of what 'war powers' should be reserved for. The people who decide what they result in permitting for the presidency right now is Congress and the White House -- a joint-venture that does not include you.

Think of it the way the Bush administration thinks of torture. Most of us would call rape and waterboarding torture. But not this administration! It's all about subjectivity. But I digress.

What I guess I'm trying to get at here is that while the current definition of 'war' is dead wrong, the powers being wielded by the administration and by Congress are totally legitimate. If you don't like it, vote for people who don't like it either and are willing to end this nonsense.

[StrongBad]

No, you're the one who's wrong here.

I'm no Bush apologist (I'm very proud to detest him and I think he's a ridiculously awful president), but Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for quite some time, even past the surrender of the Confederacy. In fact, it was still suspended after he was dead -- the Supreme Court did not rule on his military tribunals and scheduled executions for North dissenting citizens in Ex parte Milligan until well after Lincoln was dead.

The bottom line is rebellion and invasion are your definition of what 'war powers' should be reserved for. The people who decide what they result in permitting for the presidency right now is Congress and the White House -- a joint-venture that does not include you.

Think of it the way the Bush administration thinks of torture. Most of us would call rape and waterboarding torture. But not this administration! It's all about subjectivity. But I digress.

What I guess I'm trying to get at here is that while the current definition of 'war' is dead wrong, the powers being wielded by the administration and by Congress are totally legitimate. If you don't like it, vote for people who don't like it either and are willing to end this nonsense.

Well said. This is just 1 more step down the road which we have traveled the last 8 years (yes I am including Clinton because he attempted to erode our constitution in a myriad of other ways) November is the time that you can tell them what u think about that path and what needs to change. I just pray that logical people are out in record numbers.

[schtoofa]

Getting back to the issue of "can or can't an American citizen be held as an illegal enemy combatant" - the Wiki quote I initially posted was later amended on the site to read along the lines "critics of the bill claim that it isn't clear" on the point or words to that effect. If you watch the video I posted initially, Jonathan Turley, a Constitunional Law Proffessor says it can.

Whether or not a wiki was edited is irrelevant; we should be looking at the bill. I'm still curious if you've read the bill itself, maybe to see if critics like Keith Olbermann have something to stand on. I notice from that transcript he didn't reference a single specific part of the bill. I wonder if he's read it, even.

...because of the way the law is written, despite what it may say, once you're detained under it, citizen or no, you have no recourse to challenge it, regardless of nationality; it's a huge Catch-22.

I'm curious if what you're saying is true. No offense to you, but I'm critical and skeptical of nearly everything (which is why I'm looking for references to the actual bill to support these claims). People can claim anything they want, but the claims are meaningless to me without support.

Torture 'impermissible'? Depends on who's doing the defining of what constitutes torture. As long as your organs don't (ostensibly) fail and you do not die, you haven't been tortured.... yeah, sound benign to me. I'm sure none of us would really mind being hog-tied and left on a concrete floor for 24 or 48 hours at a stretch- it's just like a frat hazing!

That's only part of the story. No, "torture" is not allowed. Is its definition restricted to what you described? No. For starters, according to the bill, we have torture defined as:


`(A) TORTURE- The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.

`(D) the term `serious physical pain or suffering' shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(B) as meaning bodily injury that involves--

`(i) a substantial risk of death;

`(ii) extreme physical pain;

`(iii) a burn or physical disfigurement of a serious nature (other than cuts, abrasions, or bruises); or

`(iv) significant loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty


But see, you're not mentioning how not only is torture prohibited, but so is cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment of individuals in custody.

(1) IN GENERAL- No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

(2) CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT DEFINED- In this subsection, the term `cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment' means cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.

But Hawk makes my most basic point more lucidly than I do- suspending Habeus Corpus for anyone is bad, mmmm'kay, and clearly anti-American on its face. We should not tolerate it under any conditions.

