A Blog For All - Comments - Keep it civil
Why can't the president's supporters understand that this is not about the terrorists, it is about us? What does it say about us as a country that we could convict and execute a person based on "evidence" obtained by torture or evidence that he cannot see or refute? Are we so scared as a country that we are willing to flush the constitution down the toilet? Somehow the argument seems to be that these people are so bad that they do not deserve to be treated like humans. I am from Oklahoma City, and our city experienced the second worst terrorist attack on this country, yet we were able to try, convict, and execute Timothy McVeigh in our regular justice system, we did not need to resort to a kangarro court to do it. Yes, I understand that if we follow the rule of law some terrorists my go free, yet I am not so afraid for my own safety that I would shred the rule of law just to stay safe. My son is in the US Army, currently stationed in Iraq, Ramadi to be exact. He puts his life on the line every day for this country and the constitution it is founded on. If he can do that, the rest of us can accept some degree of danger in return for our national values.
Every criminal operates "outside the law" don't they? How do you know these terrorists are really terrorists? Because George Bush, Dear Leader, told you so? The fact is, treating the terrorists like the criminals they are works. It's working for Saddam Hussein, in fact. He's in jail and on trial, where his despicable acts are being shown to the world. He's being punished. We can now get the information from him that we need.
Torture doesn't work. It doesn't provide useful information and puts our own military members at huge risk.
If we throw out the Geneva convention, like Bush has thrown out every other international agreement this country has signed, we lose credibility and will, ultimately, lose the battle for the "hearts and minds" of our enemies.
How many people have we arrested because they were "terrorists"? (Hint: Look at a Guantanamo prison full of them, plus the secret prisons out there too.)
Now tell me how many people we've convicted on the charge of terrorism. (Hint: none.)
The fact is, we must stay true to the Constitution because you're innocent until proven guilty. And under Bush, 99% of the people he arrests are innocent.
Why are you so afraid? Yes, there are a few thousand violent men who wish us ill. Mostly because of the violence we have brought to their homelands.
It's a REALLY bad idea to say "we need to throw away our historic constitutional freedoms". It is a terrible idea to say "the President should decide how to treat his enemies, and who is an enemy, and its ok to torture and kill them".
The president does not have the authority to set aside the constitution, and to argue for it (as the original blogger did) is treasonous.
I ask you again, why are you so afraid?
I agree, "Terrorists" don't have constitutional protections - the simple problem is that we are locking up people without protections, without any idea if they actually ARE terrorists.!
Because the Current Occupant was either asleep at the wheel before 9/11, was simply incompetent, intentionally allowed it to happen so as to have his "Pearl Harbor" as recommended in the PNAC, or actually colluded, he and his corrupt war-criminal cronies have been using it as an excuse to shred our beloved Constitution.
The Bush Crime Family should be imprisoned, and possible executed for the damage they have done to our nation.
then they are criminals and should be afforded the rights we give the worst serial killer, hell we would give them to bush!
"It's important to respect human rights because of what it says about us, not because of what it says about some of the assholes in custody."
Who is that hates our freedoms? Unconstitutional warrentless wiretaps, spying on U.S. citizens on the internet, comparing Iraq war critics to Nazi appeasers. It looks like the Republicans are the ones who hate any freedom.
Terrorism doesn't scare me nearly as much as bloggers with attitudes like this.
The Geneva Conventions (in part) apply to everyone, regardless whether they are soldiers, combatants, terrorists, or any other kind of human being. Read them before you make such stupid statements - there are copies online that are readily available. Now Bush wants to reinterpret them the same way re claims the right to reinterpret laws (like the anti-torture law) that he signs. He is a president, not a dictator, but he doesn't seem to realize that any more. Heaven help us for the next couple of years - the man is insane.
A lawyer who advocates torture is like a doctor who advocates ax murder: On the most fundamental level, you have completely misunderstood what your entire profession is about.
This is from Salon.com:
http://salon.com/politics/war_ro...shpc/
index.html
The hypothetical question Bush can't answer
At a Rose Garden press conference this morning, NBC's David Gregory asked George W. Bush the obvious hypothetical question: How would he feel if a foreign government like, say, North Korea's or Iran's, captured a U.S. soldier or CIA officer, subjected him to torture, then tried and convicted him with evidence he wasn't allowed to see?
Bush didn't -- Bush couldn't -- answer the question.
"My reaction is that, if the nations such as those you named adopted the standards within the [White House's] Detainee Detention Act, the world would be better," he said.
Gregory pressed on what he called the "important point," the same point Colin Powell made this week in his letter opposing Bush's plan. "I know you think it's an important point," Bush snapped back. But he said "the most important point" was the rather unlikely one he was making -- that U.S. intelligence officers will have to stop interrogating detainees entirely if they don't have more clarity on the outer limits of the coercive techniques they can use.
