Manual to allow executions based on hearsay

[RickSp]

Manual to allow executions based on hearsay

The Pentagon has drafted a manual for upcoming detainee trials that would allow suspected terrorists to be convicted on hearsay evidence and coerced testimony and imprisoned or put to death. According to a copy of the manual obtained by The Associated Press, a terror suspect's defense lawyer cannot reveal classified evidence in the person's defense until the government has a chance to review it. The manual, sent to Capitol Hill on Thursday and scheduled to be released later by the Pentagon, is intended to track a law passed last fall by Congress restoring President Bush's plans to have special military commissions try terror-war prisoners. Those commissions had been struck down earlier in the year by the Supreme Court.

So this is what "American justice" now means. Heresay evidence or a confession elicted under torture can now be used to condemn an "enemy combatant" to death. No habeas corpus, no rules of evidence, no oversight. It is the judicial equivalent of what happened at Haditha.

And who is an "enemy combatant"? Anyone the government says is an "enemy combatant." The Bill of Rights is null and void.

[GHook93]

Quote by: RickSp Manual to allow executions based on hearsay So this is what "American justice" now means. Heresay evidence or a confession elicted under torture can now be used to condemn an "enemy combatant" to death. No habeas corpus, no rules of evidence, no oversight. It is the judicial equivalent of what happened at Haditha. And who is an "enemy combatant"? Anyone the government says is an "enemy combatant." The Bill of Rights is null and void.

I heard about this last night and I had a feeling you were going to start a thread on this.

Is this against the constitution (if it is American being held)? Absolutely!
Is this against the Genva Convention? Absolutely!

On the Constitution:

The constitution is designed to protect Americans, so some Islamic Terrorist who would cut anyone of our throats if he had the chance, are not protected.

If an American is detained, then that is a different story, but the terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay are Foreign Nationals (OK maybe a few are Americans). It is an insult to expect the constitution to protect these men.

Geneva Convention:

This is a different story, while the constitution was not created to protect these douche bags, the Geneva Convention was. You can make an argument that none of our enemies since WW II ever follow respected this treaty: (1) Korea, (2) Vietnam, (3) Iraq etc and nor will any of our future enemies.. If one of our boys is caught he would be tortured unmercifully. Nevertheless, this act goes against the Geneva Convention. Unless the US is ready to repeal the treaty, then we would be breaking an international agreement.

Torture to extract data to stop future attacks is one thing. But using hearsay information extracted to but these guys to death just seems wrong. Yes we are at war, but POWs are supposed to be detained not murdered.

[Praxius]

So... if Canada decided to goto war with the US, any captured troops would be classified as "enemy combatant" since we're in combat with you and we're the enemy?

What friggin nut job shot up before they thought this one up?

The division between the US Citizens and the US Government is getting wider and wider as the days go by.... like two different countries in one.

[RickSp]

Quote by: GHook93 On the Constitution: The constitution is designed to protect Americans, so some Islamic Terrorist who would cut anyone of our throats if he had the chance, are not protected. If an American is detained, then that is a different story, but the terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay are Foreign Nationals (OK maybe a few are Americans). It is an insult to expect the constitution to protect these men.

Where exactly in the Constitution does it say that it applies only to US citizens? Nowhere. As you know, or should know, the US Constitution indeed applies to foreigners inside the US, on US territories or in US custody.

What is insulting is that you choose to condemn people without due process based on what amounts to name-calling. You have no basis for knowing whether any one of the detainees is "some Islamic Terrorist who would cut anyone of our throats if he had the chance" or merely someone who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, like the 22 year old taxi driver who US interrogators beat to death in Bagram.

In U.S. Report, Brutal Details of 2 Afghan Inmates' Deaths

[Praxius]

Quote by: RickSp Where exactly in the Constitution does it say that it applies only to US citizens? Nowhere. As you know, or should know, the US Constitution indeed applies to foreigners inside the US, on US territories or in US custody. What is insulting is that you choose to condemn people without due process based on what amounts to name-calling. You have no basis for knowing whether any one of the detainees is "some Islamic Terrorist who would cut anyone of our throats if he had the chance" or merely someone who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, like the 22 year old taxi driver who US interrogators beat to death in Bagram.

Much like Arar, a Canadian citizen who was in New York and on his way home when US officials arrested him and deported him to Syria for torture and interrogation, because they claimed information told them his had links to terrorism, which wasn't the case at all.

