It’s not surprising that the New York Times editorial board opposes the detainee interrogation bill that the Senate approved Thursday night. But its editorial Thursday is worth reading, because it provides a concise list of what it sees as the bill’s biggest flaws — including “a dangerously broad definition of illegal enemy combatant” that could give a president the power “to apply this label to anyone he wanted.”
One thing that seems clear is that the bill will end up in court. In fact, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (in photo), R-Pa., is counting on that. He had said the bill was “patently unconstitutional on its face” and tried to amend it. Yet he ended up voting for it anyway, explaining that “the court will clean it up” by striking the habeas corpus provisions, the Washington Post reported.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
66 Comments
That’s still a thumbs down for Wichita born Specter. Is he too chicken to do his own job, leaving it to the courts? If he (and others) felt the bill was unconstitutional, why vote for it? And what if the court doesn’t overrule it? Simple. Specter and the rest just risked the lives of all American citizens.
Boo! Hiss!
What these Bushies do not seem to understand is that whatever powers we give to Pres Bush now – the next president will have. Then they may not like the consequences of their actions today.
This is the same party that whines about activist judges. So, ok, a court cleans it up. This is what the legislative branch is supposed to do. And you know that if an “activist” judge rules against the GOP, all you will hear is wailing and gnashing of teeth. Lazy bleeps.
First of all, I think yesterday’s bill is just the Bushies way to cover George W. legal butt.
But then if a judge does strike it down, then they can get those Religious Righties to get all riled up about those activist judges taking over.
It is a win-win for the Republicans. They are betting on the fact that most Americans are too stupid to realize what their game plan is.
And what’s wrong with them damn cheeks?Are him and McCain having a floppiest jowls contest?
What concerns me the most about the detainee torture legislation is that it codifies us as being a nation that approves torture.
Let’s face it, though, war doesn’t exactly bring out the best in people. I knew a guy who was in the Army and served in Viet Nam. He would tell stories about how he and others would take 2 captured Viet Cong soldiers up in a helicopter, push one out and advise the remaining one the same would happen to him unless he talked; probably not a Geneva Conventions approved process.
The above type of thing has happened before and will occur in the future. My objection is: let’s not say that it is okay for it to happen.
We, as a country, need to stand for something besides barbarism. It is hard for me to believe that I would ever have to plead for such a thing. A clear sign that the Republicans have ruled for too long.
I guess I’m just too old to change. I remember when torturing was a violation of the Geneva conventions, and it was done by Russians, Chinese Commies, Nazis and North Koreans. I really believed in the sermon on the mountain, and that all men were created equal and had certain inalienable rights. What a fool I was.
“O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle — be Thou near them! With them — in spirit — we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it — for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.
(*After a pause.*)”Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of the Most High waits!”
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.
From the Washington Post:
“According to Woodward, Bush was absolutely certain he was on the right course on Iraq. The writer said that when Bush invited key Republicans to the White House to discuss Iraq, the president told them, ‘I will not withdraw even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me,”‘ referring to his wife and Scottish terrier.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/29/AR2006092900144.html
Believe I read something about some in congress decided to vote for the torture bill after getting something wrote in to keep it from being applied to American citizens. Speaks volumes about this president when his own party has to get it in writing!Knowing how Bush is, he’ll address that part with a signing statement.
Steve, he can always add his usual signing statement.
Bush doesn’t have to do what anybody thinks is right. He can’t be re-elected, and I’m sure he thinks his loyal Republican followers will continue to vote his yes-men back into congress yet again. It’s time to let him know he’s WRONG. Not that he’s been right, so far.
Oops, sorry, Steve! Somehow I missed your last sentence when I started typing. My bad. My apology. But, hey, like minds, and all that. :)
Please stop saying mean things about people. It is torture to my eyes and ears. Isn’t there enough torture in the world already without this torture blog torturing people of all races, whoever happens upon this blog will be tortured after reading about torture. Please make it stop, please stop torturing me!
As Marquis De Sade would probably say, ‘One mans torture, is another mans pleasure!’ Next CIA public announcement will be “The CIA, looking for a few sick puppies”!
It’s a sad day to be an American, that’s all I can say. I’m ashamed of our nation.
If all this torture is really working, then why are we not winning the Iraq war?
