|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: Olbermann: “Why does habeas corpus hate America” [Re: Economist]
#6167538 - 10/13/06 11:21 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Economist said: The other bit you're leaving out is "due process of law".
Due process of law means that there needs to be a law on the books that is followed. The Military Commissions Act is a law, that may be signed on to the books, that will be followed.
An unjust law is technically still a law. But should we support unjust laws? No wonder the world's opinion of the US is in the toilet.
Quote:
The rules of evidence, miranda rights, etc. None of these appear in the Constitution, but they have all been found to be a part of "due process of law" either because they were written that way, or because the Supreme Court set a precedent which included them.
Now you're making sense! 
Quote:
Congress has the power to change the due process of law, and they are doing so via the military commissions act.
Disregard my last statement.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
zorbman
blarrr


Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
|
Re: Olbermann: “Why does habeas corpus hate America” [Re: Phred]
#6167653 - 10/14/06 12:18 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Uh huh. Please name for us a single detainee who has yet to receive a review by tribunal determining whether or not he is an enemy combatant.
Please provide for us the complete list of detainees.
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
|
odrorir
Stranger

Registered: 09/09/06
Posts: 5
Last seen: 17 years, 7 months
|
Re: Olbermann: “Why does habeas corpus hate America” [Re: Economist]
#6168936 - 10/14/06 12:35 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Congress can define due process within a constitutional frmaework, which I would argue it ignored.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Quote:
Economist said: The other bit you're leaving out is "due process of law".
Due process of law means that there needs to be a law on the books that is followed. The Military Commissions Act is a law, that may be signed on to the books, that will be followed. Due process of law does not mean habeas corpus rights, again if it did there wouldn't be a need to mention both.
The rules of evidence, miranda rights, etc. None of these appear in the Constitution, but they have all been found to be a part of "due process of law" either because they were written that way, or because the Supreme Court set a precedent which included them. Congress has the power to change the due process of law, and they are doing so via the military commissions act.
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
Re: Olbermann: “Why does habeas corpus hate America” [Re: odrorir]
#6169113 - 10/14/06 02:05 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Congress can define due process within a constitutional frmaework, which I would argue it ignored.
Which of the amendments you listed do you argue were ignored? Before you answer, remember we are speaking of how to deal with (almost exclusively) non-American enemy combatants in times of war, not of American citizens robbing banks or murdering their wives.
Phred
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: Olbermann: “Why does habeas corpus hate America” [Re: Phred]
#6169442 - 10/14/06 04:25 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said: ...remember we are speaking of how to deal with (almost exclusively) non-American enemy combatants in times of war, not of American citizens robbing banks or murdering their wives.
Dude, WTF??? I can't believe you're arguing that the US can be as immoral as it likes when non-Americans are concerned. I think that's completely F'd up. That's not the America I believe in or want to be associated with. How the fuck Bush got people to start thinking that way simply blows my mind.
Is there anyone out there that still wonders why the world is starting to hate America???
|
unbeliever
Yo Daddy!

Registered: 05/22/04
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Gallifrey
Last seen: 15 years, 2 months
|
Re: Olbermann: “Why does habeas corpus hate America” [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#6169465 - 10/14/06 04:38 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
Phred said: ...remember we are speaking of how to deal with (almost exclusively) non-American enemy combatants in times of war, not of American citizens robbing banks or murdering their wives.
Dude, WTF??? I can't believe you're arguing that the US can be as immoral as it likes when non-Americans are concerned. I think that's completely F'd up. That's not the America I believe in or want to be associated with. How the fuck Bush got people to start thinking that way simply blows my mind.
War is much easier if you dehumanize the enemy. Stick the death toll on a CNN news ticker and the people can stay happy and ignorant.
-------------------- Happiness is a warm gun...
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
Re: Olbermann: “Why does habeas corpus hate America” [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#6169470 - 10/14/06 04:40 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I can't believe you're arguing that the US can be as immoral as it likes when non-Americans are concerned.
But I don't argue that. You are having a hard time grasping the whole prisoner of war concept, aren't you?
