10/17/06: A Dark Day in American History

[Johnd]

To all the naysayers and cynics:

I am a fervent believer in the Constitution and the US. I hold onto my right to speak out against a tyrannical government or the mistakes/incorrect decisions that they may make.

When will you realize our conventional methods of capturing and prosecuting terrorists (let alone fighting a war) simply do not work?

Provided we do hold the Geneva Convention and basic human rights inviolate, I do not see such a problem with this law. It is a "necessary evil" in this day and age.

 

[jaxvon]

To all the naysayers and cynics:

I am a fervent believer in the Constitution and the US. I hold onto my right to speak out against a tyrannical government or the mistakes/incorrect decisions that they may make.

When will you realize our conventional methods of capturing and prosecuting terrorists (let alone fighting a war) simply do not work?

Provided we do hold the Geneva Convention and basic human rights inviolate, I do not see such a problem with this law. It is a "necessary evil" in this day and age.

Indeed. I agree with the law in principle. However, the right-stripping version that is currently enacted is not a proper piece of legislation. It gives a large amount of power to an already over-powerful executive branch. I think with a good work-over the law could be made into something that allows us to fairly and humanely treat and prosecute those who attack us.

 

[BMXTRIX]

I am a fervent believer in the Constitution and the US. I hold onto my right to speak out against a tyrannical government or the mistakes/incorrect decisions that they may make.

Except now, apparently, if someone decides you are to uppity with your speaking out, you can be held by the military indefinitely without ever having a lawyer or day in court. The military claims 'enemy combatant' for your words of change, and you are gone. Doesn't sound like the America any of us have grown up in to me.

When will you realize our conventional methods of capturing and prosecuting terrorists (let alone fighting a war) simply do not work?

I agree there needs to be improvement - but what exactly has been holding us back and does this actually fix anything, or lay guidelines that have already been followed? I'm not sure this helps things, or hurts them, in any way as the underlying issue may be that we don't have the ability to find the terrorists to capture them in the first place.

Provided we do hold the Geneva Convention and basic human rights inviolate, I do not see such a problem with this law. It is a "necessary evil" in this day and age.

Does the law hold the Geneva Convention inviolate? It seems that it may specifically allow circumvention of it.

 

[Johnd]

Except now, apparently, if someone decides you are to uppity with your speaking out, you can be held by the military indefinitely without ever having a lawyer or day in court. The military claims 'enemy combatant' for your words of change, and you are gone. Doesn't sound like the America any of us have grown up in to me.


I agree there needs to be improvement - but what exactly has been holding us back and does this actually fix anything, or lay guidelines that have already been followed? I'm not sure this helps things, or hurts them, in any way as the underlying issue may be that we don't have the ability to find the terrorists to capture them in the first place.


Does the law hold the Geneva Convention inviolate? It seems that it may specifically allow circumvention of it.

1) I am not so paranoid to think "someone" can simply label me an enemy combatant w/o some empirical proof (possessing illegal weapons, making threats, comitting terrorist acts, etc.)

2) The "law" need not hold the Geneva Convention inviolate. We (the Citizenry, the military and the government) need to uphold the Convention for military prisoners. Thus the addition of "basic human rights" for those prisoners which are not POW's.

3) Yes, improvement is still needed. I submit in the meantime we do what we can to the best of our ability without becoming tyrranical ourselves. I do not believe the rogues involved in the Abu Ghraib incident are the norm in the US military...we obviously need to investigate and punish those culpable to the fullest extent of the (military) law.

 

[Johnd]

Indeed. I agree with the law in principle. However, the right-stripping version that is currently enacted is not a proper piece of legislation. It gives a large amount of power to an already over-powerful executive branch. I think with a good work-over the law could be made into something that allows us to fairly and humanely treat and prosecute those who attack us.

