Nazi Tactics Approved by Fascist Senate

[gr8fuldaniel]

Bush pardoned for war crimes? Only the Supreme Court can stop it.

ABC Senate OKs Detainee Interrogation Bill Senate Endorses President Bush's Plans to Prosecute, Interrogate Terror Suspects By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY WASHINGTON Sep 28, 2006 (AP)— The Senate on Thursday endorsed President Bush's plans to prosecute and interrogate terror suspects, all but sealing congressional approval for legislation that Republicans intend to use on the campaign trail to assert their toughness on terrorism. The 65-34 vote means the bill could reach the president's desk by week's end. The House passed nearly identical legislation on Wednesday and was expected to approve the Senate bill on Friday, sending it on to the White House.

12 Democratic scoundrel traitors who hate America:

Raw Story Twelve Democrats voted in favor of the Senate bill: Tom Carper (DE), Tim Johnson (SD), Mary Landrieu (LA), Frank Lautenberg (NJ), Joe Lieberman (CT), Bob Menendez (NJ), Bill Nelson (FL), Ben Nelson (NE), Mark Pryor (AR), Jay Rockefeller (WV), Ken Salazar (CO), and Debbie Stabenow (MI)

[underbear1]

Add this as just another reason I hate that sow Mary Landrieu, and typical Lieberman still Bush's butt-boy, bet he gets another big wet kiss fom Dumbya.
CT Democrats if you don't kick Lieberman to the curb, don't bother showing up at the national Convention in 2008.

[rmnunez]

That "Nazi tactics by Fascist Senate" suggests you disapprove:

The Senate on Thursday endorsed President Bush's plans to prosecute and interrogate terror suspects, all but sealing congressional approval for legislation that Republicans intend to use on the campaign trail to assert their toughness on terrorism. The House passed nearly identical legislation on Wednesday and was expected to approve the Senate bill on Friday, sending it on to the White House.

So the "Nazi fascists" are not limited to the Senate.

"The Senate sent a strong signal to the terrorists that we will continue using every element of national power to pursue our enemies and to prevent attacks on (the US)," Bush said in a statement Thursday night. The detainee bill would create military commissions to prosecute terrorism suspects. It also would prohibit some of the worst abuses of detainees like mutilation and rape, but it would grant the president leeway to decide which other interrogation techniques are permissible. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who helped draft the legislation during negotiations with the White House, said the measure would set up a system for treating detainees that the nation could be proud of. He said the goal "is to render justice to the terrorists, even though they will not render justice to us."

So they will get some of that valued due process, no matter what.

Senate approval was the latest step in the remarkable journey that Bush has taken in shaping how the US treats the terrorism suspects it has been holding, some for almost five years. The Supreme Court nullified Bush's initial system for trying detainees in June, and earlier this month a handful of maverick GOP senators embarrassed the president by forcing him to slightly tone down his next proposal. But they struck a deal last week, and the president and congressional Republicans are now claiming the episode as a victory.

This campaign politicking is natural for the season, but somehow seems incongruous given the trascendental importance of this legislation.

While Democrats warned the bill could open the way for abuse, Republicans said defeating the bill would put the country at risk of another terrorist attack. "We are not conducting a law enforcement operation against a check-writing scam or trying to foil a bank heist," said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "We are at war against extremists who want to kill our citizens."

I agree with Sen. McConnell, this isn't focused best as a law-enforcement operation. Terrorists are criminals and can be prosecuted, but that's as far as it goes.

The legislation could let Bush begin prosecuting terrorists connected to the Sept. 11 attacks just as voters head to the polls, and let Republicans use opposition by Democrats as fodder for criticizing them during the campaign.

Again this campaign effect, but I don't believe this legislation was hastily rushed through now to provide a suitable accomplishment for the incumbent party's candidates on the campaign trail. As noted, the new bill arose from the Supreme Court's recent ruling on certain terrorist suspects appeals.

