War Crimes (A Look at the Military Commission Act and Existing International Law) (1503 hits)
Category: PoliticsLabels: ets_sociopolitical_commentary ets_essays
Rating: 0.49 on 120 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (View user info) at 2006-10-18 11:49:00 EDT
---------------------
Introduction
---------------------
At this moment, I'd like you all to join me in looking closely at something your Congress signed into law 10 days ago and your president signed yesterday. It's called the Military Commissions Act.
I'm not gonna give my opinion on this Act. I'm not going to fluff it up or politicize it. I'm not going to tell you how the Mark Foley story has managed to completely hide this Act away from public scrutiny, shuffling it away from the front pages. I'm just going to highlight some points and set them against the backdrop of international law. Then I want you to decide for yourself whether you think this Act is a good idea.
Whether you think the War on Terror is a trumped up battle cry designed to obfuscate and control the national security debate, or a legitimate struggle to maintain democracy and freedom against the forces of chaos and evil doesn't matter. It is surely not a vain assumption on my part to assume that BOTH sides of this issue can convene around a desire to follow and uphold the Constitution of the United States.
Democrats and republicans do not, at least publicly, argue that the Constitution, which includes the Bill of Rights, is a worthy set of standards and ideals upon which to carry our country forward even in times of war. Likewise, it is reasonable to assume that both democrats and republicans agree that international laws are also important because they offer a neutral, international standard in times of chaos and conflict.
With this in mind, let us proceed.
-----------------------------------------------
*Nazis and the Nuremberg Principles*
-----------------------------------------------
At the end of WWII, public war crimes trials were held for many of the high level officials in the Nazi party at Nuremberg. The principles on which they were tried for their crimes are called the Nuremberg Principles. Please take a moment to look over them and familiarize yourself. They are:
Principle I
Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.
Principle II
The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.
Principle III
The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
Principle IV
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
Principle V
Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.
Principle Vl
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:
1. Crimes against peace:
1. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
2. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
2. War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or illtreatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
3. Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
Principle VII
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principles VI is a crime under international law.
[source: http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-nurem.htm or http://www.answers.com/topic/nuremberg-principles]
If you are reading this sentence now and you still don't know what the Nuremberg Principles say, you should go back and read them again. Why are these principles of particular interest? We will elaborate on that later. For now, let us proceed with a look at the Geneva Conventions.
-------------------------------------------
*The Geneva Convention of 1949*
-------------------------------------------
Now let's talk for a moment about the Geneva Conventions. I will focus here on the Third Geneva Convention, which deals mostly with treatment of POWs and took place in 1949. I will not reproduce the entire Convention text here, but will give selections that are pertinent to our present concerns. Here are selections from the Third Geneva Convention of 1949:
(Article 4) "Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy"
* "Members of the armed forces"
* "militias...including those of organized resistance movements...having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance...conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war"
* "Persons who accompany the armed forces"
* "Members of crews...of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft"
* "Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."
(Article 5): "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act..." is a prisoner of war "...such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
(Article 13): "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated."
(Article 13): "...Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity."
(Article 17): "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."
(Article 25): "Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favorable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area."
(Article 27): "Clothing, underwear and footwear shall be supplied to prisoners of war"
(Article 33): "Members of the medical personnel and chaplains while retained by the Detaining Power with a view to assisting prisoners of war, shall not be considered as prisoners of war. They shall, however, receive as a minimum the benefits and protection of the present Convention, and shall also be granted all facilities necessary to provide for the medical care of, and religious ministration to prisoners of war."
(Article 39): "Prisoners of war, with the exception of officers, must salute and show to all officers of the Detaining Power the external marks of respect provided for by the regulations applying in their own forces."
(Article 42): "The use of weapons against prisoners of war, especially against those who are escaping or attempting to escape, shall constitute an extreme measure, which shall always be preceded by warnings appropriate to the circumstances."
(Article 60): "The Detaining Power shall grant all prisoners of war a monthly advance of pay..."
(Article 69): "Immediately upon prisoners of war falling into its power, the Detaining Power shall inform them and the Powers on which they depend, through the Protecting Power, of the measures taken to carry out the provisions of the present Section. They shall likewise inform the parties concerned of any subsequent modifications of such measures."
(Article 72): "Prisoners of war shall be allowed to receive ... books, devotional articles, scientific equipment, examination papers, musical instruments, sports outfits and materials allowing prisoners of war to pursue their studies or their cultural activities."
(Article 88): "Officers, non-commissioned officers and men who are prisoners of war undergoing a disciplinary or judicial punishment, shall not be subjected to more severe treatment than that applied in respect of the same punishment to members of the armed forces of the Detaining Power of equivalent rank."
[source: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument]
-------------------------------------------------------------
*War Crimes Act of 1996 and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld*
-------------------------------------------------------------
The War Crimes Act of 1996 was meant to clarify any grey area in U.S. law and codify elements of international convention within it. In terms of importance, the War Crimes Act of 1996 makes it easier to prosecute offenders inside the United States if either the victim or the perpetrator of the war crime is a U.S. national or armed service member. Here is the War Crimes Act of 1996:
18 U.S.C. § 2441. War crimes
(a) Offense.--Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances.--The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such breach or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
(c) Definition.--As used in this section the term 'war crime' means any conduct--
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non- international armed conflict; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.
[source: http://www2.uakron.edu/low/War%20Crimes%20Act%20of%201996.doc or http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.3680: or http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002441----000-.html]
In 2006, the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld Supreme Court decision ruled that detainees in the "war on terror" were covered under the Third Geneva Convention. This means that any breach of the Geneva Convention by U.S. armed service personnel upon any detainee in the "war on terror" could lead to a U.S. trial for international war crimes.
Enter the Military Commissions Act...
-------------------------------------
*Military Commisions Act of 2006*
-------------------------------------
October 17, 2006, the president of the United States is signed the Military Commissions Act into law. This law needs to be read to be believed. It is actually a pretty decent law with decent protections for prisoners all the way up till about the last 10 pages. What follows are a few exerpts from this Act. I will refer to the quoted text by their page number in the first PDF file for easy reference.
I urge everyone to read this act in its entirety, but I will attempt to provide an overview with my selections. The new law appears to offer many good protections from blatant abuse but still restricts a prisoner's right to challenge his detention. Many of the questionable parts come right at the end. Others are peppered throughout. It puts great power of prosecuting the "war on terror" in the hands of the Secretary of Defense and destroys habeas corpus for inmates, meaning the duration of a person's detention before appearing before the military commission is codified to be more or less indefinite, without recourse.
[source: http://balkin.blogspot.com/Bush.Military.Commissions.Bill.pdf or http://balkin.blogspot.com/Military.commissions.bill.925.pdf]
-- PAGE 4 --
(5) The Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct. 2749 (2006), held that the military commissions established by the Department of Defense under the President's Military Order of November 13, 2001, were not consistent with certain aspects of United States domestic law. The Congress may by law, and does by enactment of this statute, eliminate any deficiency of statutory authority to facilitate bringing terrorists with whom the United States is engaged in armed conflict to justice for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commissions. The prosecution of such individuals by military commissions established and conducted consistent with this Act fully complies with the Constitution, the laws of the United States, treaties to which the
United States is a party, and the law of war.
-- PAGE 8 and 9 --
"the Act makes clear that the Geneva Conventions are not a source of judicially enforceable individual rights, thereby reaffirming that enforcement of the obligations imposed by the Conventions is a matter between the nations that are parties to them."
-- PAGE 11 --
"(5) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT
.—The term 'lawful enemy combatant' means an individual determined by or under the authority of the President or Secretary of Defense (whether on an individualized or collective basis) to be:
(i) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents;
(ii) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities,which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance,carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
(iii) a member of a regular armed forces who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.
-- PAGE 12 --
"(7) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT
.—The term 'unlawful enemy combatant' means an individual determined by or under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense
"(A) to be part of or affiliated with a force or organization—including but not limited to al Qaeda, the Taliban, any international terrorist organization, or associated forces—engaged in hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents in violation of the law of war;
"(B) to have committed a hostile act in aid of such a force or organization so engaged; or
"(C) to have supported hostilities in aid of such a force or organization so engaged.
