|
AlteredAgain
Visual Alchemist
Registered: 04/27/06
Posts: 11,181
Loc: Solar Circuit
|
Torture Bill States Non-Allegiance To Bush Is Terrorism
#6116917 - 09/29/06 09:22 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Legislation tolls the bell for the day America died, birth of the dictatorship.
Military Commissions Act of 2006
Quote:
In section 950j. the bill criminalizes any challenge to the legislation's legality by the Supreme Court or any United States court. Alberto Gonzales has already threatened federal judges to shut up and not question Bush's authority on the torture of detainees.
"No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this chapter."
The Bush administration is preemptively overriding any challenge to the legislation by the Supreme Court.
The definition of torture that the legislation cites is US code title 18 section 2340. This is a broad definition of torture and completely lacks the specific clarity of the Geneva Conventions. This definition allows the use of torture that is, "incidental to lawful sanctions." In alliance with the bill's blanket authority for President Bush to define the Geneva Conventions as he sees fit, this legislates the use of torture.
The media has spun the bill as if it outlaws torture - it only outlaws torture for "enemy combatants," and in fact outlaws the retaliation of any military against the United States as "murder." Those deemed "enemy combatants" are not even allowed to fight back yet the government affords itself every power including the go-ahead to torture.
Further actions that result in the classification of an individual as a terrorist include the following.
- Destruction of any property, which is deemed punishable by any means of the military tribunal's choosing.
- Any violent activity whatsoever if it takes place near a designated protected building, such as a charity building.
- A change of the definition of "pillaging" which turns all illegal occupation of property and all theft into terrorism. This makes squatters and petty thieves enemy combatants.
In light of Greg Palast's recent hounding by Homeland Security, after they accused him of potentially giving terrorists key information about U.S. "critical infrastructure" when filming Exxon’s Baton Rouge refinery (clear photos of which were publicly available on Google Maps), sub-section 27 of section 950v. should send chills down the spine of all investigative journalists and even news-gatherers.
"Any person subject to this chapter who with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign power, collects or attempts to collect information by clandestine means or while acting under false pretenses, for the purpose of conveying such information to an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a military commission under this chapter may direct."
Subsection 4(b) (26) of section 950v. of HR 6166 - Crimes triable by military commissions - includes the following definition.
"Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct."
For an individual to hold an allegiance or duty to the United States they need to be a citizen of the United States. Why would a foreign terrorist have any allegiance to the United States to breach in the first place?
This is another telltale facet that proves the bill applies to U.S. citizens and includes them under the "enemy combatant" designation. We previously cited the comments of Yale law Professor Bruce Ackerman, who wrote in the L.A. Times, "The compromise legislation....authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights."
The New York Times stated that the legislation introduced, "A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted."
Calling the bill "our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts," the Times goes on to highlight the rubber stamping of torture.
"Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses."
Since with this bill, in the aggregate, Bush has declared himself to be above the Constitution and the laws of the United States, the allegiance of American citizens is no longer to the flag or the freedoms for which it stands, but to Bush himself, the self-appointed dictator, and any diversion from that allegiance will mandate arrest, torture and conviction in a military tribunal under the terms of this bill.
Similar to the UK's Glorification of Terrorism law, which top lawyers have slammed as vague, open to interpretation and a potential weapon for the government to kidnap supposed subversives, the nebulous context of "wrongfully aiding the enemy," could easily be defined to include publicly absolving an accused terrorist of involvement in a terrorist attack.
That renders the entire 9/11 truth movement an aid to terrorist suspects and subject to military tribunal and torture. In addition, Bush's recently cited National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, which is available on the White House website, labels conspiracy theorists as terrorist recruiters.
This should leave us with no doubt as to which parties are the target of the government's torture and intimidation campaign.
Could protesting a war approved by the government and their bootlickers in Congress and the Senate be considered breaching an allegiance to the United States? Could campaigning against the bombing of a target country be considered wrongfully aiding the enemy?
When the USA PATRIOT act was rushed through at the height of an anthrax scare without any members of Congress even having time to read it, we were assured that it was to fight terrorists and would not be used against the American people.
Since then a plethora of cases whereby the USA PATRIOT act was used against U.S. citizens emerged, including the internment without trial for over three years of Jose Padilla, an American citizen who was finally released after no evidence of terrorism was uncovered.
The so-called "compromise" before the bill was passed and the media acclaim of John McCain as some kind of human rights champion is one of the biggest con jobs ever inflicted upon the American people.