The legislation was in response to a Supreme Court ruling in June that Bush's plan to hold and prosecute terrorists was illegal. Bush had determined prior to that ruling that his executive powers gave him the right to detain and prosecute enemy combatants. He declared these detainees, being held at Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba and in secret CIA prisons elsewhere in the world, should not be afforded Geneva Convention protections. US officials said the Supreme Court ruling threw cold water on the CIA's interrogation program, which they said had been helpful in obtaining valuable intelligence. Bush was forced to negotiate a new trial system with Congress. For nearly 2 weeks the White House and rebellious Republican senators (Graham, John McCain of Arizona and John Warner of Virginia) fought publicly over whether Bush's proposed plan would give a president too much authority and curtail legal rights considered fundamental in other courts.

Those are conservative Republicans struggling to protect due process and other judicial safeguards, where were the Democrats then?

Under the bill, a terrorist being held at Guantanamo could be tried by military commission so long as he was afforded certain rights, such as the ability to confront evidence given to the jury and having access to defense counsel.

So they do get some due process, maybe this will get limited in the future, but if the past is precedent it is more likely due process rights will be expanded through proseuction.

The bill would eliminate some rights common in military and civilian courts. For example, the commission would be allowed to consider hearsay evidence so long as a judge determined it was reliable. Hearsay is barred from civilian courts.

Hearsay is also sometimes admissible, in both civilian and criminal courts, in fact the exceptions to the hearsay rule are quite numerous and often the subject of appeal.

The legislation also says the president can "interpret the meaning and application" of international standards for prisoner treatment, a provision intended to allow him to authorize aggressive interrogation methods that might otherwise be seen as illegal by international courts. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...09-28-19-09-50

I'm not surprised the Court found the president empowered to arbitrarily determine a treaty's applicability, they have been loath to recognize any foreign authority in the past, couldn't draft a decree ordering the legislature to determine this and certainly don't need the agro themselves.

[gr8fuldaniel]

In a nutshell........ the Dems stand a good chance of taking the House and Senate in a few weeks. After that, the Indictment party wont stand a chance of getting away with the war crimes the whole world knows about. Cheney/bush just signed their own pardons with this. Talk about last second. They recess tomorrow. The fucking criminals need a break.

[gr8fuldaniel]

The worst part of it is how American soldiers will be treated. The Geneva convention insured that our men would be treated with a measure of respect. Anybody who signs up for duty from now on can be considered an idiot.

I too am embarrassed.

Quote by: ABC Page 2 By mostly party-line votes, the Senate rejected Democratic efforts to limit the bill to five years, to require frequent reports from the administration on the CIA's interrogations and to add a list of forbidden interrogation techniques.

How is that asking too much?
There oughtta be a bounty on these slimeballs

[BobbyO]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel The worst part of it is how American soldiers will be treated. The Geneva convention insured that our men would be treated with a measure of respect. Anybody who signs up for duty from now on can be considered an idiot. I too am embarrassed. How is that asking too much? There oughtta be a bounty on these slimeballs

Two National Guardsmen (or Reservists) were captured, tortured and beheaded a few months ago. Please don't say the failure to give captured rerrorists full American Constitutional rights will "cause" them to continue such behavior. They are after all fighting against those principles.

Quote by: underbear1 REMOVED BY STAFF: Inappropriate

I would think that after 15 years of membership in Amnesty International the claims that America "tortured" people at Abu Ghraib would be seen to be highly amusing- based on a comparison of what else goes in the world in other countries. Those Americans are in jail, sir or ma'am, America dealt with the problem. Be proud of that.

[RickSp]

Torture is now the law of the land and habeas corpus has been consigned to the trash bin of history. The Bush supporters should be so proud. It wasn't the Koran that the Senate flushed down the toilet. It was the Constitution.

Quote by: BobbyO I would think that after 15 years of membership in Amnesty International the claims that America "tortured" people at Abu Ghraib would be seen to be highly amusing- based on a comparison of what else goes in the world in other countries. Those Americans are in jail, sir or ma'am, America dealt with the problem. Be proud of that.

Willful denial is ugly and rarely works for long. No one was tortured at Abu Ghraib. The Iraqi general who was beaten to death just must have fallen down alot. The same had to be true of the Afghan taxi driver at Baghram who was hung up by his arms and had his legs beaten until he too died. But there was never any torture.no. Never. And the "Special rendition" flights to secret CIA prisons were just a vacation plan for detainess. Yah that's it.