There is absolutely nothing immoral about detaining enemy combatants in time of war. What would be immoral is not detaining them but setting them free to blow up more civilians. As a matter of fact, there is also absolutely nothing immoral about immediately executing illegal enemy combatants in time of war either, though the US has chosen not to do so in the current conflict. Enemy combatants caught out of uniform -- (thus meeting the definition of illegal combatants) have been routinely executed on the spot since time immemorial. This was standard practice as recently as World War II -- by both sides. In actual fact, since every jihadi currently detained by the coalition forces meets the definition of illegal combatant accepted for millennia and specified in the Geneva protocols, we would be perfectly within our rights to line them all up in front of a firing squad at dawn tomorrow.
All captured enemy combatants are brought before a military tribunal charged with determining whether they actually ARE combatants or just random dudes netted in an overly-enthusiastic sweep. Those determined by the tribunal to be enemy combatants are locked up, the rest are let go. And as has already been reported, even many of the ones who WERE determined by appropriate tribunal to be enemy combatants have been (to the disgust of any thinking person) let go as well. What is your problem with that? Upon what do you base your outrage?
Phred
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: Olbermann: “Why does habeas corpus hate America” [Re: Phred]
#6169563 - 10/14/06 05:25 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said: There is absolutely nothing immoral about detaining enemy combatants in time of war.
So far we agree.
Quote:
What would be immoral is not detaining them but setting them free to blow up more civilians.
We still agree.
Quote:
As a matter of fact, there is also absolutely nothing immoral about immediately executing illegal enemy combatants in time of war either, though the US has chosen not to do so in the current conflict. Enemy combatants caught out of uniform -- (thus meeting the definition of illegal combatants) have been routinely executed on the spot since time immemorial. This was standard practice as recently as World War II -- by both sides. In actual fact, since every jihadi currently detained by the coalition forces meets the definition of illegal combatant accepted for millennia and specified in the Geneva protocols, we would be perfectly within our rights to line them all up in front of a firing squad at dawn tomorrow.
Here we go again - you're saying it's morally ok to kill to our heart's content if a captured person (who is no longer a threat) is believed to be an illegal comatant, even if a fair trial is never given to that person.
Quote:
...as has already been reported, even many of the ones who WERE determined by appropriate tribunal to be enemy combatants have been (to the disgust of any thinking person) let go as well. What is your problem with that? Upon what do you base your outrage?
Would you expect anything different after the cruel and immoral way they were treated??? That alone makes a strong argument against such treatment. However, if they were given a fair trial and found to be guilty of something, I absolutely have no problem keeping them locked up for a long, long time.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
Re: Olbermann: “Why does habeas corpus hate America” [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#6169610 - 10/14/06 05:49 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Here we go again - you're saying it's morally ok to kill to our heart's content if a captured person (who is no longer a threat) is believed to be an illegal comatant, even if a fair trial is never given to that person.
Here you go again -- demonstrating your inability to read what has been said. I didn't say we have the right to execute people willy nilly. You will recall my mention of how it is decided whether the person in question is in fact an actual combatant. However, if it IS determined -- through due process -- he is an enemy combatant, then we can rightfully do one of two things: detain him for the duration of hostilities if he is a legal enemy combatant (or even, as we are doing these days, if he is an illegal enemy combatant) or execute him on the spot if he is an illegal enemy combatant.
Quote:
Would you expect anything different after the cruel and immoral way they were treated???
It has nothing to do with the way they were treated -- which of course in the current conflict is neither cruel or immoral -- and everything to do with the fact that they are enemy combatants. That's what combatants do, duh -- they fight. It was common for POWs from both sides in previous wars who managed to escape and make it back to their own lines to return to the battlefield. It was expected they do so. Why do you think jihadis would be any different?
Quote:
However, if they were given a fair trial and found to be guilty of something, I absolutely have no problem keeping them locked up for a long, long time.
Then I fail to see the problem. What on earth are you whining about? They get their trial and if the tribunal rules they are in fact combatants -- legal or illegal -- they are locked up for a long long time. I admit I am baffled at your outrage. Just what is it that infuriates you so?