"This definition includes any individual determined by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, before the effective date of this Act, to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant, but excludes any alien determined by the President or the Secretary of Defense (whether on an individualized or collective basis), or by any competent tribunal established under their authority, to be
(i) a lawful enemy combatant (including a prisoner of war), or
(ii) a protected person whose trial by these military commissions would be inconsistent with Articles 64-76 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of August 12, 1949. For purposes of this section, the term "protected person" refers to the category of persons described in Article 4 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of civilian Persons in Time of War of August 12, 1949.
-- PAGE 14 and 15 --
"(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION
.—The procedures for military commissions set forth in this chapter are modeled after the procedures established for courts-martial in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. However, it would be neither desirable nor practicable to try unlawful enemy combatants by court-martial procedures. The trial of such persons by military commission presents new challenges that require that interpretations of this Act not be unduly influenced by the rules and procedures developed for courts-martial.
-- PAGE 17 --
"(b) DETAIL OF MEMBERS
.—When convening a commission, the convening authority shall detail as members thereof such members of the armed forces as, in his opinion, are fully qualified for the duty by reason of age, education, training, experience, length of service, and judicial temperament.
-- PAGE 18 --
"(c) EXCUSE OF MEMBERS
.—Before a commission is assembled for the trial of a case, the convening authority [Secretary of Defense or appointee] may excuse a member of the commission from participating in the case.
-- PAGE 24 --
§ 948r. Compulsory self-incrimination prohibited; statements obtained by torture
"(a) IN GENERAL
.—No person shall be required to testify against himself at a commission proceeding.
"(b) STATEMENTS OBTAINED BY TORTURE
.—A statement obtained by use of torture, as defined in U.S.C. § 2340, whether or not under color of law, shall not be admissible against the accused, except against a person accused of torture as evidence the statement was made.
"(c) STATEMENTS NOT OBTAINED BY TORTURE.—
No otherwise admissible statement may be received in evidence, including statements allegedly obtained by coercion, if the military judge finds that the circumstances under which the statement was made render it unreliable or lacking in probative value.
-- PAGE 25 and 26 --
"(b) RULES OF EVIDENCE
.—Subject to such exceptions and limitations as the Secretary [of Defense] may provide by regulation, evidence in a military commission shall be admissible if the military judge determines that the evidence would have probative value to a reasonable person.
"(c) HEARSAY EVIDENCE
.—Hearsay evidence is admissible, unless the military judge finds that the cir cumstances render it unreliable or lacking in probative value, provided that the proponent of the evidence makes the evidence known to the adverse party in advance of trial or hearing.
"The military judge shall exclude any evidence the probative value of which is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the members of the commission, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
-- PAGE 31-34 --
"(e) LIMITED EXCLUSION OF THE ACCUSED FOR THE PROTECTION OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION
.—(1) The military judge may, subject to the provisions of this subsection, permit the admission in a military commission under this chapter of classified information outside the presence of the accused.
"(2) The military judge shall not exclude the ac cused from any portion of the proceeding except upon a specific finding that extraordinary circumstances exist such that—
"(A) the exclusion of the accused
"(i) is necessary to protect classified information the disclosure of which to the accused could reasonably be expected to cause identifiable damage to the national security, including intelligence or law enforcement sources, methods, or activities; or
"(ii) is necessary to ensure the physical safety of individuals; or
"(iii) is necessary to prevent disruption of the proceedings by the accused; and
"(B) the exclusion of the accused-
"(i) is no broader than necessary; and
"(ii) will not deprive the accused of a full and fair trial.
"(3)(A) A finding under paragraph (2) may be based upon a presentation, including an ex parte or in camera presentation, by either trial counsel or defense counsel.
"(B) Before trial counsel may make a presentation described in subparagraph (A) requesting the admission of classified evidence outside the presence of the accused, the head of the executive or military department or governmental agency which has control over the matter(after personal consideration by that officer) shall certify in writing to the military judge that—
"(i) the disclosure of such classified information to the accused could reasonably be expected to prejudice the national security; and
"(ii) such evidence has been declassified to the maximum extent possible, consistent with the requirements of national security.
"(4)(A) No evidence shall be admitted if the accused is not present for its admission or the evidence is not otherwise provided to the accused, unless the evidence is classified information and the military judge makes a specific finding that—
"(i) consideration of the evidence by the commission, without the presence of the accused, is warranted; and
"(ii) admission of an unclassified summary or redacted version of that evidence would not be an adequate substitute and, in the case of testimony, alternative methods to obscure the identity of the witness are not adequate; and
"(iii) admission of the evidence would not deprive the accused of a full and fair trial.
"(B) If the accused is excluded from a portion of the proceeding, the accused shall be provided with a redacted transcript of the proceeding and, to the extent practicable, an unclassified summary of any evidence introduced. Under no circumstances shall such a summary or redacted transcript compromise the interests warranting the exclusion of the accused under this subsection.
"(5)(A) Military defense counsel shall be present and able to participate in all trial proceedings, and shall be given access to all evidence admitted under subparagraph (4).
"(B) Civilian defense counsel shall be permitted to be present and to participate in all trial proceedings, and shall be given access to evidence admitted under subparagraph (4), provided that civilian defense counsel has obtained the necessary security clearances and that such presence and access are consistent with regulations that the Secretary may prescribe to protect classified information.
"(C) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any defense counsel who receives classified information admitted pursuant to subparagraph (4) shall not be obligated to, and may not, disclose that evidence to the accused.
-- PAGE 39 --
"§ 949j. Opportunity to obtain witnesses and other evidence
"(a) IN GENERAL
.—(1) Defense counsel in a military commission under this chapter shall have a reasonable opportunity to obtain witnesses and other evidence, including evidence in the possession of the United States, as specified in regulations prescribed by the Secretary [of Defense].
-- PAGE 61 --
"§ 950j. Finality of proceedings, findings, and sentences
"(a) FINALITY
.—The appellate review of records of trial provided by this chapter, the proceedings, findings, and sentences of military commissions as approved, reviewed, or affirmed as required by this chapter, are final and conclusive. Orders publishing the proceedings of military commissions are binding upon all departments, courts, agencies, and officers of the United States, subject only to the authority of the President.
"(b) PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER SOLE BASIS FOR REVIEW OF MILITARY COMMISSION PROCEDURES AND ACTIONS
.—Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, and notwithstanding any other law (including section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, or any other habeas corpus provision), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the date of enactment of this chapter, relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission convened under this section, including challenges to the lawfulness of the procedures of military commissions under this chapter.
-- PAGE 74-75 --
"(23) TERRORISM
.—Any person subject to this chapter who intentionally kills or inflicts great bodily harm on one or more persons, or intentionally engages in an act that evinces a wanton disregard for human life, in a manner calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government or civilian population by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct, shall be guilty of the offense of terrorism and shall be subject to whatever punishment the commission may direct, including, if death results to one or more of the victims, the penalty of death.
"(24) PROVIDING MATERIAL SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM
.—Any person who provides material support or resources, knowing or intending that they are to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, an act of terrorism (as defined in subsection (b)(23) of this section), or who intentionally provides material support or resources to an international terrorist organization engaged in hostilities against the United States, knowing that such organization has engaged or engages in terrorism (as defined in subsection (b)(23) of this section), shall be guilty of the offense of providing material support for terrorism and shall be subject to whatever punishment the commission may direct. The term 'material support or resources' has the meaning provided in 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b).
"(25) WRONGFULLY AIDING THE ENEMY
.—Any person who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States or one its co-belligerents shall be guilty of the offense of wrong fully aiding the enemy and shall be subject to whatever punishment the commission may direct.
-- PAGE 77 and 78 --
SEC. 5. JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00002241----000-.html] is amended by replacing subsection (e) with the following:
"(e) Except as provided for in this subsection, and notwithstanding any other law, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim of cause of action, including an application for a writ of habeas corpus, pending on or filed after the date of enactment of this Act, against the United States or its agents, brought by or on behalf of any alien detained by the United States as an unlawful enemy combatant, relating to any aspect of the alien's detention, transfer, treatment, or conditions of confinement:
"(1) COMBATANT STATUS REVIEW TRIBUNALS
.—The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of any final decision of a Combatant Status Review Tribunal.
The scope of such review is defined in section 1005(e)(2) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.
If the Court grants a detainee's petition for review, the Department of Defense may conduct a new
Combatant Status Review Tribunal.
