From Camelot to Camel Lot
Ranger question of the day:________
Why are Executive Orders not subject to judicial review?
Secret sites and torture should be subjects
worthy of court attention.
Is the best of the free life behind us now?
Are the good times really over for good?
Are we rolling down hill like a snowball headed for hell?
With no kind of chance for the Flag or the Liberty bell
--Are The Good Times Really Over For Good? Merle Haggard
_________
Further thoughts on the "Black Sites" run by the U.S. military, with the Chief Executive's blessing (The Black Sites):
What is the legal foundation that allows the Central Intelligence Agency, led by an active four-banger, to actually run a secret prison system that incarcerates suspects without the quaint legal point of a trial which fits within civilized standards. Torture need not be discussed, since it could not happen unless the secret prisons held the victims in place.
Intelligence agencies are not police forces nor are they prison masters. This is not their function, nor should it ever be.
Intelligence personnel should be concerned with intelligence. However, Mayer's article suggests otherwise, and makes one cringe at the realities of executing the U.S. Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©).
Imagine a country that allows its agents to focus on anal intrusions to help break down a prisoner's will to resist; it is not comfortable knowledge linking that behavior with America. It does not sqaure with "family values" and all the rest of the rhetoric.
Imagine the existence of secret prisons about which even members of Congress cannot gain information. They are so secret that even asking about them is a security violation. (I hear the Star-Spangled Banner rising faintly in the background.)
The key point is that GWB has issued an executive order that allows the CIA to hold foreign terror suspects indefinitely, and without charges, in black prison sites without family or legal notification, or offering access to legal counsel. Why, and based upon which evidence?
Why does America permit war criminals and planners and executors of aggressive wars to occupy the highest offices of our land? Additionally, why is the term "War Criminal" applied to Saddam, but never to GWB? Both electively and unilaterally invaded foreign countries. If one is a war criminal, then so must be the other.
One thing Nuremberg established as international case law: Planners and executors of aggressive war should hang from the neck until dead.
Labels: Black Sites, bush as war criminal, phony war on terror
posted by rangeragainstwar at 9:12 PM
1 Comments:
It is a well established fact of history that in order to be convicted of a war crime, you must first lose a war. I think it safe to say that if Germany had pervailed in WWII, RAF and U.S. Army Air Corps commanders would have been tried for war crimes for Dresden etc.
However, don't take the forgoing observation as meaning that I don't agree with your post. GWB should be ashamed of himself. And maybe why he keeps talking about victory is because he has some personal concerns about the alternative.
Post a Comment
<< Home