Gregory pressed one more time, at which point Bush cut him off and said "next man."
-- Tim Grieve
This is from Salon.com:
http://salon.com/politics/war_ro...shpc/
index.html
The hypothetical question Bush can't answer
At a Rose Garden press conference this morning, NBC's David Gregory asked George W. Bush the obvious hypothetical question: How would he feel if a foreign government like, say, North Korea's or Iran's, captured a U.S. soldier or CIA officer, subjected him to torture, then tried and convicted him with evidence he wasn't allowed to see?
Bush didn't -- Bush couldn't -- answer the question.
"My reaction is that, if the nations such as those you named adopted the standards within the [White House's] Detainee Detention Act, the world would be better," he said.
Gregory pressed on what he called the "important point," the same point Colin Powell made this week in his letter opposing Bush's plan. "I know you think it's an important point," Bush snapped back. But he said "the most important point" was the rather unlikely one he was making -- that U.S. intelligence officers will have to stop interrogating detainees entirely if they don't have more clarity on the outer limits of the coercive techniques they can use.
Gregory pressed one more time, at which point Bush cut him off and said "next man."
-- Tim Grieve
Once again, we're supposed take the word of a witless Preznit and his crew -- none of whom have ever seen a shot fired in anger (well, except Cheney but he was pissed in a different sense) -- over those who've actually seen war? Why should they care what happens to American soldiers captured overseas when you know darn well it won't be any of their kids in harm's way. But they do get to strut about and act manly for the rubes, and isn't that the important thing?
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Geneva Convention applies to terrorists, therefore it does.
And therefore the bill before Congress is one to modify the Geneva conventions as it applies to EVERYONE, not just terrorists.
But then this is the general logical fallacy of conservatives when it comes to talking about constitutional rights.
You seem to think that rights should be given only to the good people and not given to the bad people. But rights don't work that way because it is impossible to know the bad people from the good until a court of law determines such given the presumption of innocence. Therefore rights apply to all until someone is convicted.
We have put thousands of people in Iraq and elsewhere in horrid prisons who were not guilty of anything or were only guilty of petty theft not terrorism because we failed to follow due process.
And by the way, the pledge you cite, you will notice, is to defend the Constitution -- not the country, the Constitution against all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC.
YOU ARE THE DOMESTIC ENEMY OF THE CONSTITUTION THEY ARE FIGHTING AGAINST. Granted you don't mean to be. You're just ignorant and angry. But nonetheless...
If the terrorists are considered so "evil" by Bush & his supporters, why are you all so anxious to become LIKE them?? And, when we become like them to "defeat" them, who really WINS?
"Why is Congress, and these members in particular, so fixated on the rights of terrorists under the US legal system and what the rest of the world thinks of us?"
Why do criminals in this country have rights? Why don't we just lock people up without trial?
ANSWER: because they aren't all criminals.
And they aren't all terrorists...though by using torture you can get them all to say they are terrorists, from Mars if you wish.
Why does the opinion of others around the world matter?
Because in a world full of democracies, public opinion matters. In a world full of democracies, public opinion will determine who our allies are and who our enemies are.
By losing the PR war, we lose friends and create enemies, which has a direct effect on the security of our country.
That is why some members of congress care. Because they actually want to keep us safe... not just scare us into supporting another war that will make us less safe.
Our Declaration of Independence spoke of self-evident and inalienable rights, rights that were inherent in every human being and could not be taken away at the whim of government. But that's so 1776.
Lawhawk,
You're getting HAMMERED here. How about a do-over? Go read your conservative brother Poliblog, take this column down, and then try again.
For those who support the destruction of our stature and respect around the world, I would ask why? Why is it in our (US) interest to "re-interpret" the Geneva Conventions? It is a signed treaty which has survived (nicely, thank you) for 60 years. Why do you think Bu$hco wants to re-define the rules - nobody else around the world has. Nobody else thought it neded "re-looking". Maybe, just maybe, Bu$hco is trying very hard to stay out of jail. Maybe Bu$hco is now realizing that the kool-aid is wearing off and folks are beginning to understand the insanity of our present assministrations policies. Why does Bush hate America?
Two questions:
1)Would YOU care to be tried in North Korea under tribunals following Bush's rules?
2) Would you be comfortable with Hillary Clinton having the absolute, unlimited and unreviewable power to lock YOU up, have the CIA interrogate YOU, and try YOU as an "enemy combatant", without being allowed to see or challenge the evidence against you?
I thought not.
that sissy mcCain. what sacrifice has he ever made for his country?
Ummm, let me see. Should we trust a Senator who actually was a Prisoner-of-War and knows of what he speaks, or should we trust a President who was AWOL during the same war? McCain is the future of your party, so why do you insist on staying with the rats on your sinking ship?