Shortly after the bill was finalized it was spun by Bush security advisor Stephen Hadley as "good news and a good day for the American people." McCain said that it safeguarded "the integrity and letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions."
In truth the legislation does the exact opposite, giving Bush carte blanche to "interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions."
In addition, under the bill, "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."
The bill also allows hearsay evidence (obtained via phony confessions after torture) to be considered by the military tribunal and bars the suspect from even having knowledge of the charges against him - making a case for defense impossible. This is guaranteed to produce 100% conviction rates as you would expect in the dictatorships of Uzbekistan or Zimbabwe and other torture protagonists who are in many cases allied with the Bush administration and provide phony confessions obtained from torture that allow the U.S. government to scare its people with the threat of imaginary Al-Qaeda terror cells waiting to kill them.
Following the Supreme Court's ruling to previously strike down Bush's shadow penal system, Alberto Gonzales is already out threatening federal judges to shut up and get behind the dictator or face the consequences.
Gonzales has the sheer gall to attack judges for even considering to "overturn long-standing traditions or policies without proper support in text or precedent," which is exactly what Gonzales, Bush and the rest of the White House criminals are doing themselves by de facto abolishing the Bill of Rights!
This is a dark day for the United States, the day America died and the bastard birth of a literal dictatorship.
Paul Wattson and Alex Jones - Prisonplanet.com
oh boy..
--------------------
Edited by AlteredAgain (09/30/06 07:02 AM)
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
Re: Torture Bill States Non-Allegiance To Bush Is Terrorism [Re: AlteredAgain]
#6117252 - 09/29/06 10:58 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
In addition, Bush's recently cited National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, which is available on the White House website, labels conspiracy theorists as terrorist recruiters.
This should leave us with no doubt as to which parties are the target of the government's torture and intimidation campaign.
Well isn't that a boat load of shits and giggles. This has to be a joke!
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
zorbman
blarrr
Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
|
Re: Torture Bill States Non-Allegiance To Bush Is Terrorism [Re: AlteredAgain]
#6117379 - 09/29/06 11:33 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I have always suspected that the the power elite in this country would use the laws they are ostensibly passing against terrorists against dissenters. You must admit that for seemingly macho hombres (even if they did not go to war themselves) these folks sure are sensitive to criticism.
I have always felt they would pass many laws against terrorists and then broaden that definition to include their critics. It is an old tactic.
I am not sure this is IT. I will need to study it further. But rest assured It is coming.
A perpetual war is a power-hungry person's wet dream.
P.S. Your first link is not working.
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
Edited by zorbman (09/29/06 11:46 PM)
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: Torture Bill States Non-Allegiance To Bush Is Terrorism [Re: AlteredAgain]
#6117417 - 09/29/06 11:44 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
i have been called a moonbat more times than everyone else here combined..but not even such a moonbat as me takes much stock in anything that comes out of alex jones' mouth...
i dont think its possible to criminalize an appeal to the SCOTUS..because the SCOTUS has the power to throw out that part of the law..and would prolly do so immediately...furthermore..i very much doubt that the subsection quoted precludes challenging the law based on..for example..the equal protections clause...
however..gonzales' threats against federal judges do..unfortunately..bear some thought ..a federal judge can only be removed by impeachment..which requires a 2/3 majority vote in both houses...no such majority exists now...but can you say "DIEBOLD"??...
i agree that this law could very well be the cutoff point where the US ceases to be a democracy...but we will just have to wait and see how this plays out in the courts.. that..of course..depends on whether king george really does diebold in a 2/3 majority of brownshirts in november...
-------------------- "anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
|
zorbman
blarrr
Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
|
Re: Torture Bill States Non-Allegiance To Bush Is Terrorism [Re: Annapurna1]
#6117536 - 09/30/06 12:27 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
This from the New York Times seems to be largely in agreement.
Note:the following article requires registration which can be bypassed using a program called 'bugmenot'- available here:
http://www.bugmenot.com/
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/opinio...ogin&oref=login
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
Edited by zorbman (09/30/06 12:39 AM)
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: Torture Bill States Non-Allegiance To Bush Is Terrorism [Re: zorbman]
#6117774 - 09/30/06 03:55 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
i fully agree with NYTIMES...but nothing in the NYTIMES article suggests that filing an appeal with the SCOTUS to challenge the torture law could be considered a criminal offense or an act of terrorism...the SCOTUS..however..may choose to agree with congress that they have no jurisdiction in the matter...