"(2) MILITARY COMMISSIONS
.—Review shall be had only of final judgments of military commissions as provided for pursuant to section 247 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
"(3) INFORMATION CONSIDERED
.—The court may consider classified information submitted in camera and ex parte in making any determination under this section.".
-- PAGE 79 --
(b) RIGHTS NOT JUDICIALLY ENFORCEABLE.—
(1) IN GENERAL
.—No person in any habeas action or any other action may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto as a source of rights, whether directly or indirectly, for any purpose in any court of the United States or its States or territories.
--------------------
Conclusion
--------------------
Ok, I have to admit, I was reading this bill thinking to myself, "Geeze, what's all the fuss about. Then I ran across pages 77 through 79 and it became clear. It doesn't really matter whether all the laws are followed to a "t" during a person's detainment if they have no way of finding out why they are being detained or forcing their captors to give them a fair and SPEEDY trial, or reaching an outside source of justice to check upon their captors or file complaints under Geneva.
Remember the War Crimes Act of 1996? They amended subsection (c)(3), and it now limits the definition of a war crime - moving it away from a sweeping concordance with Geneva Conventions and, instead, makes a list of its own. This serves to exclude certain practices from being defined as war crimes.
There seems to be no protections against indefinite detainment. There are no limitations on how long a person can be detained before the necessary evidence is collected for trial. This is a 180 degree shift from the presumption of innocence in civilian law enforcement. There, the police must show cause, obtain warrants, and charge those they arrest with a crime. Of course, it's understandable if a person is a terrorist, they need to be detained posthaste, but there also needs to be accountability in this process. Not everyone at Gitmo is someone who was witnessed by American forces doing wrong. Many were handed over to our forces by Pakistani or Afghani bounty hunters. Identity is not always assured.
Although the judge, under this statute, is obliged to inform the members of the commission the detainee is innocent until proven guilty, the fact that a person can be held so long until trial without any hope of challenging their detainment in a civilian or international forum is like running a concentration camp. Furthermore, the fact that they have little or no opportunity to confront their accusers, especially in cases where information is classified, poses a real problem, particularly in capital cases, where a potentially innocent life hangs in the balance.
Let's finish up by revisiting the Nuremberg Principles. Why did I bother posting them? How are they pertinent? They are pertinent because they say something about the way in which even war criminals - which includes the worst kind of criminals imaginable - should be treated under international law. According to the Nuremberg Principle, even war criminals have rights. Read Principle V: "Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law."
According to this, Saddam Hussein has rights. Osama Bin Laden has rights. Josef Stalin had rights. And yes, if he'd been caught by soldiers instead of committing suicide in his lowly bunker, even Hitler himself would have had rights.
The right to a trial, to face your accusers and defend against their accusations before a neutral judge or a panel of peers, is among the many rights the Nazis denied certain people themselves, but were afforded anyway at Nuremberg. Why?
Why should a war criminal who has spent his whole career denying others this fundamental right, even to the point of murdering them in cold blood by the tens of thousands, be afforded this fundamental right once caught by international forces? Why do we not shoot them down in the street like dogs, or torture them publicly instead? Why do we not just skip the trial business and throw them to the mob to be torn limb from limb?
Sure, we could do that. In fact, it would probably streamline the system a great deal if we did. But we could no longer call ourselves a society of men. If we lowered ourselves to the level of these criminals, we would certainly be no better than them. This is the moral foundation of society. The right to trial is one of the things that separates men from beasts. It is so basic, to think of a world without it would require such a devolution of thought, one would have to become an animal to comprehend it. One would be no better than a broken horse - unquestionably loyal and afraid of his master, not remembering the bittersweet taste of freedom.
While this bill appears to offer certain protections against most types of torture and appears to provide fair trials to accused terrorists when they are finally charged with a specific crime; the problem is, it does nothing to curb the possibility of indefinite detention.
User Reviews
Submitted by Chazzy (user info) at 2006-10-21 12:47:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-10-19 14:49:08 (#)
Ranking: 2
OK.
What seems to get lost in this semantic 'discussion' is the fact that this travesty opens the door for continued abuse of power.
Period.
The United States government is not responsible nor transparent enough to wield this kind of power!
So how about all you GI Joe assholes fuck off with the patriotic bullshit for a moment to realize that your altruistic dedication to your country, while admirable, blinds you from any rational consideration of the multiple failures of that very same government. The government has consistently manipulated your noble contribution to pledge your life for our protection.
We appreciate you. We all appreciate your participation in attempting to secure our greater safety. Thank you.
However, the bottom line is: Your government is a fucking disaster. The people responsible for the orders you so diligently follow are being handed down by malignant fuckers with suspect motives and the sort of righteous self interest that actually CREATES the very people you have signed up to protect us from. Now, while I know it goes against your programming to question orders - you really need to start making the rational choice to not be so god damned obtuse and willfully ignorant. Do some fucking research. Ask some fucking questions. PLEASE?
Open your programmed little minds up just wide enough to consider what the deplorable ramifications of what this Military Commission Act means outside of the battlefield.
This isn't chicken little bullshit here... this is the suspension of rights without ANY sort of process. Plucking suspicious mother fuckers right off the street and locking them up. In SECRET JAILS, no less.
What is next? Jailing journalists... incarcerating opinionated nerds fucking around on the internet?
More people need to scream BULLSHIT!
We need to collectively become a LOT more aware and smarten the fuck up in a hurry people. All of us.
------------------------
Hit. Nail. On. Head.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-20 13:51:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Check out what's on CSPAN2 right now.
Submitted by Flack (user info) at 2006-10-19 19:17:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
ETS is totally gonna get his ass kicked by some crazy Mossad agent, just because....
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-19 18:28:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-19 16:30:58 (#)
Ranking: 0
Again, you're confusing your timeline. That's par for the course.
Even though this particular argument has little to do with the larger debate over the Military Commissions Act, I will entertain it one last time...
I'll start by saying this: ISRAEL STARTED THE BOMBING FIRST!
Hezbollah kidnapped 2 soldiers in response to members of their own forces being taken prisoner and then Israel started bombing towns full of civilians where they thought Hezbollah forces were stationed.
That's the true recent timeline here the one you so conveniently try to confuse, along with both the Israeli and American media, for the most part.
Hezbollah only started firing rockets into Israeli cities AFTER Israel had fired upon theirs. Anyone who says otherwise is either mistaken or LYING. Which are you, Indo?
I acknowledged that Hezbollah's firing on Israeli civilian targets was a mistake both in terms of international empthy and in terms of morality, and said I didn't condone it, but I UNDERSTOOD it. Why? Because realistically what recourse did they have when their own civilians were being bombed?
It's not like they had the benefit of satellite imagery of all the locations of Israeli forces like their oppostion did of them, right? So, strategically speaking, how are you going to make use of the weapons you DO have without just firing into an empty field?
Do they celebrate civilian Israeli deaths? Some of them probably do. Some, I know, do not. But it's the same on both sides. The history of this conflict has deeper roots than just a couple soldiers or a few Israeli-held prisoners.
What kills me is how people like you can possibly think that the Palestinians or Lebanese are some kind of media powerhouses. You act as if they conveniently drag their dead civilians in front of journalists, or maybe even shoot them themselves to make for a good picture. To listen to you, one might think they're all PR experts with deep conspiratorial connections in the American and international media. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, it is the Israelis and their powerful Washington lobby that has managed to skew the debate in their favor. They managed to confuse the situation by ignoring the reason Hezbollah kidnapped the soldiers in the first place - because Israel was holding Hezbollah members prisoner already.
This "what came first, the chicken or the egg" routine is indicative of the very arguments Israelis and Muslims have amongst themselves to justify their conflict, and it's getting old. It's also completely beside the point of this post.
-------------------------------------
Where is your source ETS?
I know you wouldn't trust an Israeli paper because they are as evil as the US.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=737825
So how about the UN report?
http://domino.un.org/unispal.NSF/fd807e46661e3689852570d00069e918/87e2508779d8ec83852571b6004c761f
"The crisis started when, around 9 a.m. local time, Hizbollah launched several rockets from Lebanese territory across the withdrawal line (the so-called Blue Line) towards Israel Defense Forces (IDF) positions near the coast and in the area of the Israeli town of Zarit. In parallel, Hizbollah fighters crossed the Blue Line into Israel and attacked an IDF patrol."
Hezebullah fired rockets when they crossed the border.