If this is the case, I submit only time will tell. If the government and military overstep or, worse yet, commit crimes whilst hiding behind this new piece of legislation, we need to revamp the law and prosecute those culpable. As someone previously said, it is not the laws that are inhumane or unjust, it is the enforcement of those laws. I submit it is our duty as Citizens to monitor and scrutinize the proper enforcement of this necessary piece of legislation, rather than opt for some watered-down, weak-kneed version that requires no further engagement. Perhaps it is just another price we pay for the freedoms we enjoy in the 21st century.

 

[jaxvon]

Perhaps it is just another price we pay for the freedoms we enjoy in the 21st century.

I don't call giving up civil liberties a fair price to "enjoy freedoms". To live in a society you must give up some freedoms. That is the nature of a society. However, what we are doing here is giving up freedoms for "security". That's absolute rubbish. I encourage you to read the bill in its entirety, or if you haven't already, read my posts above where I highlight some of the worse sections and give my interpretation of them.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

[ironlung]

Public Enemy #1

This is all a very interesting discussion but what I really want to know is why did my HD DVR miss recording 30 rock this week?

 

[rmongiovi]

1) I am not so paranoid to think "someone" can simply label me an enemy combatant w/o some empirical proof (possessing illegal weapons, making threats, comitting terrorist acts, etc.)

But what, exactly, constitutes a "threat"? Expressing an opinion that the government is wrong like we're doing now?

The point, to me, is that the "enemy combatant" label is a guilty until proven innocent charge, and this law specifically forbids methods of being proven innocent. They can lock you up, and throw away the key, and just wait until the problem goes away.

Now, if all government officials were trustworthy, you might argue that such an approach is acceptable considering the enemy we're facing. But as anyone who reads the news these days, or remembers Nixon, or Hoover, or McCarthy, not all government officials can be trusted. In fact, I submit to you that the very people who want to run for office are EXACTLY the people who should not be given this sort of power.

But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

 

[jaxvon]

For those interested, here is a link to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Parts of this are "inapplicable" to the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title10/subtitlea_partii_chapter47_.html

 

[highfihoney]

I'd like to see a boxing...better yet, wrestling match against Kim Jong-il and Bush.

Would make a kick a$$ pay per veiw event.

 

[craigsub]

The sky is falling, AGAIN.

The Bill clearly states this:

Applicability to U.S. Citizens
The text of the law states that its "Purpose" is to "establish procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission." Legal and Constitutional scholar Robert A. Levy commented that the Act denies habeas rights only to aliens, and that U.S. citizens detained as "unlawful combatants" would still have habeas rights and could challenge their detention. [8] While formally opposed to the Act, Human Rights Watch has also concluded that the new law limits the scope of trials by military commissions to non-U.S. citizens including all legal aliens. [9]

There are no rights taken away here. Chilling ? What is chilling is how people will get sucked into believing that a Bill which will allow us to treat terrorists in the same manner as enemy spies rather than as constitutionally protected wards of our justice system is somehow BAD.

YET...

In New York State, if a business owner ... let's say of a bar ... wants to allow people to smoke in his PRIVATELY owned business, that is against the law.

 

[warhummer]

Funny how some who so vehemently protest against this bill are mum on the concept of non-judicial punishment under the UCMJ. Reference the link in Jaxvon's post.

 

[jaxvon]

The Bill clearly states this:



There are no rights taken away here. Chilling ? What is chilling is how people will get sucked into believing that a Bill which will allow us to treat terrorists in the same manner as enemy spies rather than as constitutionally protected wards of our justice system is somehow BAD.

YET...

In New York State, if a business owner ... let's say of a bar ... wants to allow people to smoke in his PRIVATELY owned business, that is against the law.

If you didn't notice, there is only one word that stops the bill from being used against US citizens, and that is 'alien'. I discussed this in a previous post. In a perfect world, a bill like this would be fine, because those in charge of running the commissions would be good people and would not abuse the power given to them. However, our world is quite imperfect, and there are a lot of power hungry people that work in the government (on both sides of the aisle) that don't have a regard for rights.