"A lawyer who advocates torture is like a doctor who advocates ax murder: On the most fundamental level, you have completely misunderstood what your entire profession is about.
Lex | Homepage | 09.15.06 - 12:43 pm | # "
Lex, I think you miss the point. Lawhawk is not advocating torture. He is not advocating breaking hte law. What he is saying is that the laws as they pertain to US Citizens in US courts is not the same law the pertains to captured terrorists in Gitmo.
Moreover, sharing clasified intelligence with terrorists is dangerous. This is not an idle threat. Remember Lynne Stewart? Attorney for the blind Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman and the radical Egyptian Brotherhood. The Sheik was a key figure in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Stewart has been convicted of passing information from the Sheik to his supporters.
This is a real Threat and not to be taken lightly.
Let's see here, I get a link from the left Daou Report, and next thing a whole bunch of lefties swarm the site thinking that they've got the truth, facts, or logic on their side.
Nice. Welcome aboard.
There's absolutely no reason to take this post down as someone here advocates, because I stand by what I've written.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact - Robert Jackson, Justice, US Supreme Court.
We are not dealing with an enemy who abides by the Geneva Conventions. They did not abide by it in 1993, when the terrorists attacked the WTC. Nor did they do so in 2001, when they killed 3000 other people.
As for McCain, maybe one should ask him whether the North Vietnamese adhered to the Geneva Conventions to which they were signatories. The answer would surprise you - they did not. They tortured our POWs and did unimaginable things to our soldiers, despite being signatories.
The same can be said for the North Koreans, the Iraqis under Saddam, as did the Nazis in WWII. All were signatories, all took our soldiers as POWs, and all treated them harshly and routinely violated the Conventions.
None of these countries followed the Conventions, despite being signatories. The terrorists are not even signatories, and yet McCain and others are more than willing to provide them the protections therein? It's absurd on its face because there is absolutely no reason to believe that the terrorists will suddenly treat any captured US soldier better because we're now treating detainees in a supra-POW status, which is precisely what the McCain group thinks.
The current threat posed by these terrorists is that we're busy worrying about extending additional protections under our law, when they could already care less what our law says. They're quite clear on their intentions.
I've read Poliblogger and I find his argument unconvincing. Terrorists will not change their opinion of the US one bit. The enemies of the US will snicker and laugh as they continue to plot our destruction. They know that the world enjoys a double standard where US conduct is concerned. The US will be held to the highest standards, and then some, while everyone else gets their issues ignored or written off.
Being as dumb and as smelly as manure is not a crime, but it ought to be.
You, moronic Bush robots, don't get it, do you?
You, Chickenhawks, are not smart enough to figure out that the Geneva convention protects OUR soldiers.
You, Chickenhawks, by supporting your AWOL President and his five-deferment "I had other priorities" Vice-President, are traitors to this country.
You are the ones who are traitors to Democracy.
What else is there to expect from chickenshit chickenhawks hiding behind their keyboards?
The Chikenhawks are defecating their pants every time they hear their Dear Leader utter "terrorist". Make sure, incontinent ones, that you secure a steady supply of diapers.
Yet another post by an apologist of torture. Why is it that you, Bush supporters, are so totally devoid of a moral compass and of a conscience? Why are so afraid all the time? Why are you constantly wetting your pants whenever your Dear Leader utters the word "terror"?
Neither the Spaniards, nor the Brits, nor New Yorkers, live in constant fear. What's your problem that you are such cowards?
Why should we care what other nations think of us? Not just because of our "image." People who despise foreign opinion need to read the Federalist No. 63, which is dead on in its concern that "some strong passion" might warp Americans' own opinions.
The Founding Fathers had a decent respect for the opinion of mankind. So far as I am concerned, people who despise foreign opinion are just as subversive of American principles as any jihadist or Leninist.
Now, now, now. We should all try to understand each other's point of view rather than rant on. If I try hard I can start to understand the blogger's concept that everyone we capture is, by definition a terrorist with no civil rights because they are evil-doers, and that reinterpreting international convention to allow torture is OK because torturing evil doers gets information which helps prevent more evil doings. They don't like our laws anyway. Of course the reason I understand all that is because I watch "24". Perhaps we should let "jack" Cheney go down to Gitmo and shoot everyone there in the knee and get it over with.
RE: Homeboard.
In your response you do not adress the central issue of this debate.
If the Bush Administration and the U.S. Congress decide to UNILATERALLY change the Geneva Convention's interpretation of the law after suffering a LEGAL defit at the Supreme Court then we can no longer consider ourselves as signatories of the treaty. The Legal status of Bush's actions were challenged, they went to the Supreme Court and the Court made a LEGAL decision within the parameters of exisiting law. No Suicide pact as you put it, just our Democracy at work here. To take it out of the legal arena, and put it out into the Political arena, right before an election to get some points with the base, is beyond irresponsible, it is CRIMINAL.