And the Germans who lived outside the camps denied that they smelled the stench of the ovens too.

As I said before, the Bush supporters must be so proud.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: RickSp Torture is now the law of the land and habeas corpus has been consigned to the trash bin of history. The Bush supporters should be so proud. It wasn't the Koran that the Senate flushed down the toilet. It was the Constitution. Willful denial is ugly and rarely works for long. No one was tortured at Abu Ghraib. The Iraqi general who was beaten to death just must have fallen down alot. The same had to be true of the Afghan taxi driver at Baghram who was hung up by his arms and had his legs beaten until he too died. But there was never any torture.no. Never. And the "Special rendition" flights to secret CIA prisons were just a vacation plan for detainess. Yah that's it. And the Germans who lived outside the camps denied that they smelled the stench of the ovens too. As I said before, the Bush supporters must be so proud.

Sorry to dispel the fantasies, but:

1. "torture" was already against the law.
2. The folks involved were prosecuted and convicted.

The ovens were located outside of Germany. But hey, the folks on trial at Nuremburg were not afforded American constitutional protections either. Was that wrong?

[RickSp]

Quote by: BobbyO Sorry to dispel the fantasies, but: 1. "torture" was already against the law. 2. The folks involved were prosecuted and convicted. The ovens were located outside of Germany. But hey, the folks on trial at Nuremburg were not afforded American constitutional protections either. Was that wrong?

Yes, torture is against both domestic and international law and the Bush administration is again violating the law. The only ones prosecuted for torture were non-com scapegoats. Rumsfeld himself approved abusive procedures. The commander at Baghram who covered up the beating to death of two prisoners was promoted.

The CIA is torturing people and will continue to do so, the Eight Amendment and international law be damned. The current laws will add some cosmetic niceties while still allowing brutality against prisoners.

And you are right - there were no ovens at Buchenwald. I guess that makes the denial easier, without changing a thing. A lot like the current detainee law.

Those on trial at Nuremberg, unlike US detainees, were not tortured and they had the right of habaes corpus. The Nuremberg defendents were far closer to having full Constitutional protections than the current detainees in Gitmo and in the CIA secret gulag around the world.

And since you raised Nuremberg, under the Nuremberg Principles the war in Iraq is an aggressive war, a war crime. Most of the Nuremberg defendents were convicted of either "Conspiracy to Wage Aggressive War " or "Waging Aggressive War, or "Crimes Against Peace". The latter was defined as “the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances.” Perhaps one day George Bush and his lackeys will stand before the bar of justice. I know. Too much to ask for.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: BobbyO Two National Guardsmen (or Reservists) were captured, tortured and beheaded a few months ago. Please don't say the failure to give captured rerrorists full American Constitutional rights will "cause" them to continue such behavior. They are after all fighting against those principles.

Well, they won't be "fighting against those principles" any longer, since we have now joined them. Isn't that exactly what the terrorists wanted in the first place?

The mistreatment of Americans used to draw disgust and outrage from civilized nations all over the world. Now that the American people have made it legal to "interpret the meaning and application of international standards for prisoner treatment", that mistreatment will be entirely legitimate. We have successfully lowered ourselves to the terrorist level. Every American should be ashamed of what our lapdog congress has done.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: BobbyO Please don't say the failure to give captured rerrorists full American Constitutional rights will "cause" them to continue such behavior. They are after all fighting against those principles.

I am saying we should treat POWS the way we always have. We get quality information from them by winning their hearts and minds. Not by raping their children and neices and parents in front of them.
The Geneva Convention will be enforced by the world community AGAINST us, if we remove our signature from it.

If they are "fighting against those principles".....they already won, when our Constitution was shredded and shit upon by The "Patriot" act. They are not fighting our freedoms, they are fighting western hegemony. We are the bad guys. The aggressors. We attack innocent civilians who had no intention of harming us in the least.

- - - - -automerge - - - - -

This is a disgrace.
The Constitution : Article VI, paragraph 2

"...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; ........"

The Geneva Convention is a treaty. An honorable treaty.

Article II, Section 1, paragraph 7, the President is required to swear he will: "...preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

If junior signs this bill next week, he should be arrested immediately.

