Yea - what was it Bush said - ‘They hate us for our freedom’, wasn’t it? Well, I bet they hate the much vaunted American ‘freedom’ a lot more now that they’ve had a taste of it !
If only that were true.
Well…one can hope.
Well, they’ve already started rigging the elections - and the people in the Ukraine at least had the guts to do something about it - while the American democrats just accepted it. http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff11262004.html
I didn’t say it would stop him from speaking, I said it would stop him from publicly agreeing with you. I’m assuming you didn’t understand that, and that you aren’t saying you want him to disagree with you.
What? I should ‘storm the Bastille’ and release them myself?
What else can we do, except write our elected representatives? Have a rally, I suppose; but would it do any more good? The other alternative is to come to the message board and point fingers and say, ‘Look how the Bush Administration is destroying Liberty!’ That’s all very well, but it won’t solve anything.
But IMO most Americans are apathetic about it. Those who aren’t either won’t try to do anything, not even write an e-mail, or they support the denial of our coveted Civil Rights as long as it doesn’t affect them.
Sometimes contacting elected officials can seem like banging your head against a wall, but it’s one of the best ways to get things done, imho. Getting voted out of office is like the death penalty for them. Even those who aren’t running again usually feel an obligation not to lose vote-share for their party. Of course, if 10 people write/call/email about this issue and 250 people write/call/email to say that the Ten Commandments ought to be placed in the lobby of the capitol building, well… But hey, you gotta try. I say “kudos”.
From this site:
The implication I see here is that the Geneva Conventions make specific definitions of who may or may not be protected by them. And combatants are usually defined as someone who’s a member of a recognized armed force, responsible to a government. This leaves the whole question of partisans, guerillas, and terrorists wide open.
Are they:
or someone performing terrorism?
In other words there is considerable wiggle room in these definitions, providing that we exclude the 1977 Protocols, for most ANY treatment of those persons caught carrying arms in support of attacks on occupying troops.
Doesn’t change that playing musical confinements, searching for the best place to torture suspected terrorists, is vile. Frankly, I would love to see the US finally frigging sign the damned Conventions.
If you want my opinion, a trial with due process, accusing the “detainees” of violating the Geneva Conventions would be all that is needed to provide a legitimate reason to hold them indefinitely. IANAL, so I may be wrong, but it can be argued that anyone found with arms on the site of a battlefield, as I understand the majority of the detainees were, is either a soldier or in violation of the provisions I’ve listed above. And being a soldier usually requires a rank, some form of ID, and a uniform.
Not only is this policy of Shrub’s wrong, it’s frigging stupid. sigh
Our dear European friends may not be aware that we have three branches of government. The proposal being floated by certain twits in the Administration will not fly (or to keep metaphors unmixed, will sink).
Sorry, but this would still be viewed as true, according to the vast majority of Americans as well as the potential immigrants waiting to gain entrance here (and who are mindful of the resentment and violence being directed against outsiders trying to establish residence in Europe).
And me.
It may be more a reflection of conditions elsewhere than some Absolute Truth, but there you go.
(I deliberately left out the part about “the best legal system in the world”, since I don’t recall hearing this claim being routinely made, and there are certainly enough flaws in it that I doubt many would want to hold it up as some kind of world model).
At the very least, if EVERYONE did it it would clog the inboxes of the powers that be, forcing them to finally address the spam issue.
They haven’t gotten directions from Rush, Bill, and Ann yet. Give 'em a day or three to get over those New Year’s hangovers.
I’m posting to 2 almost identical and simultanous threads on this subject, so forgive me if I’m being redundant (it’s late, too).
The central question at this time is granting the right of habeas corpus to the detainees. Even if they are classified as non-military combatant (terrorists, guerillas, what have you) and are not entitled to Geneva Convention protections, they should still have the right of habeas corpus – that is, a judicial review (by the civilian courts – not by the military or the executive) to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to detain them as non-military combatants in the first place.
In other words, under the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution, they have the right to have a judge review their case and say either, “Ok, this person is indeed classified correctly and may be detained” or “No, the administration has not met the burden of sufficiency, and is wrongly detaining this person”.
The Bush regime is attempting to deny these persons, and by extension anyone in the world (literally) they could potentially get their hands on, even this fundamental right, which applies to all persons in US custody, not just US citizens.
I have received a reply to my e-mail from the office of Senator Cantwell:
Nice, a standard boilerplate reply, probably from an 18 year-old intern.
Go democracy.
Note also that it completely sidesteps the habeas corpus issue that’s at the center of things right now. A response pointing this out might run along these lines: "I am frightened that the current administration apparently believes that the writ of habeas corpus doesn’t apply to ANYONE they believe is a terrorist any more, or more to the point, anyone they SAY they believe is a terrorist. This means they could “disappear” anyone at any time … me or even YOU, dear Senator. In what way are we different from Pinochet’s Chile under these standards?
Let me see…
How to get around this pesky habeas corpus anf 14th amendment thing…hmmm…
I have it!
We’ll build prisons, with American tax payers money, in the countries that these people come from and keep them there! Pay the overseers with taxpayer money and never have to let them go!
Well, you can knock me over with a feather now. As I noted up there, none of the right-wing lawyer types have been by to take either side of this issue. After twenty-four hours and a few posts that I know of in other threads, they’re still not saying a word, neither in this nor the GD thread.
I now understand the meaning of moral cowardice.
Hold on, courts martial ARE empowered by civil law: The UCMJ is a law written by Congress, and they’re the ones who get to change it, not the military. And based on my understanding of what I’d read on the Geneva Conventions site I’d posted a link to previously, courts martial are acceptable for the purposes of courts and due process rights under most interpretations of the Geneva Conventions. If I missed where it insisted on a civilian court, pleast point it out for me. (I’m not trying to be snarky or offensive, just saying that courts martial are real courts.)
That doesn’t change that I am all for maintaining the writ of habeus corpus. And in public trials, too. Star Chambers are bad things. Holding people indefinitely without even mentioning charges is bad, too. Even if the charge is simply: This person was caught on a battlefield with arms, and no ID, and is therefore presumed to be a terrorist; charging these detainees is the only proper thing to do.
BTW, pantom, if I’m not a conservative lawyering type, why the fuck am I wasting this brain sweat?
Sorry, but I’ve never run across you before. My apologies.
Hold the phone! In your previous post, you say IANAL.
So, is you is or is you ain’t?
Sorry, I’m not a lawyer. I have an interest in law and legal theory, as any reasonable citizen should, I think. But I have no real desire to pass the bar, or study that long to take a test graded on a 50% curve. 
I’d meant I was trying to discuss the legal issues involved, even though I don’t approve of all the methods being used. I was afraid I was being painted with your moral cowardice brush, and that’s what I was protesting. I’d meant to point to myself as an honest conservative-type rather than a lawyer.
If I mistook your intent, I do apologize for my thin skin.