“‘Trust us, you’re guilty, we’re going to execute you, but we can’t tell you why.’ That’s not going to pass muster,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said, objecting to President Bush’s proposal for trying terrorism suspects. Several military attorneys have the same objection. Brig. Gen. James C. Walker, the top uniformed lawyer for the Marines, said no civilized country denies a defendant the right to see the evidence against him, and that the United States “should not be the first.”
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
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Daniel on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
28 Comments
It is policy like this that makes the USA look like the bully in the sandlot.
If we cannot hold fair trials, then the prisoners should be turned over to a World Court.
Any other action would always look like the USA railroaded people and we will make more enemies in the world than we have now.
Bush is not conducting the United States as a civilized country.
Because Bush is not Civilized.
The march toward fascism continues.
They would get a fairer shake if tried in Iraq. Even Saddam was allowed to hear the evidence against him. How can we demand a fair trial in Iraq, and ignore the rights of the accused in America?They might just as well cut out the charade of a trial. If you can get a confession through “Alternative Interrogation” then just summarilly execute them. Bush will have to get that one codified too.
We have the right now, under the Geneva Conventions to either:
1.) Shoot ununiformed enemy combatants as spies.2.) Hold them until the hostilities are over.
I am not necessarily advocating either of the above options, but isn’t the path Bush has tried to follow less harsh than what the law clearly allows?
Argue your preferences and your beliefs all you want. Just don’t pretend that this is an easy subject or that Bush is doing anything illegal or out of the ordinary.Court rulings have NOT said that anyone had to be released, they have only criticized the hearings and tribunals.Bush is doing nothing illegal now, and he did nothing illegal when he coerced confessions out of these murderers. You dont need a warrant to fight a war. You dont have to “Merandise” enemy combatants. POW’s don’t have the same rights as American Citizens.
You don’t believe me? What gives us the right to try anyone at all for something that happens on foreign soil? War!War and only war gives us any jurisdiction at all, and the rules of war are different from standard judicial proceedure.
We have not faced a situation exactly like the one we face now. Uniniformed combatants on foreign soil who are “state sponsored” but often are citizens of states we are not currently at war with.
Again, if Bush wanted to, he could order that all irregular, ununiformed combatants be shot as enemy spies. Those who want to force the letter of the law on Bush should read the law!http://home.earthlink.net/~mmmhiggins/WarGeneva.html
And, for you people who might actually read the actual Geneva Conventions:http://www.genevaconventions.org/
Paul – so, by your logic, if a country invaded and occupied this country they would have the right to summarily executa ANY civilian who didn’t like them based on those civilians being “ununiformed enemy combatants.” Hitler saw it that way too.
The Wermacht killed American POWs while in their uniforms during the Allied invasion of Germany, so those Geneva Conventions didn’t mean squat back then and they sure as hell don’t mean squat in today’s world!
Oh please! The USA has always been the bully in the sandlot! Deal with it.
Even Germany’s chancellor, Bush’s favorite squeeze, who’s been trying to patch up relations between our two countries, states that “we must find a better way to address these problems than abandoning the principles we’ve held so dearly”. Germans have learned from history.
No, Blair’s his main squeeze. Shroeder is just a squeeze on the side.
Uhm, Will, if memory serves, the first Geneva convention was in ‘49. . .
It would be nice if we had higher standards for America than, say, Hitler or Stalin (just a thought).
Oh! Im sorry Rage, you fucking intellectual you! I guess you forgot about a little incident called Vietnam and napalm carpet bombing, or Agent Orange, or our supplying chemical and biological agents to Saddam Hussein when he used it against Iran, or the fact that we support the terrorist state of Israel. I do agree! It would be nice if we had higher standards for America than say Hitler, Stalin or even Pol Pot! (How many Native Americans did we kill by the way?)
CAPTAIN AMERICA WEPT!!!
“Oh! Im sorry Rage, you fucking intellectual you!”
Guilty as charged, hehe!
Ah, no, Will, I remember that stuff and then some. But there have always been those who in this country who have insisted on a higher standard, and from time-to-time they get their way. They arguably have made this a better country, or at least keep things from getting far, far worse.
Vietnam? Terrible things, prominently reported at the time. Some lessons all too briefly learned.
Pol Pot? Henry Kissinger should be on trial as a war criminal (I take mild comfort that he’s an international fugitive). The America I grew up in would have looked at the evidence, set aside their naive view of him as some foreign policy wiz, and arrested his sorry ass.
In 2004, he was videotapped for the Republican convention, claiming that Reagan “won” thecold war. As if Kissinger was somehow deserving of our respect.
Believe me, things can get much, much worse if sit back apathetically, and let it happen. What’s happening in this country ain’t nothin’ compared to, again, Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Soviet Union.
But it CAN happen here.
Paul is too young to have been a “red baiter” but he fits the type.
Be careful Paul. The next president might be less to your liking. And the terms defining an “enemy combatant” are chillingly broad. That definition might fit you some day.
Whatever powers is given to George W. Bush will also be powers that the next president will have.
Ever heard of the phrase – be careful what you wish for?