What recourse did they have when their people were being bombed? First off they could stop firing rockets from civilian areas (the only places Israel bombed). Secondly to stop a ground invasion they could give the troops they took back. That is what they could do. They coulld save their rockets for when Israel came in on foot and fire them at troops tanks, but they chose not to.
As far as media games, watch the video I linked. Think back to the "aid worker" who paraded around a dead baby for the camera. Think back to every "protest" news footage you saw in the middle east where little kids are encouraged to throw rocks at tanks. Now either their parents want to put their kids in harms way, they know that Israel goes out of their way not to hurt kids and/or they like to use kids as shields. Ask yourself if you really think it is safe for a reporter to take pictures that hamas or hezebullah don't like in a hamas or hezebullah controlled area?
It is besides the point of this post but YOU brought it up by saying that groups like hezebullah are honorable soilders and should be treated under the rules of the geneva convention.
As to the point of this post it doesn't change anything the US is doing. It cements its current policy of not giving terrorists the protections of the geneva convention (which they are not entitled to). I have not read the whole thing, but unless it says it can be used against americans on american soil, I am not that worried. I think it is a mistake for public relations reasons, I think it sets a bad and dangerous precedent (slippery slope and all that), I think it won't last, but I agree with it in principle.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-10-19 17:52:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-19 16:30:58 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-19 15:42:58 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-19 13:57:02 (#)
Ranking: 0
Those of you arguing the Hezbollah thing.........
...
Simply put, I understand why they have to fight the way they do. Same as the insurgents in Iraq. Same for our own continental soldiers during the Revolutionary war. They ambush. They hit and run. They fire from the trees, at the enemies' backs. To stand up to your enemies toe to toe would be suicide if you were one of these groups. While I don't agree with it, I understand the temptation to say, "You're firing at our cities. You're firing at our innocent people. We'll fire at yours."
--------------------------------------
Ambush - fine.
Hit and run - fine.
Fire from trees - fine.
Fire at enemies backs -fine.
They don't do this, at least they don't just do this.
They fire rockets with the goal of hitting civilians.
They fire rockets indiscriminately, hoping to hit civilians.
They celebrate civilian death.
They fire rockets from civilian areas then cry when Israel strikes back at those civilian areas.
----------------------
Again, you're confusing your timeline. That's par for the course.
Even though this particular argument has little to do with the larger debate over the Military Commissions Act, I will entertain it one last time...
I'll start by saying this: ISRAEL STARTED THE BOMBING FIRST!
Hezbollah kidnapped 2 soldiers in response to members of their own forces being taken prisoner and then Israel started bombing towns full of civilians where they thought Hezbollah forces were stationed.
That's the true recent timeline here the one you so conveniently try to confuse, along with both the Israeli and American media, for the most part.
Hezbollah only started firing rockets into Israeli cities AFTER Israel had fired upon theirs. Anyone who says otherwise is either mistaken or LYING. Which are you, Indo?
I acknowledged that Hezbollah's firing on Israeli civilian targets was a mistake both in terms of international empthy and in terms of morality, and said I didn't condone it, but I UNDERSTOOD it. Why? Because realistically what recourse did they have when their own civilians were being bombed?
It's not like they had the benefit of satellite imagery of all the locations of Israeli forces like their oppostion did of them, right? So, strategically speaking, how are you going to make use of the weapons you DO have without just firing into an empty field?
Do they celebrate civilian Israeli deaths? Some of them probably do. Some, I know, do not. But it's the same on both sides. The history of this conflict has deeper roots than just a couple soldiers or a few Israeli-held prisoners.
What kills me is how people like you can possibly think that the Palestinians or Lebanese are some kind of media powerhouses. You act as if they conveniently drag their dead civilians in front of journalists, or maybe even shoot them themselves to make for a good picture. To listen to you, one might think they're all PR experts with deep conspiratorial connections in the American and international media. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, it is the Israelis and their powerful Washington lobby that has managed to skew the debate in their favor. They managed to confuse the situation by ignoring the reason Hezbollah kidnapped the soldiers in the first place - because Israel was holding Hezbollah members prisoner already.
This "what came first, the chicken or the egg" routine is indicative of the very arguments Israelis and Muslims have amongst themselves to justify their conflict, and it's getting old. It's also completely beside the point of this post.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-19 16:30:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-19 15:42:58 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-19 13:57:02 (#)
Ranking: 0
Those of you arguing the Hezbollah thing.........
...
Simply put, I understand why they have to fight the way they do. Same as the insurgents in Iraq. Same for our own continental soldiers during the Revolutionary war. They ambush. They hit and run. They fire from the trees, at the enemies' backs. To stand up to your enemies toe to toe would be suicide if you were one of these groups. While I don't agree with it, I understand the temptation to say, "You're firing at our cities. You're firing at our innocent people. We'll fire at yours."
--------------------------------------
Ambush - fine.
Hit and run - fine.
Fire from trees - fine.
Fire at enemies backs -fine.
They don't do this, at least they don't just do this.
They fire rockets with the goal of hitting civilians.
They fire rockets indiscriminately, hoping to hit civilians.
They celebrate civilian death.
They fire rockets from civilian areas then cry when Israel strikes back at those civilian areas.
----------------------
Again, you're confusing your timeline. That's par for the course.
Even though this particular argument has little to do with the larger debate over the Military Commissions Act, I will entertain it one last time...
I'll start by saying this: ISRAEL STARTED THE BOMBING FIRST!
Hezbollah kidnapped 2 soldiers in response to members of their own forces being taken prisoner and then Israel started bombing towns full of civilians where they thought Hezbollah forces were stationed.
That's the true recent timeline here the one you so conveniently try to confuse, along with both the Israeli and American media, for the most part.
Hezbollah only started firing rockets into Israeli cities AFTER Israel had fired upon theirs. Anyone who says otherwise is either mistaken or LYING. Which are you, Indo?
I acknowledged that Hezbollah's firing on Israeli civilian targets was a mistake both in terms of international empthy and in terms of morality, and said I didn't condone it, but I UNDERSTOOD it. Why? Because realistically what recourse did they have when their own civilians were being bombed?
It's not like they had the benefit of satellite imagery of all the locations of Israeli forces like their oppostion did of them, right? So, strategically speaking, how are you going to make use of the weapons you DO have without just firing into an empty field?
Do they celebrate civilian Israeli deaths? Some of them probably do. Some, I know, do not. But it's the same on both sides. The history of this conflict has deeper roots than just a couple soldiers or a few Israeli-held prisoners.
What kills me is how people like you can possibly think that the Palestinians or Lebanese are some kind of media powerhouses. You act as if they conveniently drag their dead civilians in front of journalists, or maybe even shoot them themselves to make for a good picture. To listen to you, one might think they're all PR experts with deep conspiratorial connections in the American and international media. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, it is the Israelis and their powerful Washington lobby that has managed to skew the debate in their favor. They managed to confuse the situation by ignoring the reason Hezbollah kidnapped the soldiers in the first place - because Israel was holding Hezbollah members prisoner already.
This "what came first, the chicken or the egg" routine is indicative of the very arguments Israelis and Muslims have amongst themselves to justify their conflict, and it's getting old. It's also completely beside the point of this post.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-19 15:42:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-19 13:57:02 (#)
Ranking: 0
Those of you arguing the Hezbollah thing.........
...
Simply put, I understand why they have to fight the way they do. Same as the insurgents in Iraq. Same for our own continental soldiers during the Revolutionary war. They ambush. They hit and run. They fire from the trees, at the enemies' backs. To stand up to your enemies toe to toe would be suicide if you were one of these groups. While I don't agree with it, I understand the temptation to say, "You're firing at our cities. You're firing at our innocent people. We'll fire at yours."
--------------------------------------
Ambush - fine.
Hit and run - fine.
Fire from trees - fine.
Fire at enemies backs -fine.
They don't do this, at least they don't just do this.
They fire rockets with the goal of hitting civilians.
They fire rockets indiscriminately, hoping to hit civilians.
They celebrate civilian death.
They fire rockets from civilian areas then cry when Israel strikes back at those civilian areas.