I'm still figuring out how I feel about this issue. The Founding Fathers obviously understood that said writ may need to be suspended under some circumstances. Do you disagree with them on that issue, i.e., the whole rebellion/invasion thing being an acceptable condition for suspending the writ? Should the Constitution be amended such that it can never be suspended under any circumstances? Like I said, I'm still thinking about my position on this so I'm curious how others feel about it.

[Zogo]

why aren't we just executing non-US citizens we suspect of being terrorists? they don't have any rights right? it'd save time and money.

I just pray that logical people are out in record numbers.

what's the logical action?

Should the Constitution be amended such that it can never be suspended under any circumstances?

yes, if that's the assumption that it already wasn't working under. there is a proper way to change the constitution..and it doesn't involve a strongman doing it.

[VeeKaChu]

Schtoofa- regarding your query on my views about the suspension of HC during "times of rebellion or invasion", I'd say no, I don't object to that language existing. Enacting that is intended to serve a specific function under specific conditions, none of which exist right now.

Here's an interesting article on how we "don't torture" people at Gitmo -

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11128331/follow_omar_khadr_from_an_al_qaeda_childhood_to_a_ gitmo_cell

I challenge anyone to read that and then state that the interrogation tactics described are not "cruel and unusual". Certainly you may simply dissmiss the whole thing as leftist propaganda, but the sources seem reliable to me, and many of the tactics described- such as "stress positions"- are deemed to be within permissible standards.

[Kartikeya-OD]

Why can't the suspension of HC exist then in the case of terrorism? It can be just as easily stated that it would have served a specific function under just as specific conditions during our time. It would seem sounder to just always allow HC verses selecting specific situations that are deemed suitable for the suspension of HC.

[dys]

If we would like to hold H.C. and the Geneva Conventions with such high regard, and I'm confident all of us do, then how can we sit idly by and let it be taken advantage of, exploited and manipulated by 'the bad guys' (for lack of a better common definition)

By not applying these rights to those that do not wish to honor them it could be said that when it comes to this situation we will take our gloves off and not recognize such people for their heinous ways in today's society.

Now I understand those statements can be twisted and reworded to make it sound like a terrible thing, and I too worry that the new law could be applied in many abusive ways, far beyond the current scope it is being applied, but any terrorist-affiliated person that's truely looking to inflict harm upon this country does not have any respect from me with regards to their humanity and I do not care what happens to them. To help keep that check and balance on the law being abused, I stand by my statement that it should be up for review in a certain time frame, and in my opinion that should be once a year if not more. Additionaly, I think that anytime this law is enacted upon a certain individual, the goverment should immediately have to report it to an indpendent, non-goverment, non-military panel to review the actions, even if it's after the fact.

[VeeKaChu]

Why can't the suspension of HC exist then in the case of terrorism? It can be just as easily stated that it would have served a specific function under just as specific conditions during our time. It would seem sounder to just always allow HC verses selecting specific situations that are deemed suitable for the suspension of HC.It could, when that language is in the Constitution. But it's meant to be used under extreme conditions, and under- presumably- evident bi-partisan oversight.

It's not necessary in this case. CheneyCo wants it to ostensibly enable them to more effectively interrogate and try terrorists, not to put down an active rebellion or foreign invasion. there's no justification for them to need to go so far- they should be able to accomplish their goals without infringing on basic human rights.

Think of the warrantless wiretapping- there's no reason to believe that the FISA court wouldn't have granted the court orders necessary for the taps in question. In fact all the legal experts who looked at it said they most certainly would have. Yet they still felt the need to 'end-aroud' established LAW. Why?

Boiled down, it's flagrant abuse and seizure of undue and really uneccesary power by one Branch, in direct contravention of the marvelous system that's in place to prevent that very thing. Congress has done a horrible job of protecting us against it. Shame on them. And shame on anyone who thinks it's justifiable.