The USGS has reported strange seismological activities from the graves of our founding fathers… it is believed they are rolling over even as we speak.
What a truly sad day for a nation of the free, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
May this be a reminder to the quiet majority of this country who doesn’t vote that YES, IT DOES MATTER IF YOU DON’T PARTICIPATE.
The Democrats will need to get someone to run that will not back down from George W. Bush and his cronies. Someone that will get down and dirty with them in the sewer that they call politics.
And they said they were bringing ethics back to the White House – yeah right.
I have to start wondering about karma.
Yesterday, the GOP sold out America’s basic principles.
Today, a Republican congressman was revealed as a pedophile and the Republican leadership was revealed as trying to keep the story quiet.
Then there is the revelation that Jack Abramoff had far greater access to the White House than bush has admitted.
And then there is that troublesome book from Bob Woodward. His take jibes with intelligence agencies. bush is creating more terrorists than he is catching and it will only get worse.
There are different manners of torture. The GOP ok’d it for anyone THEIR president chooses to inflict it on.
And NOW they will endure quite a bit of it that they have brought on themselves.
Karma?
Every Congressperson swore to uphold the Constitution (heck, the probably even put their hand on a bible). With this vote that specifically removes the inalienable right of habeus corpus, which is as old as the Magna Carta, shouldn’t this be a clear violation of that oath and that they should be thrown out of office?
No, I’m probably asking too much of Kansans to throw the bums out. Except Moran, he can stay.
DougNo President in United States History has EVER believed that a POW deserved full constitutional rights.Not Washington, not Lincoln, not FDR, not Truman not Clinton!Name one President who thought a POW deserved Habeus Corpus rights?By the way, “enemy combatants” deserve even fewer rights that POW’s.Read the Geneva Convention before you pontificate!
http://www.genevaconventions.org/
What the United States is doing is NOT torture.
The entire Moslem world is far more harsh than the United States in their treatment of prisoners.
The entire Communist world is far more harsh in their treatment of prisoners.
We are not sanctioning bodily injury, only discomfort.
By the way, many, inclucing the Eagle, thought it was ok for Armitage to tell Pakistan that we would “bomb them to the stoneage” to get their cooperation.— So, is it ok to threaten thousands of lives, but not ok to make ONE person fear for their life?The public is against all of you liberals on this one, big time!
JR,
What goes around, comes around. Be patient. With all that going and coming, it may take a while.
Hey Paul, you idiot, where in the bill does it say the President can only call POWs enemy combatants? You didn’t even read the bill did you, you complete moron. It says the President can call anyone an enemy combatant.
Every POW was protected under the Geneva Convention. German POWs were sent to America and were well treated. When our POWs were maltreated we tried their captors for war crimes like what America did to the Japenese when they waterboarded our soldiers and we court marshalled our own soldiers when they waterboarded captured POWs in Vietnam. However Paul, you fucking fascist, you have no problem with torture because you are a coward who doesn’t have the balls to ever be in a situation. You are like your coward heros Bush and Cheney who dodged the draft and had other people, poorer people, die in their place.
I’m amazed that you have no problem with rape and torture. Actually I’m not surprised, because this is consistent with your perverted, sadistic mentality. You are slime. If you think this bill is not a problem then you are saying it is perfectly okay for Paul Rosell to be arrested, imprisoned without trial and tortured. Of course you are a hypocritical piece of shit who would cry foul if it happened to you but since you think it will only happen to Brown people you don’t have a problem with it. Fucking anti-American asshole coward.
Wow Doug…
Well said…
Paul, when will you figure out your right wing, wait, lets try flat out psychotic views are completely out of line…
You claim to have a point, you don’t, you claim to be a christian, your are not, you claim to even be republican, and you don’t even seem to do that well…
Paul, WTF are you smoking, cause what ever it is… Oh wait, ur smoking the same stuff Duba is!!!! That explains it everyone! Paul and Bush are sharing the same crack pipe!
Doug, (to use your words) YOU IDIOT, the bill refers to the Geneva Conventions and that treaty, which the terrorists did NOT sign, does mention Enemy Combatants!http://www.genevaconventions.org/
Of course, my point is: No President in history has ever felt that POW’s OR Enemy Combatants had full Constitutional rights.Aparently, you agree, as you have not cited a Presidential quote or action to prove me wrong!