I totally agree that it's BS that smokers are discriminated against in NY. I don't pick and choose who I think deserves rights and who doesn't. Until you have been convicted of a crime, I think all US citizens deserve their rights. And even if you are not a US citizen, you still deserve to be treated with respect. These commissions are understandably different than normal trials that take place under our normal laws, but I still think that it is counterproductive to deprive people of basic rights like Habeas Corpus and those provided by the Geneva Conventions.

As I stated before, legislation like this has a place, but NOT in its current form.

 

[craigsub]

If you didn't notice, there is only one word that stops the bill from being used against US citizens, and that is 'alien'. I discussed this in a previous post. In a perfect world, a bill like this would be fine, because those in charge of running the commissions would be good people and would not abuse the power given to them. However, our world is quite imperfect, and there are a lot of power hungry people that work in the government (on both sides of the aisle) that don't have a regard for rights.

I totally agree that it's BS that smokers are discriminated against in NY. I don't pick and choose who I think deserves rights and who doesn't. Until you have been convicted of a crime, I think all US citizens deserve their rights. And even if you are not a US citizen, you still deserve to be treated with respect. These commissions are understandably different than normal trials that take place under our normal laws, but I still think that it is counterproductive to deprive people of basic rights like Habeas Corpus and those provided by the Geneva Conventions.

As I stated before, legislation like this has a place, but NOT in its current form.

Jaxvon, The Geneva convention was signed by countries. The problem with your position on this is you think that terrorists are deserving of Geneva Convention protections.

Geneva convention protections are available to ALL enemy combatants who are fighting for a particular country.

In order for this to occur, the country involved has to offically state that, for example, al-quaida is sanctioned by the government of that country.

No country is officially supporting al-quaida, therefore there are no Geneva Convention protections given. Al-quaida terrorists are doing things like beheading people they capture.

For which exact Geneva convention participating country are they committing these atrocites ? France ? Pakistan ? Iran ? The USA ? Canada ?

There is NO country willing to say :"Yes, these are OUR troops, and we demand Geneva Convention protections for them".

The terrorists are not acting on behalf of any country, and therefore they are not entitled to Geneva Convention protections.

NOW, to your "point" about that one word "alien" being present.

The fact is, that word is THERE.

Therefore, your entire point and premise are based on a faulty pretense.

Allow me to demonstrate. Let us look at two sentences ...

#1. ___________ should carry a minimum sentence of 10 years in prison.

#2. Rape should carry a minimum sentence of 10 years in prison.

If we are going to discuss things in an intellectual way, You cannot just decide to leave out words, and draw conclusions from that. Try to get a conviction in sentence #1, above.

 

[jaxvon]

Craig,

Since when did I claim that terrorists are deserving of rights? If you are calling someone a terrorist, then using that classification to deny rights, you are assuming guilt from the start. Obviously the situation mandates a different type of trial system. But a trial system that robs a suspect of rights before a guilty verdict is NOT justice. Aren't we supposed to be a beacon of justice and freedom? What kind of example does this set, aside from "WE'RE HARD ON TERORRISTS!"

The problem with a single word being the only thing stopping the bill from applying to Americans is that the person with the power to change the law is the Secretary of Defense. Nowhere in the bill did I find any check of this power.

 

[Johnd]

Craig,

Since when did I claim that terrorists are deserving of rights? If you are calling someone a terrorist, then using that classification to deny rights, you are assuming guilt from the start.

I think you hit it on the head.

1) Terrorists by definition (by comitting acts of terror) forego most rights...we certainly are not bound by the Bill of Rights to try them in our judicial system (i.e. guilty until proven innocent).

2) It does not follow that because we classify someone a terrorist, and consequently deny them rights (what rights should they have...civil rights, bill of rights, human rights?), that we therefore presume them guilty. It is faulty logic to propose that we are even denying them any rights at all. To be denied rights, you must first have them, and I submit terrorists should be granted only basic human rights.