-------------------- "anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
|
Konnrade
↑↑↓↓<--><-->BA
Registered: 09/13/05
Posts: 13,833
Loc: LA Suburbs
Last seen: 10 months, 14 days
|
Re: Torture Bill States Non-Allegiance To Bush Is Terrorism [Re: AlteredAgain]
#6117813 - 09/30/06 04:35 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
It really shocks me that people can't see past the puppet on things like this.
The doubters think this is all Bush's doing, and I imagine that's exactly what his puppeteers want you to beleive... that once he's gone the problem will not worsen.
A lot of this is not just Bush, it's everyone who has power in the current administration. They're doing through him things that will allow for greater abuse from the next person they plant in the white house.
Perhaps they will have their next tool feign a reversal... make people regain trust in the party, without actually making much change. Then they'll have regained credibility without sacrificing the illegal powers that they've built up.
Think of it this way, when president Eisenhower was president, he was a man who was generally opposed to the militarization of america, and opposed to further warfare. Yet, even though he was the president, he fought strongly and still had very little control over military policy. Now, imagine the abusive implementation of policy that can happen under a president who is simultaneously too corrupt and too incompetent to be capable of preventing it...
Bush may be in on this, but he's not the orchestrator of it.
-------------------- I find your lack of faith disturbing
|
RosettaStoned
Stranger
Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 16 years, 10 days
|
Re: Torture Bill States Non-Allegiance To Bush Is Terrorism [Re: Konnrade]
#6118520 - 09/30/06 01:28 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Bush may be in on this, but he's not the orchestrator of it.
I've been saying this for years.
-------------------- "Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson "Without stupid, faggy potheads we wouldn't have wars." - Zappa
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Torture Bill States Non-Allegiance To Bush Is Terrorism [Re: RosettaStoned]
#6118637 - 09/30/06 02:20 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
It sounds to me as though everyone who passed the first Patriot Act were threatened to do so, unless they wanted to die from anthrax.
Sounds like a military-industrial complex coup to me. I think they are trying to override the government. Will it work? Let's read on...
Peace.
-------------------- If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: Torture Bill States Non-Allegiance To Bush Is Terrorism [Re: fireworks_god]
#6118792 - 09/30/06 03:24 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said: It sounds to me as though everyone who passed the first Patriot Act were threatened to do so, unless they wanted to die from anthrax.
the PATRIOT act isnt compared to this...
Quote:
Sounds like a military-industrial complex coup to me. I think they are trying to override the government. Will it work? Let's read on...
Peace.
needless to say..the prison-military-industrial complex stands to reap windfalls from the contracts on building.. running.. and maintaining the "infrastructure" needed to imprison and torture all these ppl...and the fun doesnt stop there either ..it takes no great stretch of imagination to speculate that these detainees would in turn become a soviet style slave-labour force competing against american workers...
-------------------- "anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
|
zorbman
blarrr
Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
|
Re: Torture Bill States Non-Allegiance To Bush Is Terrorism [Re: Konnrade]
#6119021 - 09/30/06 04:43 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Bush may be in on this, but he's not the orchestrator of it.
I agree with that. This is bigger than Bush. There are many people behind the scenes who have been working on this for many years, years before 9/11.
People who don't register on the public's radar like Michael Ledeen, Bill Kristol and Richard Perle.
And I imagine the Democracts have their equivelents who are just aching to taste some of the power that Congress and the American people seem so willing to serve up.
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
|
AlteredAgain
Visual Alchemist
Registered: 04/27/06
Posts: 11,181
Loc: Solar Circuit
|
Re: Torture Bill States Non-Allegiance To Bush Is Terrorism [Re: zorbman]
#6119050 - 09/30/06 04:48 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
|
zorbman
blarrr
Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
|
Re: Torture Bill States Non-Allegiance To Bush Is Terrorism [Re: AlteredAgain]
#6119088 - 09/30/06 05:00 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Here is the entire editorial for those unable to access the link:
Rushing Off a Cliff
Published: September 28, 2006
Here’s what happens when this irresponsible Congress railroads a profoundly important bill to serve the mindless politics of a midterm election: The Bush administration uses Republicans’ fear of losing their majority to push through ghastly ideas about antiterrorism that will make American troops less safe and do lasting damage to our 217-year-old nation of laws — while actually doing nothing to protect the nation from terrorists. Democrats betray their principles to avoid last-minute attack ads. Our democracy is the big loser.
Republicans say Congress must act right now to create procedures for charging and trying terrorists — because the men accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks are available for trial. That’s pure propaganda. Those men could have been tried and convicted long ago, but President Bush chose not to. He held them in illegal detention, had them questioned in ways that will make real trials very hard, and invented a transparently illegal system of kangaroo courts to convict them.