The Geneva Convention was not overturned by this legislation, it was simply defined.This does NOT give anyone the ability to rape or bodily injure anyone.You guys are going nuts over this, but the public supports it very much.That is why it passed!That is why so many Democrats voted for it!You libs are lying about the bill:”The overall bill would prohibit war crimes and define such atrocities as rape and torture but otherwise would allow the president to interpret the Geneva Conventions, the treaty that sets standards for the treatment of war prisoners.”The above from yahoo news: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060929/ap_on_go_co/congress_terrorism_64
DougYou have brought shame upon yourself today. Just because you disagree with me, it does not give you the right to use such language.You do not know me at all.Frankly, all of my political views are very widely held, none of my views are the least bit “radical” if measured by their public support.Of course, the public can be wrong at times, so let me go further:There is NOTHING fascist or racist or sadistic in my nature or in my beliefs.I have had a cross burned in the yard where I lived, and had the N word written on the side of the dorm, because my Frat had both Black and Mexican members. I was often called a NIG EP as a slur. I stood up for our right to invite anyone we wanted as a member. I literally have the scars to prove it.I have twice given full CPR to strangers, once while still in High School.I was a volunteer EMT for the Red Cross for several years.I am a former Marine.I have been falsely accused by the United States Government and I cleared my name by defending myself in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.I am no coward.—- Yes, I have my faults. I am certainly not bragging here. There are many people that I can name who deserve more respect than I grant to myself.However, your tirade against me was dishonorable to you.It requires the rebuke of any gentleman.I am no coward sir.Harm those in my care and you will discover that fact very quickly!I hope that you can return to rational discourse without the inflamatory attacks.
Paul, do you want a medal or a chest to pin it on?
Paul you don’t even think rationally.And the USA cannot unilaterally decide what the convention means.The convention remains the same, it’s just tantamount to another bush signing statement saying that he’s above the law and will do what he damn well pleases.If you don’t like being called names then go somewhere else and comment. Otherwise quit whining like the know-nothing weenie we’ve come to know and despise.I can only think of a couple of people who comment here that haven’t called you the names that fit you so well. This is a microcosm of society, and if it came to a vote, you’d be the first to go. You’re not even bright enough to quit embarrasing yourself here, so I feel no shame, guilt or remorse for calling you an IDIOT one more time.IDIOT.
As usual the discussion is a rant of Bush bashing. You fail to mention the enemy and his intent or what he is doing to our people and friends. While you rant about the so called injustice of the way Bush prosecutes the war the Muslim fanatics are chopping off the heads of our soldiers and civilians who simply wish to live in peace. They mutilate their bodies then desecrate them. I never hear any outrage except with the behaviour of our soldiers and interogators who had the unmitigated gall to embarass the detainees. You were united with americans for about 30 days after 9/11, but it didn’t last. Soon you were complaining about flags flying and our actions and Bush hating. You have a focus problem and the people you are following have no moral charactor. The people who are killing us are the enemy. The media source you get your information from have been proven to fabricate facts, use bias and unreliable sources and are 97% Democrat with an adgenda, and do it with no appologies. You need to look beyond them and between the lines to find the truth. Anyone can say Bush is wrong but a better plan has yet to be presented. Any plan has yet to be presented. You bitched about the election in 2000 being stolen but you haven’t done a thing to change it. It is still the process you signed off on and agreed to. How can that be.
Stephen what makes you think we don’t know all about the enemy and their intentions. Of course we know all about it. You’d have to be hiding somewhere to not know.As far as a plan, it has been presented, I’ve published it right here before, and you bushies keep denying it even exists.Wherehave you been hiding?
Quit whining and read it.
http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/20060329_realsecurity.pdf#search=%22democratic%20plan%22
Where’d ya’ go stephen?Got that read yet?Didn’t think so.So, does anybody know if the repugs have any kind of plan?No, not stay the course.A REAL PLAN?
Habeas Corpus Eulogy
http://www.zefrank.com/theshow/#
If we allow torture today, because “they do it, too,” will we be among those who use beheadings tomorrow?
“You were united with americans for about 30 days after 9/11, but it didn’t last.”
I think it lasted a little longer than that. And wasn’t it Bush who said that we should all go about our normal lives? Something about going to the mall and shopping?