Therefore, we are not being tyrranical by disallowing them rights (except basic human rights, which we should never disallow). We may not even be tyrranical by our presuming terrorists guilty unless proven otherwise. This is mostly a Western doctrine, as many Eastern countries mandate that you must establish your innocence. I fail to see what rights we have stripped of terrorists.

 

[craigsub]

Craig,

Since when did I claim that terrorists are deserving of rights? If you are calling someone a terrorist, then using that classification to deny rights, you are assuming guilt from the start. Obviously the situation mandates a different type of trial system. But a trial system that robs a suspect of rights before a guilty verdict is NOT justice. Aren't we supposed to be a beacon of justice and freedom? What kind of example does this set, aside from "WE'RE HARD ON TERORRISTS!"

The problem with a single word being the only thing stopping the bill from applying to Americans is that the person with the power to change the law is the Secretary of Defense. Nowhere in the bill did I find any check of this power.

Ok ... let us try this again. See if you can put aside your hatred for George W. Bush, and actually think, rather than spew nonsense.

1. US citizens cannot be charged as terrorists just for walking around. There has to be an ACT of terrorism. Can you understand this ?

2. The Secretary of Defense cannot just decide to ignore the word alien. If we are going to be adults here, you need to stop making up garbage. That is pure garbage.

3. Last summer, several Large passenger jets were going to be taken over by terrorists. The plot was foiled. The initial investigation was sparked by this so-called "illegal wire-tapping" catching the fact that suddenly a lot of calls were going from the US to Pakistan and back.

In YOUR world, that was a BAD thing.

In MY world, I am thrilled the intelligence services are checking on phone traffic. They are not ... NOT ... listening in on conversations. They are following traffic patterns of phone calls.

Had this monitoring of phone calls not happened, no investigation would have started ... and left wing nut-cases would be screaming for our President's head.

And, by following YOUR rules, 4000 innocent people would be dead.

4. Do us all a favor, and the next time you want to open an asinine thread like this, go on some left wing whack job Blog site, and have at it.

This Trash has no place here, and all the stuff you are posting is a series of lies, half truths, and hysteria.

 

[jaxvon]

RE: 1. I do. They can, however, be labeled as an unlawful enemy combatant, per the language of the law itself.

RE: 2. True, he cannot ignore it. However, he can change it and prescribe changes to the bill if he likes.

`(c) Delegation of Authority To Prescribe Regulations- The Secretary of Defense may delegate the authority of the Secretary to prescribe regulations under this chapter.

`(d) Notification to Congressional Committees of Changes to Procedures- Not later than 60 days before the date on which any proposed modification of the procedures in effect for military commissions under this chapter goes into effect, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report describing the modification.


I still stand by my statement that there is nothing that says he must get approval from Congress, only that he must submit the proposed changes. Perhaps the approval is implicit, but I would think that in order for it to be enforced that such a regulation must be made explicit.

RE: 3. Yes Craig. I support the terrorists. I didn't want their plot to be foiled. I wanted those planes to crash and burn.

Sarcasm aside, I only ask that warrants be issued. Wiretapping is fine. It has helped to stop a lot of criminals, not just terrorists. If the calls being monitored are originating from within the USA, I think the rule of law should be respected and that a warrant be procured.

Now, a common argument against this would be that time is of the essence, and that whoever is doing the wiretapping can only listen in for a specified amount of time (the figure escapes me at the moment). The limit is good. However, would it be that hard to detail a judge whose job is to oversee wiretapping? If one had a judge whose sole job was to look over the requests for wiretapping warrants, those carrying out the wiretapping could still act in a timely manner while respecting the law.

RE: 4.