The Geneva Convention is subject to change or re-interpretation provided that the Siganatory Nations approve of the change. Neither Bush, nore Congress can unilaterally "re-interpret" the Geneva Convention for the simple fact that the Geneva Convention is an INTERNATIONAL treaty.
What do you think would happen to the Geneva Convention By-Laws if every member at one time or another decides to "Re-Interpret" it at their convenience?
You state in your post that Saddam's Irak, The North Vietnamese, and the Terrorist are not, or were not signatories of the Geneva Convention.
You just made our point!!!
Can you please tell us when in Viet Nam or the Gulf War did we had a President of the U.S.A. calling for a "Re-interpretation" of the Geneva Convention laws? At all these points in our History when we were fighting an enemy that would not allow Geneva to stop their behavior, why on hearth do you think we kept our people within the Geneva Convention parameters of Military behavior?
Let me give you the answer that you just can't (I don't hope you ever will) grasp.
Is called Honor. We are better than them!! We don't have to go into hysterics to win. And most importantly WE DON'T NEED BOTTOM FEEDERS LIKE YOU to tell us that in order for us to be effective against terrorism, we have to trow our Morals out the window.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact as you put it. The Constitution is there to protect the inocent and to give us the rights we fought so hard and long to get for EVERY ONE .
Do you know who is inocent and who is guilty without due process homepage? Do you think that torture will give us the answers we seek, and takes us to victory? If that was the case we would have lost all of our wars.
Our enemies have tortured our soldiers (just look at McCain) , and will no doubt torture them in the future. Just lets be clear on this point; Our soldiers live and die by OUR standards, not theirs. Our Military proudly reflects our values as a Nation.... Service, Devotion, Country, Honor.... That's who we are as a people, there is no "Re-interpreting" that dear Homepage.
Your screeching on about 'giving rights' to terrorists notwithstanding, there is no real standing for any of it. Aside completely lawless places like Afghanistan and Downtown Baghdad, the 'rights' of any 'terrorists' would be dependent on their sovereignty. And outside these lawless places, that is - most of the rest of the world, terrorism does become a law enforcement problem.
The question becomes: Are governments going to be more or less likely to help the United States deal with these people and share information with us if they believe we will violate international standards of decency? Countries in the EU, even as they become the central front in the GWOT, will not let our people anywhere near suspects if they believe we will whisk them off to some dark hole.
There are very few true battlefields left. As a lawyer, I'd think you would appreciate this. All this bluster and hullabaloo is about covering their asses, as someone pointed out, for the only people any of this applies to, apart from future citizens and people on US soil, are the ones already somewhere in the system.
There are no more places in the world to pick up 'terrorists' that aren't somebody else's law enforcement problem, save our own soil. So keep that in mind when you start giving away rights.
I think most Americans would have a hard time accepting being waterboarded and then found innocent. Or being captured in battle and then waterboarded as POWs.
We don't do that. We're the good guys. And just because some of the BAd guys do that doesn't mean it's OK for us to do it. Right? They are the bad guys. We are the good guys.
We don't do that crap. We let the bad guys do it and then say things like "See, that's why they are the bad guys and we are the good guys."
Can this moral issue really be any simpler?
Class dismissed.
Having read this whole stream of comments, my comment is: proud to be American. And proud to be a LIBERAL.
thankyou thankyou...outta here
The Constitution is not a suicide pact...
And neither are the Geneva Conventions. One thing the blogger gets wrong here is his assumption that every detainee is a terrorist. From what we've seen at Gitmo and Abu, very vew of them are.
But say we decide to interrogate a bona fide terrorist - say we caught a live one, as it were. Just how much vital, crtical intelligence is this person likely to have. Given the detached nature of modern terrorist cells, it's safe to say that very few know anything that would warrant the abominable violation of human rights and the stigma of toture.
Lawhawk, maybe you're just too young, but in the old days there was this outfit called the KGB. It's rather important that we do not recreate that institution ourselves.
Lex, I think you miss the point. Lawhawk is not advocating torture. He is not advocating breaking hte law. What he is saying is that the laws as they pertain to US Citizens in US courts is not the same law the pertains to captured terrorists in Gitmo
One problem with that approach, Legalbgl: Article 3 draws no such distinction. It applies to the detaining nation, period.
Beyond the law, there are both moral and practical reasons not to torture, most of which have been touched upon above, and some of which go right to the heart of the principles upon which this country is founded (e.g., the sovereignty of the individual in his person and effects). So I think my earlier comment stands.
But I appreciate your taking issue in civil fashion. Not much of that left these days.
Commenting by HaloScan