Please don't go on and on about how you know more because you look at other sources. Did you ever watch pallywood? After the thousands of videos you post try watching one that is impossible to fake, that shows how realistic the reporting you watch is.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/powerlinenews/video2/?bclid=78383014&bctid=187745401
The one thing I give Hammas and Hezebullah props for is the media war. They know that thousands of reporters will want pictures and news will carry anything that they take, but they also know that they control southern Lebannon (or gaza strip in the case of hammas) and only the pictures they like will make it out. Al- Jennin Massacre, mohommad al-dura all completely faked, all pretty common. They know people like you and the ignorant masses in the middle east will ignore videos from Israel, will ignore reports from people like a canadian UN officer who complains about being used as a human shield, will ignore reports from lebanese christian towns who complain about being used as a human shield, will ignore the few photos that can be spirited out and side with hezebullah.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=6&x_article=322
You say you can understand why hezebullah did what they did. Can you understand why the kidnapped the soilders? This started the recent violence. They instigated it, how else should israel have responded? What happens when they just give in? What happened when they just gave back Gaza? they were attacked. You will sit there and say that Israel bulldozed their houses first, but the fact is they gave Palestine land they wanted and in turn they were attacked. If this is how they are treated can you fault them for being aggressive with Hezebullah?
Never in the history of the world has a stronger force allowed a weaker one to attack them with impunity. You supporting Hezebullah supports the way of thinking that says it is ok to kidnap soilders or randomly fire rockets onto civilians with no chance of hitting a military target. I don't like what Israel does, but at least they have a military target, they don't lob missiles and hope to hit civilians. They have punished their own for hitting civilians, have you ever seen hezebullah do that? It is celebrated by hezebullah when a rocket kills a civilian.
The whole thing you miss is that Israel doen't fire on civilians first. If someone launches a rocket at them from a civilian area they have two choices, bomb that area or invade the country and fight their way to where the rocket came from (by which time the attackers will be gone) and make it so it can't be used to attack them by keeping the land. They can't trust Lebannon to police their own people. They can't give into their demands because one of the fundamental (and stated) goals of hezebullah is to wipe israel out.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-10-19 14:49:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
OK.
What seems to get lost in this semantic 'discussion' is the fact that this travesty opens the door for continued abuse of power.
Period.
The United States government is not responsible nor transparent enough to wield this kind of power!
So how about all you GI Joe assholes fuck off with the patriotic bullshit for a moment to realize that your altruistic dedication to your country, while admirable, blinds you from any rational consideration of the multiple failures of that very same government. The government has consistently manipulated your noble contribution to pledge your life for our protection.
We appreciate you. We all appreciate your participation in attempting to secure our greater safety. Thank you.
However, the bottom line is: Your government is a fucking disaster. The people responsible for the orders you so diligently follow are being handed down by malignant fuckers with suspect motives and the sort of righteous self interest that actually CREATES the very people you have signed up to protect us from. Now, while I know it goes against your programming to question orders - you really need to start making the rational choice to not be so god damned obtuse and willfully ignorant. Do some fucking research. Ask some fucking questions. PLEASE?
Open your programmed little minds up just wide enough to consider what the deplorable ramifications of what this Military Commission Act means outside of the battlefield.
This isn't chicken little bullshit here... this is the suspension of rights without ANY sort of process. Plucking suspicious mother fuckers right off the street and locking them up. In SECRET JAILS, no less.
What is next? Jailing journalists... incarcerating opinionated nerds fucking around on the internet?
More people need to scream BULLSHIT!
We need to collectively become a LOT more aware and smarten the fuck up in a hurry people. All of us.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-10-19 14:11:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY? I AM NOT A MAN
SEXY TIME EXPLOSION!!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-19 14:07:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
But I like you better, George.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-10-19 14:03:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You like men
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-19 13:57:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Those of you arguing the Hezbollah thing.........
...
Hezbollah are more or less the people's army. They fight together where they do because they ARE composed of common citizens. There is a core that trains and lives together as an army, then there are the common citizens that fight with them, basically from their own homes. It is necessary they do this if they're going to stand up to the second or third most powerful army in the world.
Israel indiscrininately shot rockets into these places because a couple soldiers had been kidnapped. They killed hundreds of innocent people. How is taking 2 soldiers diferent from what Israel does in Palestine almost every day? Knocking down doors with their boots, raiding houses, taking people into Israeli prisons? There are two sides to this story and some people refuse to even TRY to see the other side.
You say I have no idea what's going on there, but I know just as well as any of you. You know what you've seen on your TV and read on the internet just like me. Difference is, I actively searched out the other side because I wanted to know, and because all I was hearing on American TV was the Israeli side - like it's too fucking taboo or something to say, "maybe those Jews are fucking wrong for once."
Simply put, I understand why they have to fight the way they do. Same as the insurgents in Iraq. Same for our own continental soldiers during the Revolutionary war. They ambush. They hit and run. They fire from the trees, at the enemies' backs. To stand up to your enemies toe to toe would be suicide if you were one of these groups. While I don't agree with it, I understand the temptation to say, "You're firing at our cities. You're firing at our innocent people. We'll fire at yours."
The Revolutionary War is a perfect example. The Continental Army were just a bunch of farmers. They weren't all regulars and they weren't always organized. A lot of them helped how they could and when they could.
War now is NOTHING like then. It is even more imperative an enemy fight guerilla style warfare if they stand a chance in hell of winning against the most powerful armies on the planet. In the age of GPS guided missiles and satellite imagery, you can't just stand in the fucking open, twiddling your thumbs, making plans. You'd better have your ass in someone's basement or bunker or you'll be a dead man, and you'll lose.
You people wanna talk about "fair"... How "fair" is it that the United States Army can fire guided missiles at enemy ranks hundreds of miles away - in another country even - if they see, via satellite imagery, an enemy army is on the move? You hear about it all the time. You've seen images of it happening on your TVs and you've thought nothing of it other than "good riddence to the enemy". But did you ever think for a second that if these people don't possess the same ability to fire long range rockets with accuracy, that they might have to fight in a guerilla way to win? Did you ever consider that it is out of total necessity they blend in with the population and attack only when an opportunity presents itself?
These "rules of war" are a good idea when you're talking about regular armies with the wherewithal to face each other toe to toe, but not when you're talking about poor people in a broken country with an occupying force in limited space in the desert with limited natural cover and an enemy that's got the most advanced weaponry ever devised by man.
Think about it. Don't just say it isn't "fair" and think you're right because the talking heads on American TV agree with you. Really think and consider this point.
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2006-10-19 12:01:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I find it amusing/sad how willing so many intelligent Americans are to become no better than those they call terrorists. America is the bad guy now, get your heads out of your asses. Everyone else in the world sees it. You've killed more innocents than any terrorist. You torture. You gun down children, rape women. America is no better than those you label terrorists.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-10-19 07:46:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ETS, I'm sorry, but he's absolutely right. They use our own rules of engagement against us. They know what we are and aren't allowed to do, and use it to their advantage. This isn't a regular war with two armies fighting each other. If it was, it would have been over a long time ago.
I'm not FOR the war going on, but they don't fight fair, and I don't think we should have to either.
I laugh, because if you went over there spouting all this bullshit, some hezbollah terrorist would walk up to you and shoot you in the face just for being an American pig and not a devout Muslim. He won't care who's side you're on.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2006-10-19 01:35:04 (#)
Ranking: -2
They (Hezbollah) are considered a "terrorist organization" by the administration and the Israelis, but they have regular uniforms and fight head on like an army. They are, in fact, a Lebanese militia, so there is inconsistency in the definition of "terrorist" there.
--------------
NO THEY DO NOT YOU COWARDLY CUNTRAG! They hide among civilian populations, they cache their weapons in schools, mosques, and hospitals. They are NOT AN ARMY, they are NOT A MILITIA. They display their flag only when the enemy is nowhere in sight, and they march in uniform in parades and displays, but never in battle.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-19 07:32:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-19 01:51:44 (#)
Ranking: 0
Anthony,
Let's say for a moment I'm wrong on my Hezbollah statement. Let's say I don't know what I'm talking about because all the news organizations I've relied on have led me to believe a lie...
Still with me???
Ok.
What does that really have to do with this law I'm talking about in the post? How is that really pertinent in the larger scheme of things? Does that make me, by default, wrong on this too? If so, how am I wrong?
You see...this is the nature of REAL debate. You can disagree on the details all you like, but if you haven't attacked the core of my assertions, they will live on. They will breed and grow in the consciousness of those that read my words like an itch that just won't go away.
If you don't knock me down in any meaningful way, the itch will become a full blown rash.