Phred
--------------------
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
|
Re: Olbermann: “Why does habeas corpus hate America” [Re: Phred]
#6169627 - 10/14/06 05:55 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said: [Just what is it that infuriates you so?
I'm interested in knowing this as well. I admit that I have not studied the act, barely read up on it at all, in fact, so I'd like someone who has to inform me of exactly what about it is such a violation of what-have-you. If these individuals are still receiving a trial, then where is the conflict here?
--------------------
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: Olbermann: “Why does habeas corpus hate America” [Re: Phred]
#6169946 - 10/14/06 08:06 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Phred said: and nowhere does it state that a prisoner must be given a CRST hearing within any given time frame either...and without such a requirement..they could be "awaiting such determination"..without a day in court..until they die...
Uh huh. Please name for us a single detainee who has yet to receive a review by tribunal determining whether or not he is an enemy combatant.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/17/AR2006091700259.html
unfortunately..the link doesnt give any names...but what it means is that 450 prisoners at gitmo have had CSRTs vs 14000 that prolly havent...
Quote:
Quote:
arlen specter doesnt think so..
I said RATIONAL people. Specter has demonstrated amply over the years he doesn't fit this definition. Specter is an opportunistic, preening political hack.
that sounds alot like the old KGB argument that anyone that doesnt agree with our fascist bullshit must be crazy..or at the very least..nonrational...
Quote:
Quote:
...but those who have not been so charged..whether or not they have been found to be UECs by a CSRT..may still be held for life without a chance to defend themselves at a tribunal...
Still having difficulty with the whole prisoner of war paradigm, I see. When hostilities cease, they will be released. If they die before hostilities cease, too bad. And as you are well aware, dozens (perhaps hundreds by now) HAVE been released even though hostilities are ongoing. Over two dozen of those released are KNOWN to have immediately returned to the battlefield. For all we know the majority have.
"prisoner of war" in this context doesnt make any more sense than declaring a "war" which not only the enemy but you too are never meant to win..as the repugnicans have done...
Quote:
Quote:
...and its beneath pathetic that you should try to draw a difference between explicitly legalizing torture vs merely decriminalizing it ..
You haven't the faintest clue what you are talking about. Torture hasn't been decriminalized. Your problem is the same as that of so many critics who stretch the definition of "torture" to the point of absurdity.
duh...if the law says that prohibitions against torture (however it is defined) cannot be enforced in a court..thats decriminalization...and i suppose that you agree with john yoo that its not torture unless it results a in fatal organ failure...
Quote:
Quote:
in this case..congress has determined that appropriate due process is zero..
Bullshit. There is in fact due process. It's just that you don't like the process, so you whine that there is none. Take a reality pill.
having taken such a pill..the reality appears to be that the MCA may specify a means of due process..but it does not require its application..whether fully or in part..in any instances...and under the influence of a reality pill..i cannot accept any claim that this is the same thing as guarenteeing some level (beyond zero) of due process for every prisoner...its not necessarily the process itself (which ..BTW..is also heavily flawed) so much as the fact that many..if not most..prisoners wont get it...
|
zorbman
blarrr


Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
|
Re: Olbermann: “Why does habeas corpus hate America” [Re: Annapurna1]
#6170302 - 10/14/06 10:39 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
the reality appears to be that the MCA may specify a means of due process..but it does not require its application..
-------------------- “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 (10/15/06 01:23 AM)
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy

Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: Olbermann: “Why does habeas corpus hate America” [Re: fireworks_god]
#6170750 - 10/15/06 01:08 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Quote:
Phred said: [Just what is it that infuriates you so?
I'm interested in knowing this as well. I admit that I have not studied the act, barely read up on it at all, in fact, so I'd like someone who has to inform me of exactly what about it is such a violation of what-have-you. If these individuals are still receiving a trial, then where is the conflict here?
and thats a big if...the vast bulk of them wont be getting a trial...for example..only 10 out of 450 prisoners at guantanamo are currently going to trial...since there are no requirements of time limits under the MCA..you could spend the rest of your life in prison under torture without even being rubber-stamped as a UEC by a CSRT.. let alone getting a trial that admits questionable evidence...olbermann is right and phred is wrong...