[Zogo]

but any terrorist-affiliated person that's truely looking to inflict harm upon this country does not have any respect from me with regards to their humanity and I do not care what happens to them.

that's operating under the assumption that everyone we pick up is a guilty terrorist.

presumably- evident bi-partisan oversight.

will that matter? there's been instances where R's/D's have been happy to sweep corruption under the rug for their buddies on the other side of the aisle.

Yet they still felt the need to 'end-aroud' established LAW. Why?

they're doing something that the general public and even FISA wouldn't stand for.

[xero]

Why can't the suspension of HC exist then in the case of terrorism? It can be just as easily stated that it would have served a specific function under just as specific conditions during our time. It would seem sounder to just always allow HC verses selecting specific situations that are deemed suitable for the suspension of HC.Someone needs to take a class on terrorism.

You can suspend habeaus corpus during a war because war is war -- with definite beginnings, endings, targets, and objectives.

Terrorism is too ambiguous a term to employ war powers. If you start suspending habeaus corpus, there is no end. The democracy comes to a complete halt, and the terrorists win.

Besides, 'terrorist' itself is such an ambiguous term that it's practically useless to this discussion. The establishment is the one who decides who's a terrorist -- that can be a really bad thing.

If you look at every country that's ever tried such heavy-handed counter-terrorism tactics, they're ruined democracies full of roaming 'self defense' forces, paramilitaries, and terrorist organizations. And all those people end up targeting the same 'subversives,' who happen to be the moderates.

[Kartikeya-OD]

You can suspend habeaus corpus during a war because war is war -- with definite beginnings, endings, targets, and objectives.

Amazing logic. Because war is war... Since when did a war have a definite end? Your hindsight is nice though.

Terrorism is too ambiguous a term to employ war powers. If you start suspending habeaus corpus, there is no end. The democracy comes to a complete halt, and the terrorists win.

I guess we should call it the ‘skirmish on terror’ then huh? I really enjoyed the connection to suspending HC to an absolute no end where the terrorist win.

Besides, 'terrorist' itself is such an ambiguous term that it's practically useless to this discussion. The establishment is the one who decides who's a terrorist -- that can be a really bad thing.

You and many others have missed some of the finer points of this act. It puts nearly everything through a military tribunal, instead of leaving it hanging out somewhere. This is a huge check on the executive branch and it’s in direct response to the earlier ruling from the Supreme Court. In your world who would be deeming someone a terrorist?

[Zogo]

Amazing logic. Because war is war... Since when did a war have a definite end? Your hindsight is nice though.

usually when a treaty is signed and you stop occupying. when you "declare war" on something as broad as a something ingrained into human nature then it has no end.

I guess we should call it the ‘skirmish on terror’ then huh? I really enjoyed the connection to suspending HC to an absolute no end where the terrorist win.

terrorism will never cease to exist..a leader could suspend what he wants indefinitely. even if we pushed a button and made al qaeda disappear..that's one out of a few thousand terrorist groups that are classified by a name. not to even mention random acts of terrorism.

[SUPITSREV]

exactly what in this instance is a military tribunal, and how can I be ensured that my rights are being looked out for against the evil fascist president? what makes a military tribunal such a good check on the abuse of power of the executive branch, and for reference to this particular instance, why is a military tribunal a better check on executive abuse than HC or like, more traditional institutions, you know, Congress or the court system?

I just dont see a bunch of military officers protecting me from abuse of their own commander in chief as a viable option over protection under the court system.

I get what veek is saying about this. If for whatever reason, Bush needed YOU to disappear and make it legit, this is what would likely be invoked, if he even felt like he needed to give a reason. Not that that is likely to happen, but once that foot gets through the door...

[Zogo]

... how can I be ensured that my rights are being looked out for against the evil fascist president?

bush already called the constitution "a @#$@#$ piece of paper."

[hawk]

Amazing logic. Because war is war... Since when did a war have a definite end? Your hindsight is nice though.
Kart can't you just concede that the War on Terrorism will never be won - and therefore will never end. That's the point that everyone is making.