I'm not saying you're right. I knew full well someone would use exactly the argument you just used. I'm not an idiot. The official line on Hezbollah has always centered around the assertion of them "hiding amist innocents". That may well be true, and I may well be wrong on that point, but you cannot win the greater argument by attacking the fringes.
Don't be scared, motherfucker. Don't be a fucking pussy. That's what you're acting like...a fucking PUSSY!
ATTACK ME WHERE IT MATTERS!
----------------------------------
The fact that you still cling to Hezebullah being a real militia and denying their tactics (which have been proven multiple times with video footage from Israel, AP photographs, and actual lebeanese witnesses) destroys your argument by destroying your credability. Anyone who claims they fight in uniform and engage the enemy like a regular army has absolutely no idea what is going on.
The fact is this law doesn't break the geneva convention. It only cememnts the US's already taken position of not giving enemy combabtants who fight under no flag, under no rules of engegement all the rights that people who do these things would recieve.
The people that they describe are not protected under the Geneva convention.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2006-10-19 06:20:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-18 11:55:07 (#)
Ranking: -2
Shut the fuck up. Has the government beat down your door yet? Your repeated threats on the president actually deserve a visit...
I'm not fucking worried because I am not conversing with terrorist suspects in Pakistan's caves.
I think you are a god damned criminal with how fearful you are of the government "finding you out."
Go back to YOUR cave.
---------------------------
Fucking stupid idiot.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-10-19 05:37:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Honestly, why aren't people more upset about this?
...oh right. No one gives a shit.
hmmm. Sad.
GO BEARS WOOOOOOO!*dies* ...lolzers and a OMFG.
We certainly are a sack of distracted willfully ignornat apathetic mouth-breathing assholes ain't we?
.
.
.
How do I change this channel?
+
+
+
Society is broken!
WEEEEEEEP.
- We the people. For the people. By the people. Remember? No? YES?
'We the people' need to grow us a big fucking sack o' BALLS and take this world back... from ourselves.
Don't we?
We should.
Right? Right? Right?
DUUUUUUURRRR DUURRRRRR. SUPER FRIENDS!!!!one one one!!!! WEEEeeeeeeee
.\\end transmission.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2006-10-19 03:21:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-19 02:48:45 (#)
Ranking: 0
If this was just about "them", it might be different, but this is about all of us. If you can't take the time to read this law and see that, you're simply illiterate.
Call me a madman all you like, it's not going to change what's right there in black and fucking white.
--------
The black and white says I'm right. It's because you're insane that you don't understand that.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-19 02:48:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
If this was just about "them", it might be different, but this is about all of us. If you can't take the time to read this law and see that, you're simply illiterate.
Call me a madman all you like, it's not going to change what's right there in black and fucking white.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2006-10-19 02:09:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-19 01:51:44 (#)
Ranking: 0
Anthony,
Let's say for a moment I'm wrong on my Hezbollah statement. Let's say I don't know what I'm talking about because all the news organizations I've relied on have led me to believe a lie...
Still with me???
Ok.
What does that really have to do with this law I'm talking about in the post? How is that really pertinent in the larger scheme of things? Does that make me, by default, wrong on this too? If so, how am I wrong?
You see...this is the nature of REAL debate. You can disagree on the details all you like, but if you haven't attacked the core of my assertions, they will live on. They will breed and grow in the consciousness of those that read my words like an itch that just won't go away.
If you don't knock me down in any meaningful way, the itch will become a full blown rash.
I'm not saying you're right. I knew full well someone would use exactly the argument you just used. I'm not an idiot. The official line on Hezbollah has always centered around the assertion of them "hiding amist innocents". That may well be true, and I may well be wrong on that point, but you cannot win the greater argument by attacking the fringes.
Don't be scared, motherfucker. Don't be a fucking pussy. That's what you're acting like...a fucking PUSSY!
ATTACK ME WHERE IT MATTERS!
-----------
Brad, I've been nailing you like my first love since the minute you started spouting this bullcrap. Your general response is to ignore it, blow by it, and continue to spout tin-foil hat conspiracies. Knock you down in a meaningful way? I have unloaded a lead meteorite onto your skull in any and every argument we've ever had. The point I've always made is that I CANNOT win an argument with you, because you are insane! It is impossible to win an argument with a madman like yourself. Facts are pitiful things you swat with flies, malleable to you as quicksilver. I "attack the fringes" as you say, because a blow to your shoulder is as troublesome to you as a strike through your heart.
Our enemies are not uniformed combatants. The only place they fit under the Geneva convention is non-uniformed agents, (AKA spies), which makes them eligible for summary execution. In any event, they don't get habeus corpus. Never have. Never will.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-19 01:51:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Anthony,
Let's say for a moment I'm wrong on my Hezbollah statement. Let's say I don't know what I'm talking about because all the news organizations I've relied on have led me to believe a lie...
Still with me???
Ok.
What does that really have to do with this law I'm talking about in the post? How is that really pertinent in the larger scheme of things? Does that make me, by default, wrong on this too? If so, how am I wrong?
You see...this is the nature of REAL debate. You can disagree on the details all you like, but if you haven't attacked the core of my assertions, they will live on. They will breed and grow in the consciousness of those that read my words like an itch that just won't go away.
If you don't knock me down in any meaningful way, the itch will become a full blown rash.
I'm not saying you're right. I knew full well someone would use exactly the argument you just used. I'm not an idiot. The official line on Hezbollah has always centered around the assertion of them "hiding amist innocents". That may well be true, and I may well be wrong on that point, but you cannot win the greater argument by attacking the fringes.
Don't be scared, motherfucker. Don't be a fucking pussy. That's what you're acting like...a fucking PUSSY!
ATTACK ME WHERE IT MATTERS!
For once, one of you grow the fucking balls to attack me where it truly matters and stick with it.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2006-10-19 01:35:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
They (Hezbollah) are considered a "terrorist organization" by the administration and the Israelis, but they have regular uniforms and fight head on like an army. They are, in fact, a Lebanese militia, so there is inconsistency in the definition of "terrorist" there.
--------------
NO THEY DO NOT YOU COWARDLY CUNTRAG! They hide among civilian populations, they cache their weapons in schools, mosques, and hospitals. They are NOT AN ARMY, they are NOT A MILITIA. They display their flag only when the enemy is nowhere in sight, and they march in uniform in parades and displays, but never in battle. If you ever, ever fucking stopped for five seconds to address the inconsistencies in your bullshit, you'd....we'll you'd probably just go right by it and keep believing what you believe because that's what you want. Because you are insane.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-19 01:14:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by nyxmar (user info) at 2006-10-18 20:27:05 (#)
Ranking: 2
This law is total bullshit, we are erasing the checks and balances that were setup for a reason. John Adams once said our government was setup so devils could run it but do no harm. we have released the devils and they are going to bite us in the ass. It no longer takes evidence or a judge to imprison someone, it merely takes a man and his views now, tell me how this is different than some of the worse dictatorships ever known.
----------------------
Thank you. You have no idea how much it means to me to see others that SEE IT.
Thanks to Anansie too, and all the rest of you who, in this time of craziness and plastic fear, are able to cut through the smog of disinformation wearing the goggles of reason.
The few of you who do make me, for the first time in ages, PROUD to be a fucking American!
*I need to lay off the wine :$*
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2006-10-18 22:11:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I forgot about the time zone difference. You might want to tune in *now.
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2006-10-18 21:20:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You might want to tune into pbs right about now.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-18 20:51:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-10-18 20:20:16 (#)
Ranking: 1
"How many heads did the American Rebels cut off? How many sneak attacks that only had the goal of civilian casualties did they pull off?"
If you replace heads cut off with hanging then the answer to these is quite a few.
--------------------------
of reporters? of Contractors? Yes they did hang people, but so did the British. To be honest I don't know who hung more, I am guessing the Americans since you brought it up.
Submitted by nyxmar (user info) at 2006-10-18 20:27:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This law is total bullshit, we are erasing the checks and balances that were setup for a reason. John Adams once said our government was setup so devils could run it but do no harm. we have released the devils and they are going to bite us in the ass. It no longer takes evidence or a judge to imprison someone, it merely takes a man and his views now, tell me how this is different than some of the worse dictatorships ever known.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-10-18 20:20:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
"How many heads did the American Rebels cut off? How many sneak attacks that only had the goal of civilian casualties did they pull off?"