--------------------
"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
Re: Olbermann: “Why does habeas corpus hate America” [Re: Annapurna1]
#6170828 - 10/15/06 02:02 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
..the vast bulk of them wont be getting a trial...
Bullshit. ALL of the Gitmo detainees have been before the appropriate military tribunal and all current detainees have been determined to be enemy combatants. What more do you want?
It is true that some of these detainees may ALSO eventually be charged with being more than just enemy combatants -- i.e. they may be charged with war crimes. I presume these are the 10 out of the 450 you keep harping on. Those convicted of war crimes will not necessarily be eligible for release upon cessation of hostilities, while the run of the mill enemy combatants will become eligible for release at that time.
You demonstrate yourself utterly incapable of grasping the concept of prisoner of war. These people are not being held because they are criminals but because they are enemy combatants. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to "try" them for any "crime" -- the fact they are enemy combatants is in and of itself sufficient reason to hold them till the end of hostilities.
Anna, I am curious. What do you think should be done with someone who pops up from behind a bush in Afghanistan, fires an AK47 or RPG at a coalition convoy on a road, then is disarmed and captured in the ensuing firefight? Should he be shot then and there? Let go immediately?
Just what rational alternative do you propose for handling captured enemy combatants? I do not ask this facetiously -- I really want to hear your views on this.
Phred
--------------------
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy

Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: Olbermann: “Why does habeas corpus hate America” [Re: Phred]
#6171556 - 10/15/06 11:35 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Bullshit. ALL of the Gitmo detainees have been before the appropriate military tribunal and all current detainees have been determined to be enemy combatants.
that still leaves 14000 that havent had such a tribunal...and its highly questionable whether the CSRTs meet even minimal standards of due process...as i understand it..the CSRTs are simply rubber-stamp crews...
Quote:
You demonstrate yourself utterly incapable of grasping the concept of prisoner of war. These people are not being held because they are criminals but because they are enemy combatants. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to "try" them for any "crime" -- the fact they are enemy combatants is in and of itself sufficient reason to hold them till the end of hostilities.
cut the orwellian bullshit...there will be no "end of hostilities" and everyone knows that...moreover..under the provisions of the MCA..an "enemy combatant" is any political opponent of the repugnican party who is not also a US citizen...(thats not actually how its written..but theres no way you can argue against that meaning)...
Quote:
Anna, I am curious. What do you think should be done with someone who pops up from behind a bush in Afghanistan, fires an AK47 or RPG at a coalition convoy on a road, then is disarmed and captured in the ensuing firefight? Should he be shot then and there? Let go immediately?
Just what rational alternative do you propose for handling captured enemy combatants? I do not ask this facetiously -- I really want to hear your views on this.
to repeat ..an "enemy combatant" under the MCA need not even be in possession of a weapon.. let alone firing at US troops...in the case of a bona fide enemy combatant..however..if that person is to be considered a POW..then the only acceptable alternatives are either to shoot that person on the spot as a lawful act of combat.. or else to incarcerate them as a POW under the terms of the geneva conventions which must enforceable in a court...
in reality there are of course other options..such as the MCA...but it is worth pointing out that as the MCA threatens political opponents of the bush regime with life imprisonment under torture.. it also offers bona fide combatants and terrorists the option of death...and since death is preferrable (especially for a terrorist)..the MCA creates an incentive for otherwise lawful political dissenters to become bona fide terrorists...and given as much as the repugnicans stand to gain from more terrorism..i believe this result to be wholly intentional...
Edited by Annapurna1 (10/15/06 11:41 AM)
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
Re: Olbermann: “Why does habeas corpus hate America” [Re: Annapurna1]
#6171628 - 10/15/06 12:06 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
that still leaves 14000 that havent had such a tribunal...