[Kartikeya-OD]

Kart can't you just concede that the War on Terrorism will never be won - and therefore will never end. That's the point that everyone is making.

If that’s the case you should start learning Arabic my friend. The Jihad will not stop.

[larcain]

Kart can't you just concede that the War on Terrorism will never be won - and therefore will never end. That's the point that everyone is making.


I'm not certain that even if that statement is true it should preclude us from taking the necessary steps to protect ourselves.

[schtoofa]

I'm not certain that even if that statement is true it should preclude us from taking the necessary steps to protect ourselves.

hawk - I agree that said war can never be "won" in the traditional sense of the word, but larcain's point makes sense to me.

It's more a matter of to what extent do we go to protect ourselves... *shrug*

[hawk]

If that’s the case you should start learning Arabic my friend. The Jihad will not stop.
This isn't even a real response.

Larcain, the whole issue of pointing out the war on terrorism will never end is that it means there is no end to the suspension of HC. It's pretty clear that the suspension of HC is only meant as a temporary solution, not permanent. When the justification for something clearly marked "temporary" is permanent, that is a problem.

[King_Nada]

I'd just like to add that I love tyranny. Torture, not so much.

King

[Kartikeya-OD]

This isn't even a real response.

Larcain, the whole issue of pointing out the war on terrorism will never end is that it means there is no end to the suspension of HC. It's pretty clear that the suspension of HC is only meant as a temporary solution, not permanent. When the justification for something clearly marked "temporary" is permanent, that is a problem.

The point behind my response is rather blunt. Just because you can't come up with a reply doesn't take away it's merits. The Jihad will stop honestly for one reason, when the west falls.

Why should HC be applied to uec's as defined by this act?

[Rand]

Because the way that I learned and read the Constitution is that we defend against things like this. Stress the defend. Not overtly act.

[Zogo]

If that’s the case you should start learning Arabic my friend. The Jihad will not stop.

lol..have anymore weak xenophobic rhetoric? are you out to eliminate all non-english languages now?

I'm not certain that even if that statement is true it should preclude us from taking the necessary steps to protect ourselves.

where does the protection end? liberty and security are diametrically opposed in certain instances. after the next terrorist attack the politicians will blame someone else (as usual) and take away more rights.

when the president takes his oath of office he promises to defend the constitution.

[hawk]

Kart, you're hardly making sense here. My first quote is the war on terror cannot be won, your response:

If that’s the case you should start learning Arabic my friend. The Jihad will not stop.

and then

The Jihad will stop honestly for one reason, when the west falls.

If anything your responses show the war cannot be won, like I said. You're right, the Jihad will not stop until the west falls. The west will not fall, so there is no end to this war on terror. Unless you're somehow suggesting we're going to end all terrorism. Regardless, if you don't end the war, you don't win the war.

So please, I invite you to enlighten me on what point we will have "won" the war on terror so we can go back to our normal system of justice. Or do you go even further and suggest that this should be a permanent change to our system (that's another debate, I suppose).

[MidnightStalker]

Rome won't fall either. Ever.

[SUPITSREV]

neither will the byzantines

[Repair Man]

neither will those fucking weeble wobbles

[AntioK]

The west will not fall

Everything falls eventually, maybe not in our lifetimes, but eventually everything falls, It took Rome 1000 years, We have only been around for 1/4th that time(America anyway), we have a ways to go to keep pace with Rome, and I don't think its looking all that promising.

[hawk]

/Me claps. Way to totally derail a thread with a resemblance of actual discussion by pointing out minutia that is irrelevant. Will the west fall? Probably, but the point is not any time soon. If you read the entire context of my post which is about the length of the war on terror, you would understand that. But good job guys, real great job – you are true scholars.

[dys]

Personaly I can't think of a single instance where weeble wobbles are not relevant topics of discussion.