Of course it didn’t last. Bush had the majority of the world behind him when we went into Afghanistan. We had reason to do it. But instead of staying the course there, he decided to cut and run to invade a country that we had already defeated less than 10 years before, a country that’s defenses were limited because of that war and the sanctions we had placed on it. The reasons he presented to our country and the world for doing this were lies. That has been proven.
The invasion and occupation of Iraq and allowing it to splinter into religious factions is as much terrorism as the attack on the WTC. In the process, our own country has become just as divided. And for what? To defeat terrorism? If that’s true, why is the number of terrorists increasing, worldwide?
So bring it on! Yeah, and just how well has that worked?
So Paul when the bill says something like this:
“Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.”
it isn’t mentioning enemy combatants? Hmmm, because I see the phrase right in the legislation. It’s quite evident you have never even looked at the legislation.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:2:./temp/~c109XduCEh::
That’s why you are an idiot.
After reading this New York Times Editorial, the insanity of the Bush administration and the congress must be dealt with the strongest possible measures.
EditorialRushing Off a CliffPublished: September 28, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/opinion/28thu1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
The Jews { AIPAC} slips a rider on that rotten torture bill, which lines their pockets with a no limit 500 million dollars.
Last update – 15:41 30/09/2006U.S. Congress okays $500m for defense projects with IsraelBy Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz CorrespondentThe United States Congress on Friday approved an additional $500 million for developing joint defense projects with Israel.
The funds will be allocated between many different projects, including the development of a short-range missile interception system, navigation systems for missiles and combat aircraft, and aerial drones.
The money is not part of the regular military aid to Israel, which currently stands at over $2 billion.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/769104.html—–
TracyYou are very wrong.Every nation decides for itself how to interpret every treaty.This has always been the case throughout history.—–For instance, Tracy, most Moslem terrorists would find it degrading to be questioned by a female.Do we let the radical Moslems interpret the treaty or do we interpret it for ourselves?
DougYou are using a straw man arguement again.Doug the detail man! When you concentrate on details you miss the point:Did you not state that ANYONE can be called an enemy combatant by Bush, due to this legislation?Your very own quotes disprove YOU not me.
Doug: “Hey Paul, you idiot, where in the bill does it say the President can only call POWs enemy combatants? You didn’t even read the bill did you, you complete moron. It says the President can call anyone an enemy combatant.”
Doug also says: “So Paul when the bill says something like this:”Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.”—-hmmmmmm— doesnt Doug contradict himself? Where in the world does it say Bush can randomly, arbitrarily, declare anyone at whim to be covered by this legislation?
And, If I EVER said that this bill “Does not mention enemy combatants” I cant find the post. If I said it, I was wrong. I certainly didnt mean it at the time so I doubt I said it, but I am tired of looking. — But that was not the point anyway, Doug! The point is that this legislation DEFINES the Treaty, which our Congress has a right to do.The Geneva convention says that “enemy combatants” are NOT the same as lawful POW’s who are covered by every article of the Treaty.Unlawful Enemy Combatant is not a subcatagory of POW’s, it is a catagory of prisoners that do NOT deserve all of the POW Geneva Convention rights, according to the convention itself!In other words “POW” is a term of honor, and that term is not granted to Unlawful Enemy Combatants!In other words, this Bill is in perfect keeping with the Geneva Conventions on the definitions of Enemy Combatants and POW’s.Read the Geneva Conventions folks before you spout angry and ignorant comments.
http://www.genevaconventions.org/
By the way, since the United States still treats prisoners better than any other country that currently HAS war prisoners, how in the world have we brought any “shame” upon ourselves?——Those of you who don’t like this bill have the right to spout off all you want.You have no legal basis to claim, however, that this Bill is not Constitutional or that it violates the Geneva Conventions.
Let me help you understand: The Geneva Conventions spell out LAWFUL war behavior. Those who FOLLOW THE LAW are granted protections under Geneva. Those who do NOT follow the law are “unlawful enemy combatants” and are not granted full protection by that Treaty! Those who target civians, hide among civilians, do not wear uniforms, etc, are “unlawful combatants.”—–Show me a signatory to the Geneva Accords who thinks we have violated that treaty, and I will listen. I might not agree, but I would take that country’s objection seriously.No such country exists, however!—–I have an idea!