Bullshit. You haven't the faintest idea how many haven't yet had a review, nor do you know the average length of time before they get their review, nor do you recognize that this is taking place not in America, but in a foreign country in a war zone in time of war.
Quote:
nd its highly questionable whether the CSRTs meet even minimal standards of due process...
No, it isn't highly questionable. You just don't like the process.
Quote:
there will be no "end of hostilities" and everyone knows that..
No, not everyone "knows" that. Take your "14,000", for example. At some point one faction or another will gain firm control in Iraq and those currently held will be released -- with the possible exception of those found guilty of blowing up tons of civilians with car bombs, and even THEY may be released depending which faction comes out on top.
And even if hostilities continue for another fifty years, so what? That's the chance you take when you go to war... you might be killed, you might be maimed, you might be captured.
Quote:
..under the provisions of the MCA..an "enemy combatant" is any political opponent of the repugnican party who is not also a US citizen...(C)...
More of your trademark hysterical nonsense. I don't know why you have convinced yourself lately that adding such "qualifiers" as "thats not actually how its written..but theres no way you can argue against that meaning)..." somehow makes your proclamations any more credible. It's not actually written that way because the purpose of the legislation is not to screw over "any political political opponent of the repugnican (Oooh! Such a clever and precious term you use!) party who is not also a US citizen," but to describe the best way to deal with captured alien enemy combatants.
And by the way, duh, any enemy combatant by definition is not a fan of the politics of the forces he is fighting.
Quote:
o repeat ..an "enemy combatant" under the MCA need not even be in possession of a weapon.. let alone firing at US troops...
That has always been the case in war. What's your point?
Quote:
...in the case of a bona fide enemy combatant..however..if that person is to be considered a POW.. then the only acceptable alternatives are either to shoot that person on the spot as a lawful act of combat..
Even after they have laid down their weapons and surrendered? Damn, you're harsh. You make Rush Limbaugh look like a wimp.
Quote:
...or else to incarcerate them as a POW under the terms of the geneva conventions which must enforceable in a court...
Which is what is being done, duh!
Quote:
...but it is worth pointing out that as the MCA threatens political opponents of the bush regime with life imprisonment under torture..
No it doesn't.
Quote:
.. it also offers bona fide combatants and terrorists the option of death...and since death is preferrable (especially for a terrorist)..the MCA creates an incentive for otherwise lawful political dissenters to become bona fide terrorists...and given as much as the repugnicans stand to gain from more terrorism..i believe this result to be wholly intentional...
WTF?
I've asked you this before and I'll ask it again -- why don't you just come clean and admit you are really a right winger doing a wildly over-exaggerated over-the-top parody of a Leftie for your own twisted amusement?
Phred
--------------------
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy

Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: Olbermann: “Why does habeas corpus hate America” [Re: Phred]
#6173452 - 10/15/06 09:26 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said:
Quote:
that still leaves 14000 that havent had such a tribunal...
Bullshit. You haven't the faintest idea how many haven't yet had a review, nor do you know the average length of time before they get their review, nor do you recognize that this is taking place not in America, but in a foreign country in a war zone in time of war.
nor does it matter what the avery length of time is...the point is that under the MCA..it may be never..thats not necessarily always the case..but it can be nonetheless...nor have i been able to find any lynx to verify your implicit claim that those 14000 outside of gitmo have had CSRT reviews either...
Quote:
Quote:
nd its highly questionable whether the CSRTs meet even minimal standards of due process...
No, it isn't highly questionable. You just don't like the process.
the "process" in this case is a rubber stamp...congress has determined that this is the only process they are due..and it remains to be seen whether the SCOTUS will agree...but in either case..its still highly questionable as pragmatic "due process"...
Quote:
Quote:
there will be no "end of hostilities" and everyone knows that..
No, not everyone "knows" that. Take your "14,000", for example. At some point one faction or another will gain firm control in Iraq and those currently held will be released -- with the possible exception of those found guilty of blowing up tons of civilians with car bombs, and even THEY may be released depending which faction comes out on top.