If you replace heads cut off with hanging then the answer to these is quite a few.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-18 20:02:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 19:47:43 (#)
Ranking: 0
Look at Stabkill and Indo.
I almost feel important with all this smear campaign bullshit.
You guys are a waste of money. Whoever is paying you is getting ripped off.
------------------------------
"How much more evidence do you need to assure yourselves that for the last 100 years or so, organizations of powerful W.A.S.P.s and Jews have pooled their resources in an effort to preserve and expand their wealth and power throughout the world?"
Those nasty organizations of jews.
Fucking idiot.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/94316
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 19:49:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2006-10-18 19:27:06 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 17:14:39 (#)
Ranking: 0
Olbermann: The Day Habeas Corpus Died
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6Eh1in8s6Oc
________
WOW.
America keeps on slippin' slippin' slippin', into dictatorship...
------------------------
There is a guy who works in the cubicle beside me, and when I told him about the Military Commissions Act and what it does, his jaw dropped to the floor.
I couldn't help but say, "Dude, I TOLD you."
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 19:47:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Look at Stabkill and Indo.
I almost feel important with all this smear campaign bullshit.
You guys are a waste of money. Whoever is paying you is getting ripped off.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-18 19:43:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 13:19:30 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:52:39 (#)
Ranking: 0
Jesus Christ, do you have a job? where do find the time... never mind.
---
* "Members of the armed forces"
* "militias...including those of organized resistance movements...having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance...conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war"
* "Persons who accompany the armed forces"
* "Members of crews...of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft"
* "Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."
---
The scumbag terrorists do not fit any of these catagories.
---------------------------------
There is a fundamental hypocritical problem here.
First, Hezbollah.
They are considered a "terrorist organization" by the administration and the Israelis, but they have regular uniforms and fight head on like an army. They are, in fact, a Lebanese militia, so there is inconsistency in the definition of "terrorist" there.
Then you have the Iraqi resistence, which skirts the line of definition of "freedom fighter" since they are battling an occupying force. The Geneva Convention isn't clear about what constitutes an "occupied territory". That's a fairly subjective definition, I would think, particularly when there has been ceaseless fighting since the American and British forces landed.
Then there is Hamas. Labeled a "terrorist organization" again by the administration and Israel, they are now legitimate leaders of their government by popular election. Again, inconsistency.
Then think about our own American Revolution. By our own definition of "lawful combatant", our forefathers who fought in the revolution and won our independence were nothing more than common war criminals.
--------------------------------------------
Bullshit. Show me a Hezebullah uniform. Do regular armies fight by hiding among civilians and launching rockets into any civilian town they can reach?
If the Iraqi's insurgents are freedom fighters why are the largest numbers of those they have killed been innocent civilians? Why do they go to towns and round up people of a particular faith to execute them?
Now with Hamas you have a point, I don't think you can really classify them as terrorists since they were elected. Their stated desire is to wipe israel off the map, and they have committed acts of war by attacking Israel. I think they are within their rights to declare war on Palestine, but this would not help them internationally. The present course of cutting off all funding until they agree to the right of Israel to exist is a reasonable solution.
How many heads did the American Rebels cut off? How many sneak attacks that only had the goal of civilian casualties did they pull off? I don't see this as black and white and their is room for debate but if you are seriously trying to compare the actions of revolutionaries in the Us with any of these groups you need a history lesson. The war started (it had been brewing for a while) when the british regulars tried to take arms from the Massachusetts militia. The key word being militia, at that point they didn't have a uniform, but for a good portion of the war they did.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 19:42:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Thanks BrandDo. I agree with you. People are starting to wake up to the blatant corruption. They're just shell-shocked and uncertain what to do about it. Maybe we'll figure it out before it's too late. I just hope "too late" wasn't "yesterday".
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15147009/
Turn on MSNBC right now. In 15 minutes here is another Keith Olbermann Special Comment coming on. It will replay at 11:00 CST if you miss it. Either way, I'll post it here. They're usually VERY good.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-18 19:29:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-18 14:48:57 (#)
Ranking: 0
I bet ETS is blind to the fact that anyone who spews the same rhetoric as himself are usually Anti-Establishment anarchists and anti-American foreigners with a distain of American politics, particularly GW Bush.
The fact that ETS's agenda seems to line up exactly with radicals, terrorists, and people who just plain hate the USA should speak volumes to an ordinary person.
-------------------------
Don't forget he also blames powerful jews for working behind the scenes to run the world the way they like.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/94316
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2006-10-18 19:27:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 17:14:39 (#)
Ranking: 0
Olbermann: The Day Habeas Corpus Died
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6Eh1in8s6Oc
________
WOW.
America keeps on slippin' slippin' slippin', into dictatorship...
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-10-18 19:25:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
HOLYSHITLOADOFTEXTIWON'TREADBECAUSEYOURACUNT!
Submitted by BranDo (user info) at 2006-10-18 19:09:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This should help to prove Iraqi Freedom was a crime committed by the U.S.A in the first place and the whole War on Terror is not going to produce a victory on either side. It might be more productive to look at the reasons why 'terrorists' target the U.S.A. and how that could be changed.
By writing this I'm considered a liberal or lefty and I can live with that.
I believe that a lot of Americans are changing their view of the world and how their country is behaving on the international stage.
You that never have done nothin' but build to destroy
You play with my world like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand then you hide from my eyes
Then you turn and run farther when the fast bullets fly
Like Judas of old you lie and deceive
A world war can't be won, and you want me to believe
But I see through your eyes and I see through your brain
Like I see through the water that runs down my drain
--B.Dylan
Peace
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 17:16:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Another link: http://youtube.com/watch?v=_pG_VI5Tyko
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 17:14:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Olbermann: The Day Habeas Corpus Died
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6Eh1in8s6Oc
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-10-18 16:39:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
This seems like a good place to linkwhore
http://www.ubersite.com/m/94577
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 16:36:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
(Article 4) "Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy"
* "Members of the armed forces"
* "militias...including those of organized resistance movements...having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance...conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war"
* "Persons who accompany the armed forces"
* "Members of crews...of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft"
* "Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."
-- PAGE 12 --
"(7) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT
.—The term 'unlawful enemy combatant' means an individual determined by or under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense
"(A) to be part of or affiliated with a force or organization—including but not limited to al Qaeda, the Taliban, any international terrorist organization, or associated forces—engaged in hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents in violation of the law of war;
"(B) to have committed a hostile act in aid of such a force or organization so engaged; or
"(C) to have supported hostilities in aid of such a force or organization so engaged.
"This definition includes any individual determined by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, before the effective date of this Act, to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant, but excludes any alien determined by the President or the Secretary of Defense (whether on an individualized or collective basis), or by any competent tribunal established under their authority, to be
(i) a lawful enemy combatant (including a prisoner of war), or
(ii) a protected person whose trial by these military commissions would be inconsistent with Articles 64-76 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of August 12, 1949. For purposes of this section, the term "protected person" refers to the category of persons described in Article 4 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of civilian Persons in Time of War of August 12, 1949.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 16:33:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-10-18 16:27:54 (#)
Ranking: -2
by your interpretation of the geneva convention, adherence to it would not allow snipers either.
--------------
EXACTLY!
Snipers are terrorists under both Geneva Convention and the Military Commissions Act.
Read it and tell me differently. You don't have to "research it", asshole. The fucking bill is reprinted for you in the post....
but you knew that already, didn't you...?
Because you read it, right...?
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-10-18 16:27:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
by your interpretation of the geneva convention, adherence to it would not allow snipers either. i'm not going to research it and give you my interpretation of it, though, because i don't have the political/historical/military background to do so. i just got done with midterms, my brain is done, and i refuse to do any more studying or research. all that i can surmise from your limited quote is that 'open arms' means that it is against the geneva convention to just up and attack somebody willy-nilly.
that being said, it could also be that the geneva conventions' soul purpose was to punish those that lose in war on a broad scale, so that those that lost would be held accountable for anything and everything. i could be wrong though, i'm no expert. near as i can tell though, you aren't either.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 16:20:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-10-18 16:03:15 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 15:56:55 (#)
Ranking: 0
The fact is, there is very little reason, other than creating more space in the prisons, to try any of the detainees under this Act. There is no obligation to even bring about charges, so why should they bother unless they were absolutely sure they were either guilty or innocent?