I just saw a bit of the talk down there in Congress yesterday about the Arar case..... man, shit flew.

The ChronicleHerald.ca

Oh wait this one's better:

U.S. 'knew damn well' Arar would be tortured: senator

"We knew damn well if he went to Canada he wouldn't be tortured," said Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont. "He'd be held and he'd be investigated. "We also knew damn well if he went to Syria, he'd be tortured. And it's beneath the dignity of this country — a country that has always been a beacon of human rights — to send somebody to another country to be tortured. "You know and I know that has happened a number of times in the past five years by this country. It is a black mark on us." Leahy noted that U.S. officials claimed to have had assurances that people sent to Syria would not be tortured. "Assurances," he snorted, "from a country that we also say now that we can't talk to them because we can't take their word for anything."

Man when I watch it, he was royally pissed.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Praxius Much like Arar, a Canadian citizen who was in New York and on his way home when US officials arrested him and deported him to Syria for torture and interrogation, because they claimed information told them his had links to terrorism, which wasn't the case at all.

Undoubtedly, we're expected to look the other way. Keep in mind that the Nuremberg trials clearly established how following orders is no
defense for committing war crimes. If we think those proceedings had any merit at all, we should consider applying similar standards for our own leaders today.
We shouldn't let politicians just wander away after their crimes.

I must stress, however, that the criminality ceases when the positions of power are effectively removed. What else should we expect. Pick up a good history book and you'll see these kinds of things happening virtually all the time.

Grandpa h.

[Osborn F Enready]

How many more people are a little more ahsamed to call yourself American today, with this government that represents you and I?

I know eventually I am going to tire of these black eyes, and whats left of the good men, are going to stop watching as injustice occurs.

[rmnunez]

Osborne, taking full measure of the shame you feel at being a united statian, and the shame you estimate all your compatriots feel, do you think the pain and suffering this causes all of you outweights the grief you'd more likely endure if your government had not humiliated and tortured those captives?

[Osborn F Enready]

RMNunez said: Osborne, taking full measure of the shame you feel at being a united statian, and the shame you estimate all your compatriots feel, do you think the pain and suffering this causes all of you outweights the grief you'd more likely endure if your government had not humiliated and tortured those captives?

Who are you to judge what is and is not more likely, and what do you base "more likely" on?

There is no reason to lower ourselves to standards that prompt us to fight.

Show me some evidence of what would have "been more likely", and what you base it on, and maybe we can talk.

[rmnunez]

I think its more likely any suspects identified as actual terrorists through torture, would still be free unless they'd otherwise martyrized themselves killing others. I don't know how many suspects have been identified through torture, I'd imagine very few and I don't know what threat has been averted identifying these terrorists.

[Blef]

This is all the result of the passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Americans can be declared terrorists and enemy combatants, can be tortured and detained indefinitely without recourse to the courts. That is, habeas corpus may be denied to an American citizen.

This is unconstitutional.

[rmnunez]

Submarine commander's daughter role in all this:
A submarine commander’s daughter ensures safe waters for detainees

[Trent]

I think a lot of us outside the US have grown up to see America as 'the good guys' - the stabilizer. Now? Well, it feels like a guiding light has gone out and we're all stumbling around in the dark. Here in Britain, it seems Blair is dragging us over the edge of a precipice in an insane effort to keep in step with Bush.

As more and more of our rights are taken away, and while no voice of wisdom is speaking out, it can be despairing, but there's a part of me that remains hopeful, because I believe in the spirit of the American people, many who understand that the greatest achievement the US will ever celebrate - is the one they will create for themselves when they finally realise what their true role in the world is. Ambassadors of World Peace.

The last (peaceful - troops out of Iraq) Demo I went on here in Britain (2006), I had my picture taken by the CIA in an intimidating fashion.
As a disabled sufferer of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (Officially diagnosed 2004) I have to say... it was a sobering experience

[brien]

." The Bill of Rights is null and void

Ric; There is a bumper sticker and Tee shirt offered by the LP that states:

The Bill of Rights; Void where Prohibited by Law.

[brien]

As more and more of our rights are taken away

Which rights are you talking about? Are you people in Grt Britian losing your rights because of the war in Iraq? Are you folks allowing your rights to be taken away, or are you simply giving them away?