And even if hostilities continue for another fifty years, so what? That's the chance you take when you go to war... you might be killed, you might be maimed, you might be captured.
they did not go to war...we went to war.. invaded their country.. and started tossing them into abu ghraib...nor will there be any "cessation of hostilities" so long as there are ppl anywhere in the world that fall under the MCA definiton of "unlawful enemy combatant"..which means never...
Quote:
Quote:
..under the provisions of the MCA..an "enemy combatant" is any political opponent of the repugnican party who is not also a US citizen...(C)...
More of your trademark hysterical nonsense. I don't know why you have convinced yourself lately that adding such "qualifiers" as "thats not actually how its written..but theres no way you can argue against that meaning)..." somehow makes your proclamations any more credible. It's not actually written that way because the purpose of the legislation is not to screw over "any political political opponent of the repugnican (Oooh! Such a clever and precious term you use!) party who is not also a US citizen," but to describe the best way to deal with captured alien enemy combatants.
And by the way, duh, any enemy combatant by definition is not a fan of the politics of the forces he is fighting.
what i said about lawful foreign dissidents being considered as UECs under this act is still true...but for that matter..under the MCA..a french tourist that gets caught with a spliff in his mouth in new york city *will* be declared a UEC for providing material support to the FARC...
Quote:
Quote:
o repeat ..an "enemy combatant" under the MCA need not even be in possession of a weapon.. let alone firing at US troops...
That has always been the case in war. What's your point?
because you tried to use an example of a bona fide combatant...my point is that they many of these prisoners are not combatants..period...
Quote:
Quote:
...in the case of a bona fide enemy combatant..however..if that person is to be considered a POW.. then the only acceptable alternatives are either to shoot that person on the spot as a lawful act of combat..
Even after they have laid down their weapons and surrendered? Damn, you're harsh. You make Rush Limbaugh look like a wimp.
and how is it to be considered "harsh" when the alternative is life imprisonment under torture??...given that choice..if i was captured..i would most definitely prefer the immediate execution...however..im not sure about the legality of "take no prisoners"...but they better hope it is legal...
Quote:
Quote:
...or else to incarcerate them as a POW under the terms of the geneva conventions which must enforceable in a court...
Which is what is being done, duh!
duh...the MCA very expressly states that the geneva protections are NOT enforceable in any court...
--------------------
"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy

Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: Olbermann: “Why does habeas corpus hate America” [Re: Phred]
#6173491 - 10/15/06 09:43 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
...but it is worth pointing out that as the MCA threatens political opponents of the bush regime with life imprisonment under torture..
No it doesn't.
it does under the "material support" clause...
Quote:
Quote:
.. it also offers bona fide combatants and terrorists the option of death...and since death is preferrable (especially for a terrorist)..the MCA creates an incentive for otherwise lawful political dissenters to become bona fide terrorists...and given as much as the repugnicans stand to gain from more terrorism..i believe this result to be wholly intentional...
WTF?
it simply means that its better to die on a field of combat than to be prosecuted as a UEC and subject to life imprisonment under torture...and this is the choice king george is giving to all foreign dissidents...
--------------------
"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: Olbermann: “Why does habeas corpus hate America” [Re: Phred]
#6177370 - 10/17/06 02:44 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said: What on earth are you whining about? I admit I am baffled at your outrage. Just what is it that infuriates you so?
I was out for much of the weekend, but Annapurna1 did a very nice job explaining the problem. The bottom line is, how we claim to be a great country if we don’t even allow for fair trials? We’re not; we’re just a bunch of thugs. And that's the not the America I care to live in.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
Re: Olbermann: “Why does habeas corpus hate America” [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#6177668 - 10/17/06 07:39 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Why do you claim the trials aren't fair?
Remember we are not talking about trying an American citizen for murdering a business rival or anything remotely similar, but discussing which process is appropriate for deciding whether captured aliens in time of war are enemy combatants or not.
In every previous war in history, such a process has been left in the hands of military tribunals. Do you dispute this? If so, please provide a credible link indicating otherwise. If not, please explain to the readers why this procedure has suddenly become unacceptable to you.
Phred
--------------------
|
|