Aside from my first post where I incorrectly claimed it strips Americans of their rights (which I later corrected), I see no false claims elsewhere. Those that might be construed as false are my opinion, and are clearly written as such. Furthermore, this is not trash. While the thread title is somewhat inflamatory, this has been for the most part, a civil discussion. I have posted excerpts from the law, then shared my interpretation and opinion of them. If it was not evident that part of the text following my excerpts was my opinion, then I apologize for the confusion. I do not appreciate your insinuation that I am a liar, or that my posts belong on "some left wing whack job Blog site".

If you see an error in my interpretation(s), please point out the specific parts and the parts of the law it applies to and prove me wrong. I invite you to shoot down my argument in flames, provided that you base your rebuttal on the law in question and legal precedent and not condescension bordering on libel.

 

[craigsub]

RE: 1. I do. They can, however, be labeled as an unlawful enemy combatant, per the language of the law itself.

RE: 2. True, he cannot ignore it. However, he can change it and prescribe changes to the bill if he likes.

`(c) Delegation of Authority To Prescribe Regulations- The Secretary of Defense may delegate the authority of the Secretary to prescribe regulations under this chapter.

`(d) Notification to Congressional Committees of Changes to Procedures- Not later than 60 days before the date on which any proposed modification of the procedures in effect for military commissions under this chapter goes into effect, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report describing the modification.


I still stand by my statement that there is nothing that says he must get approval from Congress, only that he must submit the proposed changes. Perhaps the approval is implicit, but I would think that in order for it to be enforced that such a regulation must be made explicit.

RE: 3. Yes Craig. I support the terrorists. I didn't want their plot to be foiled. I wanted those planes to crash and burn.

Sarcasm aside, I only ask that warrants be issued. Wiretapping is fine. It has helped to stop a lot of criminals, not just terrorists. If the calls being monitored are originating from within the USA, I think the rule of law should be respected and that a warrant be procured.

Now, a common argument against this would be that time is of the essence, and that whoever is doing the wiretapping can only listen in for a specified amount of time (the figure escapes me at the moment). The limit is good. However, would it be that hard to detail a judge whose job is to oversee wiretapping? If one had a judge whose sole job was to look over the requests for wiretapping warrants, those carrying out the wiretapping could still act in a timely manner while respecting the law.

RE: 4.

Aside from my first post where I incorrectly claimed it strips Americans of their rights (which I later corrected), I see no false claims elsewhere. Those that might be construed as false are my opinion, and are clearly written as such. Furthermore, this is not trash. While the thread title is somewhat inflamatory, this has been for the most part, a civil discussion. I have posted excerpts from the law, then shared my interpretation and opinion of them. If it was not evident that part of the text following my excerpts was my opinion, then I apologize for the confusion. I do not appreciate your insinuation that I am a liar, or that my posts belong on "some left wing whack job Blog site".

If you see an error in my interpretation(s), please point out the specific parts and the parts of the law it applies to and prove me wrong. I invite you to shoot down my argument in flames, provided that you base your rebuttal on the law in question and legal precedent and not condescension bordering on libel.

Bordering on libel ? I get it, free speech only works for the left wing. And, young man, you are a liar.

For example, there is no wire tapping occuring. There is tracing where calls are going, and when these calls are suspicious, then an investigation is done.

So, when you call it wire tapping, you are lying. It is merely looking at the general direction of traffic.

Your posting a portion of the law in which the Sec Def can prescribe changes does not mean he can aribitrarily decide that "Alien" is removed from the law.

You lied again.

Again, there are places for this type of paranoid, left wing propaganda.

An audio site is not the place for it. This is a hobbyist site, and is supposed to be for enjoyment.

Take this crap somewhere else, where it belongs. One of the 2 sites in your signature would be perfect.

Someday, when you are all growed up, and are paying taxes, you might learn some reason. I have seen loonier people than you turn out ok after a dose of reality.

 

[ironlung]

While yous guys are jabbering away about all this non sense Jerry Springer has made it through elimination AGAIN!!!!!


Lets get back to the real issues people!!!!