Why dont we challenge the Moslem world to sign on to the Geneva Conventions as defined by Congress and agreed to by Bush!That would actually make the world MORE humane, wouln’t it?
I keep hearing this thing about Muslim detainees being questioned by a female. Can we get the story straight, please? It wasn’t that she was a female, she (or she’s) mentioned being on her menstrual period. According to Muslim religion, a female in that condition is considered unclean and cannot be touched. She made sure she made physical contact.
You see, our interviewers know exactly what they’re doing when they’re doing it. Is this torture? Physically, no, but it could be considered mental, depending on the detainee.
The acceptable torture is similar to brainwashing, therefore, how does a torturer know that the information being given is correct?
RDYou are speaking of a specific instance, even in your example, I do not think that the United States Government should be held hostage by the radical religious belief that women on their periods can’t ask Moslems questions.Furthermore, the Geneva Conventions COULD be defined to mean that NO woman could EVER question or be in authority over ANY Moslem man.Again, I think we have to define the terms or the terms will be defined for us, by countries who never signed the treaty, or by foreign nationals who do not fight under the flag of any country.The very definition of “unlawful enemy combatants.”http://www.genevaconventions.org/
Paul, I’ve already read the pertinent article of the GC, thank you. I take it you only read what you want to read, since the specific example I cited was more than a woman on her period questioning a man. Generalizing, as you did, weakens the argument. Details are important, are they not?
Consider that I never said how the aforementioned incident would be considered under the GC.
So it’s okay for us to torture if the enemy we’re torturing does it? I bet your mother was beside herself when you were a kid. “But Johnny gets to jump off the bridge! Waaaaah!”
Put simply, if you agree with stooping to the lowest denominator, then you and those like you deserve to lose the status of the U.S. being above all other countries. Either we hold ourselves high or we don’t. I guess you’ve chosen.
RDWe ARE above all the other countries, even now.That is my point!If every nation would abide by US interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, the world would be improved!
By the way, Congress has the right to limit court jurisdiction:
Article IIISection 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
(Pay particular attention to “under such regulations as the Congress shall make)
Jeez Paul, how hard it is to actually read the bill. Here let me explain what it says since you can’t read. Here’s the definition of enemy combatant:
“a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant”
It says a person, it does not say a foreigner, it does not say someone who commits violence. The definition is so broad it can apply to attorneys who represent enemy combatants, the people who do their laundry, or even anti-war protestors and politicians who vote against Bush’s policies. Therefore it means you, me, everyone in America can become an enemy combatant if Bush so wills it.
So what’s your defense? Well there isn’t a chance for a court trial because the bill revokes the long standing habeus corpus:
“No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.”
As for your compliance with the Geneva Conventions:
“No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories.”
As for torture, it’s whatever Bush or Rumsfeld say it is:
“The punishment which a military commission under this chapter may direct for an offense may not exceed such limits as the President or Secretary of Defense may prescribe for that offense.”
Perhaps if you actually read the legislation I wouldn’t have to spell it out for you. However since you clearly work hard, or are paid to, avoid the facts I can understand that you wouldn’t have bothered reading the bill.
DougSo What????It makes clear that an unlawful enemy combatant is not the same as a lawful POW, someone wearing the uniform and obeying the basic rules of engagement before capture.Doug you are detailing this too much.Who cares about your split hairs?Doug, floor debate made clear that the intent was not to hold US citizens who simply opposed the war as “enemy combatants.”You must MATERIALLY support the hostilities.For instance, I think Jane Fonda sitting in an anti aircraft gun for propaganda pics, and then turning over secret notes from our American Servicemen held captive, to the enemy, as she did ( which got many of our troops severly beaten by the communists) — well Fonda MIGHT be in trouble.However, “material support of hostilities” is rather clear to me.Relax Doug.Now to explicitly rule out American citizens would be a problem, as some US citizens do decide to become terrorists.Those who decide to take up arms against the United States should not be able to paralyze the system with “discovery” designed to expose our intelligence secrets.Doug, you don’t like the legislation, we got that.However, this bill did have some Democrat support, and the public supports it in large numbers.The Congress had the right to do what it did, and the Congress also has the right to tell the Courts where they can and can not rule.