WillAgent Orange was designed to kill jungle vegetation so we could catch the North moving arms to the Viet Cong.Agent Orange was not designed to kill innocents, it was designed to make it easier to catch the enemy and bomb the enemy.
BenNo country would have the legal right to invade us, for starters.We did have the legal right to invade Afganistan, and Iraq and Vietnam invited us, at least the South did.
Once we deforestated the country (a tropical jungle) it would have been so much easier to see the enemy. Only problem is, like in Iraq, you couldn’t tell friend from foe, until you were attacked, and only then if you were lucky.
No matter what Agent Orange was designed for – it killed and maimed innocent people along with our enemies.
You make it sound like just because it was not designed to kill innocents then it is not to blame for their deaths?
That logic is stupid!
Just because a country would not have the legal right to invade the US does not mean that some country would not do it.
We are not talking about a legal game here – we are talking about real lives and real consequences to our decisions.
The Iraq War should have been planned better, executed better and a damn exit strategy planned!
Paul,Despite the seemingly benign intentions of using Agent Orange, the unintended deaths that it caused to innocent civilians is still our fault. With you being a proponent of Catholic social teaching, I am surprised at how quickly you abdicate responsibility for our actions.
I have got news for Lindsey Graham and Gen James Walker, defendants in drug cases are denied seeing the evidence against them everyday in courtrooms across America. If drug dealers in America can be convicted without facing their accusor why not terrorists?
Paul – Iraq invited us? Just what the heck are you smoking?
And if you mean Chalabi; then what if some nutcase here “invited” an invasion? Would that make it legal?
As for Agent Orange its toxicity to humans was well known when it was being used. Maybe that makes it OK to use nuclear weapons on populated areas if I claim the reason is to prune the trees. Maybe Saddam’s real reason for gassing the Kurds was to control insects!
Great logic Paul!
Frankly I am sick of all the so-called progressives and liberals whether they be Democrats and Republicans. All should be treated just as terrorist and execut all of them with the terrorists.
Now I wait for all the lefties to should racism and tolerance. To that I say, “Don’t get in front of me!”
Frankly I am sick of all the so-called progressives and liberals whether they be Democrats and Republicans. All should be treated just as terrorist and execute all of them with the terrorists.
Now I wait for all the lefties to shout racism and tolerance. To that I say, “Don’t get in front of me!”
I wouldn’t dream of getting in front of ya kook. I might get your spittle on me.
Wow, i’ve got a few rebuttals, As for Will, you are wrong that defendants in drug trials do not get to see the evidence against them. Porperly documented and PHOTOGRAPHED drugs are presented as evidence. Just because the actual drugs are not brought in doesn’t mean they don’t get to see the evidence, it just means they can’t smell it/ smoke it/ eat it. As for Iraq “inviting us”, Chalabi can’t invite anyone. Someone already made a good point that some random american cannot “invite” another country to invade America.As for STEVE, yes america has the right to shoot enemy comabatants, IF THEY ARE ATTACKING US. That is because the army has the right to defend itself. However, we DO NOT have the right to shoot a peaceful iraqi because we “think” they MIGHT be a combatant. If an individual is not attacking us, we DO NOT have the right to just shoot them. Steve, if you were right, that would mean that we could just declare EVERY iraqi a combatant, and then nuke Iraq. The Geneva conventions HAVE NEVER, and WILL NEVER allow a country to arbitrarily declare anyone a combatant without some kind of evidence (ex. an attack on U.S. or Iraqi soldiers).As for JR, you are correct that whatever powers Bush has will also be “given” to his successor. I don’t want ANY president to have the power to CHOOSE what parts of the constitution to follow, and what parts to ignore. And yes, Republicans should be scared about what Bush is doing because the language used in the new “laws” is so broad that almost any american can be locked up indefinitely for no reason. If republicans think Democrats are so evil, WHY GIVE THE NEXT DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT ALL THAT POWER? Republicans should be BEGGING bush to admit that he has broken the law and the constitution, so that america can go back to being LAWFUL before Democrats control the Executive and Legislative branches, which WILL happen in 2008 (technically they wont take power till 2009, but you get the point)How will republicans reconcile their beliefs today with what they WILL believe in 2009, which is that President Obama or CLinton has too much power. Republicans say that Bush is acting within his authority today, but then they will say that the Democratic President has too much power. DUH!!! That is why, regardless of your party affiliation, you should PROTEST DICTATORIAL POWERS from anyone of any party, because it WORKS BOTH WAYS!!! If you deny that there is a constitutional crisis today, you WILL believe there is one when DEMOCRATS GET TO CHOOSE WHAT PARTS OF THE CONSTITUTION TO FOLLOW. The constitution DELIBERATELY limits presidential powers for EXACTLY THIS REASON. it is a slippery slope that is NOT in the nation’s best interest. Look at all the garbage the Bush administration has done, and TELL ME WHY IT IS NECESSARY FOR BUSH TO IGNORE LAWS AND DISREGARD THE CONSTITUTION (habeas corpus in particular). Is America better off because of it? If so, HOW??? Would america be destroyed if people are allowed to see the evidence against them? NO!! So why deny them that RIGHT??