It really is insanity underneath.
------
by this logic, it makes no sense for the military to pursue those that it does not know for certain are guilty. it would make no sense for them to waste the resources in seeking them out, much less mudering them in a world arena that would view any pattern of injustice with a high degree of skepticism and reaction. basically, you can call me a sheep, but i have yet to see something go so wrong with the system that it has cause america, much less the world, to collapse. as near as i can tell, you offer no solution (not a viable one, anyways), and very little orignal insight into the discussion.
i'd stop wasting my time here if i had anything better to do.
------------------------
You really are a presumptuous moron. You look at everything I say from an such an obtuse angle. You PRESUPPOSE that everything I'm trying to say is about some kind of conspiracy. IT ISN'T!
STOP BEING SO GODDAMNED PRESUMPTUOUS AND JUST READ THE FUCKING SENTENCE, IDIOT!
FUCK! Why the hell weren't you aborted?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 16:16:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-10-18 15:57:43 (#)
Ranking: -2
seriously? did you misinterpret me that much that you thought i was arguing the nazis shouldn't be tried as war criminals? i'm just going to disregard that last statement and focus on your other bullshit.
-----------------
This is getting old.
You seriously don't listen do you? Your reading comprehension is on a level consistent with Method's article below. 5th grade level.
Where the HELL did you get that I didn't think Nazis should be tried?
Once again, you show you didn't read the post, nor did you understand my review, though it was perfectly clear.
As for the submarines, they aren't "openly presenting arms" now are they!? If you're hiding under the waves waiting to ambush a ship, you're not fighting under the rules of the Third Geneva Convention, Article 4.
You have no idea what I'm talking about, do you? :P
I thought not.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-10-18 16:03:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 15:56:55 (#)
Ranking: 0
The fact is, there is very little reason, other than creating more space in the prisons, to try any of the detainees under this Act. There is no obligation to even bring about charges, so why should they bother unless they were absolutely sure they were either guilty or innocent?
It really is insanity underneath.
------
by this logic, it makes no sense for the military to pursue those that it does not know for certain are guilty. it would make no sense for them to waste the resources in seeking them out, much less mudering them in a world arena that would view any pattern of injustice with a high degree of skepticism and reaction. basically, you can call me a sheep, but i have yet to see something go so wrong with the system that it has cause america, much less the world, to collapse. as near as i can tell, you offer no solution (not a viable one, anyways), and very little orignal insight into the discussion.
i'd stop wasting my time here if i had anything better to do.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-10-18 15:57:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
seriously? did you misinterpret me that much that you thought i was arguing the nazis shouldn't be tried as war criminals? i'm just going to disregard that last statement and focus on your other bullshit.
arguing that submarines are not legitimate forms of war fare is dumb. arguing that bombs we use against enemies is just plain stupid. by this same logic, bullets shouldn't be used either. as far as arguing the legitmacy of the atomic bomb, way to completely disregard all patterns of logic. the atomic bomb dropped at the close of the second world war has nothing to do with our judicial process for those we deem terrorists, nor does it make the present united states anything like them.
as far as calling it the 'war on terror', well this is not the grand injustice you interpret it to be. it's really just in how you interpret the word 'war' in this particular instance. the name is really just political posturing, and nothing else. it sounds a lot better to say you're fighting the war on terror than it is to say you are actively seeking out those that wish to do harm to our country and its citizens but don't fly under the flag of a recognized nation. with this in mind, we've always been fighting a war on terror, it's just that now we have a name for it. it does not mean that 'enemy combatants' had rights before this either, they didn't. to my knowledge, i can't think of a country that does afford them these rights (within their constitution), but i haven't thought about it that long. i'm going to go out on a limb and say not one does, you prove me wrong.
and as far as i'm concerned, the wire-tapping and everything else of that nature that you described is just as meaningless now as it was twenty years ago. the fact that you think that this is the first administration to wire-tap or spy on its own citizens makes you ignorant. the nsa has been monitoring us since its inception. or if you know it has been going on along, you'd realize not only does it not affect you, but that you have little control over it.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 15:56:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2006-10-18 15:16:50 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 14:28:44 (#)
Does anyone care to help me out on this one? Coyote? Bob? Anyone want to set Wardy straight here? He obviously won't listen to it if *I* say it. Probably won't listen to it anyway.
-=-=-=-=-=-
Well, I don't really know what you're exactly trying to establish.
I don't like the law because it gives a huge amount of power to a very small group of people, who cannot be challenged on their reasons for any of their decisions, or held accountable.
Which would be fine and dandy, if mistakes were never made and if the people at the very top levels of government were 100% honest and ethical... but that isn't now nor ever has been true. It opens up a huge gaping world of potential for abuse. And, according to senior JAG personnel, the dangerous parts of the law aren't necessary or helpful. The clear implication is that the law was explicitly constructed to remove any accountability from actions the CIA has *already* taken.
But the law could also be used in cases like the 14-year old kid in Kennebunk, Maine, who broke into a boathouse to steal a VHF radio, screwed up, tried to take out a security camera, and ended up burning the boathouse down in an act of colossal stupidity. Because George H.W. Bush had a boat in the boathouse, his family was questioned by the secret service, and instead of being sentenced to time in a juvenile facility in Maine, he was shipped off to a Federal prison 600 miles away (violating Maine state law). There were lots of appeals in the case, and I don't recall what ever happened to the kid. But suppose under the Military Commissions Act he was just declared an enemy combatant and whisked away for years? Sorry, you can't appeal. Sorry, we don't have to bring you to trial, we can hold you indefinitely. Sorry, you can't hear why we think you're a terrorist and not just an inept underage petty crook. Does enemy combatant apply only to non-citizens? Part of the act seems to suggest it, but the definition of enemy combatant later on doesn't make any distinction.
To be honest, I don't think the act is going to survive its first set of court challenges, even with the Roberts court... only Thomas and Scalia are contemptible enough to try to construct an argument that the act is consistent with the Constitution.
Both sides in the American Revolution did some very nasty things to each other. There's a reason most loyalists fled to Canada afterwards... different times.
-----------------
Basically I was trying to establish that Wardy was a moron. Not that it needed to be further established, but he, at least, has difficulty seeing it. Nevermind that, though. That's personal bullshit.
As for this Act...
I agree that, upon reading it, this Act has a very good veneer of benevolence. It takes a close read to see how much power is afforded to the Secretary of Defense, the President, and the Judge in the Commissions.
To me, it's like they've set up semi-reasonable procedures for conducting fair trials, complete with a limited appeals process...if only the detainees would ever stand a chance of getting TO trial!
The fact is, there is very little reason, other than creating more space in the prisons, to try any of the detainees under this Act. There is no obligation to even bring about charges, so why should they bother unless they were absolutely sure they were either guilty or innocent?
It really is insanity underneath.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 15:44:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-10-18 15:29:25 (#)
Ranking: -2
the nazis were a recognizable enemy in a war. they wore uniforms, they lead armies on an open field of battle, they pledged allegience to a nation that went to war with us.
--------------
This argument doesn't hold for several reasons.
First, war isn't waged the same way now as it was then. If you want to get technical about it, U-boats and b-2 rockets aren't exactly "open field" techniques. Neither were the atomic bombs we dropped on Japan.
Second, three words: "WAR on Terror".
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If there is a "WAR on terror" and we need extraordinary measures put in place such as spying on American citizens without a warrant, sifting through their emails, etc. then you're going to have to say it's a "war" and the combatants are lawful.
Problem is, we haven't officially declared a "war" since Korea, I think, so essentially this is already an illegal war according to our own Constitution. You can't just declare war on everyone or anyone.
If you're going to bend the definitions and call it a "WAR on terror", then you should also redefine what it means to be a lawful combatant, especially if they're not targeting civilians.
The way I see it, if it's a war on terror, any military target should be considered lawful. Even so, the Nazis killed millions of civilians, but not before sending them to slave labor camps. So it doesn't matter if they wore uniforms. They were war criminals either way.
Submitted by Maltese (user info) at 2006-10-18 15:30:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
As soon as I saw a post titled "War Crimes" on the Most Recently Reviewed, I knew it was by you.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-10-18 15:29:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 15:08:19 (#)
Ranking: 0
I think this is a philosophical difference that is not going to be resolved without you first growing up.
------------------
pot? kettle?
--
You seem to think that i