12 Dems in the Senate support this bill:http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aqOAFK2BtWxM
Of the 12 Democrats who voted yesterday for the legislation, five are seeking reelection. They are Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida, Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan.
Paul?
Do you mean the Congress currently controlled by the republican party of sheltering and enabling practitioners of pedophilia? What you did not know about that? Or do you, you GOP shill you, just choose as the Republicans in the House of representatives have to not talk about/cover up that matter?
“This is not just a bad bill, this is a truly dangerous bill,” said Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy. He said it would bar court challenges to military detention by any foreigner seized anywhere in the world on suspicion of supporting U.S. enemies.
This is Bloomberg paraphrasing Leahy.Not the best source, as it is not a direct quote, but — you can see that a Senator who voted against the bill did beleive it was intended for FOREIGNERS Doug.
Paul?
Do you mean the Congress currently controlled by the republican party of sheltering and enabling practitioners of pedophilia? What you did not know about that? Or do you, you GOP shill you, just choose as the Republicans in the House of representatives have to not talk about/cover up that matter?
JRMany people do bad things.NAMBLA supports pedophilia, and you would be hard pressed to find a NAMBLA member who was not a Democrat.Even so, I dont call YOU a pedophile JR.Please give me the same consideration.The man deserves to be punished severely.Just like all the Dems who had trouble with Congressional pages, this Republican should suffer for his actions.
So Paul’s response to dragging citizens off the streets, holding them without trial, and torturing Americans citizens is…”So What?”
Really, what more can be said? In those two words the proll Paul has said he doesn’t care if Bush admits defeat to the terrorists (who Bush said hate us because of our freedoms) and destroys the Constitution. ‘So what’ if we become the next Soviet Union with our gulag in Cuba and show trials with forced confessions under torture. ‘So what’ if America leads the way in encouraging other nations to allow torture of American civilians and soldiers. ‘So what’ if people have to live in fear of their government when it should be the government living in fear of the people. ‘So what’ if America is now a fascist state and Bush is our fuhrer.
‘So what’ if Paul is finally admitting how much he hates America and is a traitor to our nation. Ben Franklin said those who are willing to trade their freedom for security deserve neither. Paul deserves neither, no does he deserve any respect for applauding the destruction of our Republic.
I did not call you a pedophile Mr Rosell. Another of your defensive lies.
GOOD on you for saying Mark Foley should suffer for his actions!
I TRUST you feel the same for REPUBLICAN representative Alexander and the REPUBLICAN leadership in the House of Representatives that by their protection via silence about the sick pedophile Foley served to enable him?
Paul’s response to a pederast jerking off while sending e-mails to underage boys?
“So what?”
DougI said “so what” about your ridiculous posts, not about Foley. The Foley case was referred to the authorities long ago, but nothing happened. From the emails and text messages that have been published, I think Foley is in for a sexual harrassment complaint if the family(s) wants to push the matter.I hope they do.Unfortunately, there might not be a crime here.The age of consent, in most states, is 16. Of course, Foley’s targets did not consent. Therefore, it is sexual harassment, a civil lawsuit, not a criminal act.It is disgusting because they were under his care, he had authority over them.It is a civil suit, in my opinion, but we shall have to wait and see if it was a crime. I dont want to hope that any victims were under the age of consent, for the states in which offenses happened. (worse for Foley but worse for the kids as well.) Either way, I am glad Foley is gone.What he did was very wrong.He let everybody down and he has done great damage to some good kids.Again, however, the Democrat Party and the ACLU rarely criticize NAMBLA, and NAMBLA would have us get rid of all statutory rape laws. NAMBLA marches in Gay Rights parades and is frequently defended, in court, by the ACLU, that organization Rajiv Goyle belongs to.
DougI still believe, based on floor debate and the direct quotes from Democrats, some of which I posted here, that this bill is targeted at foreigners.However, let us assume that you, Doug, are correct.Is it your position, then, that a United States citizen who takes up arms against the United States should not be covered by this law? Is it your position that a terrorist can illegally enter the U.S., have a child here, that child can grow up as a U.S. citizen and then that child can go to war against the United States as an “unlawful enemy combatant” and that he must be read his rights by “private Pyle” out on the battle field, before we take him prisoner, and that he can then demand all CIA and military records be barred from his trial since we did not have “probable cause” to “arrest” him?Doug, you clearly want the terrorists to win, since you are far to the left of the 12 Democrats in the Senate who voted for this bill.You also disagree with several Democrats in Congress, who themselves have stated that this bill was aimed at foreign nationals.
