Park the Car
It's not a question
but a lesson learned in time.
It's something unpredictable
but in the end it's right
--Good Riddance, Green day
but a lesson learned in time.
It's something unpredictable
but in the end it's right
--Good Riddance, Green day
_______________
Who is this guy? Speaking about terrorist suspects "seized outside the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan,
"[A] senior American military official said, “They’re both bad dudes. The issue is: where do they get parked so they stay parked?” (U.S. Relies More on Aid of Allies in Terror Cases.)
The U.S. does not "park" people without charging them and trying them in a court of law.
The question is not whether torture works, as former VP Dick Cheney asserts. The allies extracted sensitive data in WW II from some very bad dudes using methods other than torture (Ft. Hunt's 'Quiet Men' Break Silence on WW II).
The detainee issue boils down to one question: Is the U.S. willing to indefinitely imprison anyone who has not been convicted of a crime?
Torture is now branded "patriotic". If one demurs on torture, one is weak -- soft on terror; worse, a traitor. If one is against torture, one is de facto adjudicated pro-terrorist.
The detainee issue boils down to one question: Is the U.S. willing to indefinitely imprison anyone who has not been convicted of a crime?
Torture is now branded "patriotic". If one demurs on torture, one is weak -- soft on terror; worse, a traitor. If one is against torture, one is de facto adjudicated pro-terrorist.
Ranger is not a weak-kneed liberal. If a federal court legally convicts and sentences a terrorist to death, he would volunteer to administer the sentence.
The only question is, does torture comport with our legal system.
The answer is, "No".
The only question is, does torture comport with our legal system.
The answer is, "No".
Labels: al-qaeda terrorism, habeas corpus, phony war on terror, PWOT, torture
posted by rangeragainstwar at 11:21 PM
11 Comments:
Unless the administration comes up with some more Yoo-Bybee type phony legal cover that keeps the Constitution thrown out the window, the prisoners will have to be released. Keeping them in prison without habeas corpus, due process, or charges, is illegal. We just got through with eight years of that kind of cavalier attitude toward the law and we better not have eight more years of it or our credibility as a democracy may never come back.
Obama knows all this. He better come up with something toot sweet.
And yet Obama's last foreign policy speech included the statement that we had in our possession people "too dangerous to be tried" who would have to be kept in "preventive detention" forever.
My take on this is that there is a bipartisan coordination to avoid this issue and leave the Bush policy in place. The GOP has lost its mind, and the Dems are too afraid of "weakness".
Nope. We're just fucked.
"Nope. We're just fucked."
That about says it all, Chief.
"The problem with you yanks is that you still think you're living in a functional democracy."
Gordon and FD Chief,
I find this Gitmo question to be a sickening sequence of events. This discussion also ignores the detainees held overseas without the nicety of legalities such as jurisdiction et al.
Instead Senators are attacking a SC nominee because she MIGHT favor abortion.The sad fact is that abortions are less important than what is happening in black sites/opns worldwide. It's all entertainment. But what can we expect from a Senate that accepts it's newest member who obviously bought his seat.The Repubs attk the nominee to the SC as a weak intellect and token BUT fail to mention that Thomas is exactly the same thing-A TOKEN.
But back to the main point- it's my belief that Obama WANTED Congress to deny the funds to close GITMO because this took the monkey off his back. As C in C he could order DOD/ Military to close the place down and use existing funding. This is within his powers as C in C but` he's unwilling to do so. The CIA Director is still espousing use of extra ordinary rendition. So where's the progress??
If the potus as C in C can invade countries without a declaration of war then he surely can close an illegal prion in which torture was served up with the culturally-sensitive MRE's. We won't offend their cultural eating habits but we'll torture their asses. This is all so wrong that it's impossible to even comprehend the enormity of the situation.
But why even bother thinking about it - now we can fret on a N korean bomb. We have a crisis of the day/ flavor of the week/weak and we're all as happy as a clam. Everything is crisis and we the people are just happy to survive-what has happeneed to us?
Obama/Clinton/ Pelosi are as embarrassing as the last cast of idiots. What exactly is the difference. Right -hope.
Ranger HOPES they all choke on their red, white and blue hypocrisy.
jim
Re Judge Sotomayor, the right is not attacking her on her abortion stance per se. That's just an excuse, a very thin one, one of many. Unless she did something truly disqualifying they can really hang their hat on, like not paying payroll taxes on her gardener, she's in.
They are attacking her because their M.O. tight now is to attack anything Obama does. Period. They have no plans of their own except their same old, same old, which we -and they - know doesn't work, but it's all they got.
BTW, GTMO is shorthand for all the illegal prisons.
Also, I don't mean to barge in here and singlehandedly lower the tone of the discourse, but I like you and it's what I do.
Gordon,
We like you, too, and welcome your informed and considered input -- anytime :)
"We...welcome your informed and considered input"
'Informed and considered'? Harumph! That'll cut it down some. My usual style is opinionated ranting as seen from my head being up my....
Oh God! I've just had a long "debate" with a Navy vet over the legality of torture over at FaceBook. How do you argue with someone who insists that facts and reality aren't correct? He kept insisting the regs in FM 27-10 and the UCMJ didn't aply to torture because they refernce the Geneva Convention and according to him the US never ratified Common Article 3. He quite literally declared that the DOD was not subject to ANY laws and could make up any rules they wanted as they went along. I would have just leaft the conversation sooner as a waste of time but since it was in a publicly available area I put the facts up for him to deny. Gives me a damn headache dealing with those types.
ps: Lisa I haven't forgotten about e-mailing you about central Vermont. Just haven't gotten to it but I will one day soon!
Terrible,
All DoD regs must be based upon federal code. Ignoring the GC's --we should just discuss the detainees as prisoners brought into U.S. jurisdiction, regardless of their location.
They have not been adjudicated guilty, yet they are subject to cruel and unusual punishment. The GC argument is disingenuous as it disregards the policy and practices of the U.S. since its inception.
In addition to legality, sorts like your correspondent should be equally concerned with morality if we claim to be a "Chrisitan nation", as those types always do.
jim
[--Looking forward to hearing fr. you re. VT -- Lisa]
Yeah it was him that brought up the GC. I'd only said violations of US, international and military laws without specifics. But did list a bunch for him later. Including some US Code to Article 18 or maybe 16 I think. section ??? I'll have to look again.
Ahhh yes here it is... US Code Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 118 Section 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.
Simple straight forward US law and the nuts want to pretend it doesn't exist or doesn't count because of an ever changing right-wing meme of the day. It's a good thing I don't keep hard drink around or I'd be tempted to over indulge after dealing with torture apologists.
Post a Comment
<< Home