It was only after the Supreme Court issued the inevitable ruling striking down Mr. Bush’s shadow penal system that he adopted his tone of urgency. It serves a cynical goal: Republican strategists think they can win this fall, not by passing a good law but by forcing Democrats to vote against a bad one so they could be made to look soft on terrorism.
Last week, the White House and three Republican senators announced a terrible deal on this legislation that gave Mr. Bush most of what he wanted, including a blanket waiver for crimes Americans may have committed in the service of his antiterrorism policies. Then Vice President Dick Cheney and his willing lawmakers rewrote the rest of the measure so that it would give Mr. Bush the power to jail pretty much anyone he wants for as long as he wants without charging them, to unilaterally reinterpret the Geneva Conventions, to authorize what normal people consider torture, and to deny justice to hundreds of men captured in error.
These are some of the bill’s biggest flaws:
Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.
The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there’s no requirement that this list be published.
Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.
Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.
Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.
Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.
Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.
•There is not enough time to fix these bills, especially since the few Republicans who call themselves moderates have been whipped into line, and the Democratic leadership in the Senate seems to have misplaced its spine. If there was ever a moment for a filibuster, this was it.
We don’t blame the Democrats for being frightened. The Republicans have made it clear that they’ll use any opportunity to brand anyone who votes against this bill as a terrorist enabler. But Americans of the future won’t remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration.
They’ll know that in 2006, Congress passed a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts
|
Luddite
I watch Fox News
Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
|
Re: Torture Bill States Non-Allegiance To Bush Is Terrorism [Re: AlteredAgain]
#6119156 - 09/30/06 05:27 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Thanks for posting this. I feel safer now.
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
Re: Torture Bill States Non-Allegiance To Bush Is Terrorism [Re: Annapurna1]
#6120001 - 09/30/06 11:09 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
the SCOTUS has the power to throw out that part of the law..and would prolly do so immediately...
It just has too. How does,
Someone openly theorizing about a secret government agenda and cover up conspiracy.
equal
Someone secretly conspiring to terrorize a nation with lethal weapons, who is recruiting terrorists?
How did those two get turned into the same thing all of a sudden?
The United States of America, Land of the Free, Home of the Brave.
What sort of a coward, needs to lock up and torture a government conspiracy theorist, and strip away freedom of speech away from all just so he can sleep well at night?
That comes along with the job of being a brave leader of the USA, who I would never expect to feel coward down by a Jones or an Icke conspiracy theorist type.
If Bush was a legitimate President and couldn't handle what comes along with the Job he should quit, not rewrite the Constitution to be able to handle it.
Who wants and respects a Comander and Chief who says, ", Jones and Icke are saying not nice things about me. Icke called me a Lizard. I want them detained without trial and tortured
He just looks silly for proposing that section.
I also think he is just a puppet and his puppet character is embaracing the U.S Presidential Office.
What is the proposed new law in that section suppose to be protecting our lives from anyway?
Who here fears for their life by a Jones or Icke type? What exactly do we need life threatening protection from a government conspiracy theorist for?
However, it is easy to understand why a government would want them silenced to protect themselves if anything being said by them is true.
In such a case, if anything they theroize is true, those theorists would be working to serve, warn and protect us from our own government. Who in their right mind would want people exposing possible government conspiracies silenced?
I think most everyone at least appreciates their right and freedom to speak and at least be able to hear them out, even if they don't appreciate or agree with whats being said after a review.
What does the government want the power to do, detain and torture those two and people like them to find out who the leaks in the illuminati are?
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
zorbman
blarrr
Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
|
Re: Torture Bill States Non-Allegiance To Bush Is Terrorism [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
#6120153 - 10/01/06 12:08 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Our founding fathers must be spinning in their graves.
What makes it even more pathetic is that Bush has less excuse than any person now living to compromise our nation's principles- he's the son of a former President for God's sake! He should know better than anyone alive that our freedoms are a sacred birthright.
Seems the only thing he took away from his father's presidency is that war is cool and "kicking ass" is fun.
Another thing. When I hear him talk about the greatness of America he usually points to our power as the reason, not our freedoms or democratic principles. It's always power and force with this guy. Force and power. Might makes right. The ends justify the means.
I heard recently that President Bush has been reading a lot lately. You know he has been criticized as someone without much book learning? According to the report, he had read..get this..about 60 books this year as of September!