Paul, we’ve already had Americans detained in the gulag for three years before being charged with a crime. Jose Padilla is an American and was denied his habeus corpus rights. Bush declared him an enemy combatant as if that had any meaning.
This was done before the torture bill was passed by Congress. Now Bush will have authority to do this to anyone he pleases. Being an American didn’t stop Bush before but your wishful thinking about how the law is specific to foreigners (even though it isn’t mentioned in the bill) is pure bollocks.
How much are you being paid to be this stupid and spread so much misinformed propaganda? The facts were laid out before you yet you continue to deny them. Are you mentally retarded?
DougIt is very insensitive of you to toss out words like “mentally retarded” in forums like this.
Now, on the subject of Padilla, again, “so what”???For the record, I do believe that American citizens have far more claim to the Constitution than do foreign nationals.How do we handle those who are citizens and are also enemies of the United States? I am comfortable with allowing those few individual cases to work their way through the system Bush and Congress have just set up.However, I am thinking some of these American citizens will still be tried in standard court rooms.I don’t think you understand why a seperate “tribunal” system is necessary, as opposed to using standard judicial procedure. The “disovery” process could give our enemies important information on our intelligence gathering and war planning.The prisoners “rights” must take a second seat to preserving thousands of lives and winning the war.
So Paul admits that he doesn’t care if American citizens have no Constitutional rights. Yeah Paul, that’s what makes you a mentally retarded coward who hates America.
Uhm..
Point of order.
Mentally retarded people are unfortunate vitims of nature.
It is probably not fair to them and overly generous to Paul Rosell to call Paul mentally retarded. Paul is willfully stupid and probably paid for it.
People can become retarded through lack of oxygen destroying the brain, or possibly from self inflicted wounds causing brain damage. Paul’s desire to escape reality may have compelled him to perform a lobotomy to expell the demons of rational thought.
DougPlease read this:Legal experts were divided on whether the restriction violated detainees’ rights. The Supreme Court held in a 1950 case, Johnson vs. Eisentrager, that foreigners charged by a military commission had no constitutional right to challenge their confinement in civilian courts.
Though the situation of the Guantanamo detainees is different — they were picked up during an unconventional war and are afforded few rights by the status review boards — the current Supreme Court may be disinclined to depart from the precedent.
“The attorneys are going to have to go in and persuade a court that Eisentrager is either different in context or should be reinterpreted or overruled,” said Scott Silliman, an expert in military law at Duke University law school. “I won’t say that is an easy challenge. I think it is going to be a difficult challenge.”
I got that from this webpage:http://ktla.trb.com/news/la-na-legal30sep30,0,4998732.story?coll=ktla-news-1—–Ok, so the Supreme Court already set the standard back in 1950.The law already makes a distinction between foreigners and citizens, it is established legal precedent.Therefore, is it your position that Congress has overturned Johnson v. Eisentrager?Congress does have the power to overturn Supreme Court decisions, by simple majority, under Article III of the Constitution. I don’t think Congress did that in this case. What do you think?—–The Geneva Conventions make a distinction between honorable P.O.W.’s and Unlawful Enemy Combatants.The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1950, made a distinction, in a Habeas Corpus case, between U.S. Citizens and Foreigners.Therefore, what is in this Bill might not matter so much, unless the Bill itself specifically changes the Treaty (I dont think it does) or unless the bill speicifically overturns the SCOTUS ruling made in the Johnson case (I am not sure on this one.)I think a United States citizen, held under this “tribunal” law, could reasonably assume that a Court would here his Habeas petition.I believe, in that case, the burden would be on the government to show that the detainee was an “unlawful enemy combatant.”At that point, I believe that the US Court would either send that person back to GITMO, if the burden of proof was met, or order that the case be set for a regular trial, if the government fails to meet its burden.I am not sure, however.None of us can be, really.
DougPlease read this:Legal experts were divided on whether the restriction violated detainees’ rights. The Supreme Court held in a 1950 case, Johnson vs. Eisentrager, that foreigners charged by a military commission had no constitutional right to challenge their confinement in civilian courts.
Though the situation of the Guantanamo detainees is different — they were picked up during an unconventional war and are afforded few rights by the status review boards — the current Supreme Court may be disinclined to depart from the precedent.
“The attorneys are going to have to go in and persuade a court that Eisentrager is either different in context or should be reinterpreted or overruled,” said Scott Silliman, an expert in military law at Duke University law school. “I won’t say that is an easy challenge. I think it is going to be a difficult challenge.”
I got that from this webpage:http://ktla.trb.com/news/la-na-legal30sep30,0,4998732.story?coll=ktla-news-1—–Ok, so the Supreme Court already set the standard back in 1950.The law already makes a distinction between foreigners and citizens, it is established legal precedent.Therefore, is it your position that Congress has overturned Johnson v. Eisentrager?Congress does have the power to overturn Supreme Court decisions, by simple majority, under Article III of the Constitution. I don’t think Congress did that in this case. What do you think?—–The Geneva Conventions make a distinction between honorable P.O.W.’s and Unlawful Enemy Combatants.The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1950, made a distinction, in a Habeas Corpus case, between U.S. Citizens and Foreigners.Therefore, what is in this Bill might not matter so much, unless the Bill itself specifically changes the Treaty (I dont think it does) or unless the bill speicifically overturns the SCOTUS ruling made in the Johnson case (I am not sure on this one.)I think a United States citizen, held under this “tribunal” law, could reasonably assume that a Court would here his Habeas petition.I believe, in that case, the burden would be on the government to show that the detainee was an “unlawful enemy combatant.”At that point, I believe that the US Court would either send that person back to GITMO, if the burden of proof was met, or order that the case be set for a regular trial, if the government fails to meet its burden.I am not sure, however.None of us can be, really.
Paul, you are ignoring the fact that many of the people who were put into the gulag were picked up by Afghanis who were collecting a bounty. Many inmates who were tortured were later released after undeniable proof of their innocence.
If these people are guilty then it’s a simple matter of taking them to court. What’s wrong with that? The Bush regime wanted to present “secret evidence” to prove guilt on the inmates but the judge said the evidence would have to be viewed by the court. As a result the Bush regime withdrew their claims of evidence and let some people go.
Why are you so opposed to trying these people in courts? If they are guilty then it’s isn’t a problem. However it would appear there is nothing to prove their guilt so they should be let go. Oh right, you prefer a banana republic with secret show trials and the torture of innocent people. You sick pervert.
DougMistakes will happen in any system.What is important is that we have a system in place that recognizes that these are different times.Now, I have asked you to name a President who felt POW’s or Unlawful Enemy Combatants (either one) deserved full constitutional rights granted to U.S. citizens.You have not given me a name of any President.You have declared, in this thread, that Bush or some future President could use this new law against anyone, even a U.S. citizen.I have quoted Democrats who saw a distinction between foreign nationals and U.S. citizens, Dems who voted for and against this law!I have also posted a SCOTUS ruling that clearly seperates foreigners from citizens, on habeas corpus appeals.What do I see wrong with regular court rooms? We are at war, Doug, we catch many of these people through wire-taps and informants that have not been “outed” yet. The war effort can’t be sacrificed on the altar of Miranda. Lives are at stake Doug, it is that simple.Again, you have a right to promote full-blown constitutional rights for our enemies, if you wish. However, your view is not supported by history.Again, name a President who ever supported your view that all of our enemies deserved full Constitutional protection?—-As far as U.S. citizens are concerned, there are many U.S. citizens who do serve in the military of foreign governments.If those people, American citizens in the uniform of a foreign government, are captured in combat with the United States, the Geneva Conventions would grant certain rights to them as POW’s would it not?Such people would not be “unlawful enemy combatants.”Should we follow the Geneva Conventions, or should we charge these people as traitors in regular US Courts?Should their situations be made WORSE due to their American citizenship?Your opinion that non-military courts should handle all of these cases could get people shot as traitors couldn’t it?I am not sure how to handle such cases, but I would tend to support Geneva rights for those in uniform, Citizenship aside, and not grant full Geneva rights to those “unlawful combatants” who are out of uniform.