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060817/17bushbooks.htm
Hey, Mister Bush. I have a couple of additions to your reading list:
Try reading the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
Edited by zorbman (10/01/06 12:20 AM)
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: Torture Bill States Non-Allegiance To Bush Is Terrorism [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
#6120175 - 10/01/06 12:21 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
gettinjiggywithit said:
Quote:
the SCOTUS has the power to throw out that part of the law..and would prolly do so immediately...
It just has too.
unfortunately..they would only throw out the part of the law that says you cant bring it before the SCOTUS..and then uphold the rest of it just as quickly ..
Quote:
The provisions of the Constitution which confer on the Congress and the President powers to enable this country to wage war are as much part of the Constitution as provisions looking to a nation at peace. And we have had recent occasion to quote approvingly the statement of former Chief Justice Hughes that the war power of the Government is 'the power to wage war successfully.' Hirabayashi v. United States, supra, 320 U.S. at page 93, 63 S.Ct. at page 1382 and see Home Bldg. & L. Ass'n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 426, 54 S.Ct. 231, 235, 88 A.L.R. 1481. Therefore, the validity of action under the war power must be judged wholly in the context of war. That action is not to be stigmatized as lawless because like action in times of peace would be lawless. To talk about a military order that expresses an allowable judgment of war needs by those entrusted with the duty of conducting war as 'an [323 U.S. 214, 225] unconstitutional order' is to suffuse a part of the Constitution with an atmosphere of unconstitutionality. The respective spheres of action of military authorities and of judges are of course very different. But within their sphere, military authorities are no more outside the bounds of obedience to the Constitution than are judges within theirs. 'The war power of the United States, like its other powers ... is subject to applicable constitutional limitations', Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries, Co., 251 U.S. 146, 156, 40 S.Ct. 106, 108. To recognize that military orders are 'reasonably expedient military precautions' in time of war and yet to deny them constitutional legitimacy makes of the Constitution an instrument for dialetic subtleties not reasonably to be attributed to the hard-headed Framers, of whom a majority had had actual participation in war. If a military order such as that under review does not transcend the means appropriate for conducting war, such action by the military is as constitutional as would be any authorized action by the Interstate Commerce Commission within the limits of the constitutional power to regulate commerce. And being an exercise of the war power explicitly granted by the Constitution for safeguarding the national life by prosecuting war effectively, I find nothing in the Constitution which denies to Congress the power to enforce such a valid military order by making its violation an offense triable in the civil courts. Compare Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 14 S.Ct. 1125; Id., 155 U.S. 3, 15 S.Ct. 19, and Monongahela Bridge Co. v. United States, 216 U.S. 177, 30 S.Ct. 356. To find that theConstitution does not forbid the military measures now complained of does not carry with it approval of that which Congress and the Executive did. That is their business, not ours.
if you think the above came out of john yoos' rectum..guess again...its the late justice felix frankfurters' concurring opinion in the 1944 korematsu decision..which legallized extrajudicial imprisonment of japanese americans during WWII...
-------------------- "anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
|
Konnrade
↑↑↓↓<--><-->BA
Registered: 09/13/05
Posts: 13,833
Loc: LA Suburbs
Last seen: 10 months, 14 days
|
Re: Torture Bill States Non-Allegiance To Bush Is Terrorism [Re: zorbman]
#6120349 - 10/01/06 01:34 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zorbman said: Another thing. When I hear him talk about the greatness of America he usually points to our power as the reason, not our freedoms or democratic principles. It's always power and force with this guy. Force and power. Might makes right. The ends justify the means.
You're quite right. It's sickeningly reminiscent of soviet propaganda.
-------------------- I find your lack of faith disturbing
|
Basilides
Servent ofWisdom
Registered: 02/10/06
Posts: 7,059
Loc: Crown and Heart
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
Re: Torture Bill States Non-Allegiance To Bush Is Terrorism [Re: Luddite]
#6120607 - 10/01/06 04:24 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Luddite said: Thanks for posting this. I feel safer now.
lolz
-------------------- "Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is. Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death."
|
Turn
Hey Its Free!
Registered: 12/14/04
Posts: 367
Loc: The fabled catbird seat
Last seen: 13 years, 10 months
|
Re: Torture Bill States Non-Allegiance To Bush Is Terrorism [Re: Basilides]
#6126814 - 10/02/06 10:46 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
This shit is ABSOLUTELY INSANE I cannot belive this actually happend, I feel the urge to flee. But I guess its better to be inside the US then on the other side of the bombs
|
|