[underbear1]

I've been watching C-SPAN coverage of the House debate on tribunals for detainees, if I was an undocumented worker in the USA a chill would go up my spine. I have witnessed Civil Rights leaders smeared and jailed in this country Ceasar Chavez, Martin Luther King, lesbians who participated in ACT UP demonstrations. Anyone who is not a citizen picked up ANYWHERE can be called an enemy combatant by the President or Secretary of State, they can be held indefinitely, tortured, and no civil court can grant the habis corpus..............it's official folks we are living under a DICTATOR, with supreme powers to torture and detain indefinitely, and do you think his stocked NAZI Supreme Court will challenge him...........hell no!

[weasel]

Just because the senate has decided to approve steping up the interrogation of terror suspects doesn't mean it's resolving to commit "nazi actions." These terrorists want us dead and you're fighting for their rights?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: weasel Just because the senate has decided to approve steping up the interrogation of terror suspects doesn't mean it's resolving to commit "nazi actions." These terrorists want us dead and you're fighting for their rights?

And you think that giving bush the power to suspend the Constitution and violate the Geneva Convention is going to make you safer?

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: weasel Just because the senate has decided to approve steping up the interrogation of terror suspects doesn't mean it's resolving to commit "nazi actions."

Define the word "suspect". Do you include everyone who criticizes "Dear Leader"?
After all, your hero the redneck turd said:

"If'n you'ns all aint wit us; y'all are shur nuff agin us" -- G Dumbya Shrub

Translation: If you criticize my terrrist actions, you must be a terrist

[weasel]

from Rhode Island news | projo.com | The Providence Journal | Opinion: Editorials

"Let's be realistic. While experts disagree on whether torture works, and surely the same can be said of less aggressive methods, U.S. security cannot rest on methods that amount to polite questioning. Just imagine a nuke hidden in an American city; in seeking to learn its location, who would object even to torture?"

from Senate approves bill on interrogation guidelines : HindustanTimes.com

"Noting that the bill "recognizes that we are a nation at war," Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said, "we are not conducting a law-enforcement operation against a cheque-writing scam or trying to foil a bank heist."

"We are at war against extremists who want to kill our citizens, cripple our economy and discredit the principles we hold dear -- freedom and democracy," he said."


Stop cheerleading for the enemy and come to your senses. Terrorists are not American citizens so why should they enjoy the same rights you and I do, people who aren't trying to seek the death of millions? Why should they claim a share of the rights our predecessors died fighting for? What gives you the nerve to callously give it away to our enemies?

[RickSp]

Quote by: weasel Stop cheerleading for the enemy and come to your senses. Terrorists are not American citizens so why should they enjoy the same rights you and I do, people who aren't trying to seek the death of millions? Why should they claim a share of the rights our predecessors died fighting for? What gives you the nerve to callously give it away to our enemies?

Stop violating our basic principles. Are you saying that George Washington was an enemy? Washington ensured that enemy prisoners were treated humanely because it was the right thing to do.it also made good strategic sense. Now Bushbot punks are cheering for torture. When US interrogators beat an Afghan taxi driver to death in Bagram, how much safer did it make us? Of course, they learned nothing because he was picked up at random. He had no ties to AlQaeda.

Check out what a real waterboard looks like. David Corn has photos of one used by the Khymer Rouge. Yes, we are abandoning the morality of George Washington for the morality of the Khymer Rouge. The Bushbots must be so proud.

This Is What Waterboarding Looks Like

Bottom line: Not only do waterboarding and the other types of torture currently being debated put us in company with the most vile regimes of the past half-century; they're also designed specifically to generate a (usually false) confession, not to obtain genuinely actionable intel. This isn't a matter of sacrificing moral values to keep us safe; it's sacrificing moral values for no purpose whatsoever.

The oh-by-the way in all of this, as Corn points out, is that torture doesn't work. It gets confessions just not reliable intel. Beat a person long enough they will confess to anything.

The current bill also trashes habeas corpus, the cornerstone of juris prudence since 1215. But this isn't about keeping us safe anyway.This is about unlimited presidential power and trashing the Constitution. That's the real goal. And they have just about succeeded. Then we will be no safer, just a lot less free.

[Matt W]

Quote by: weasel from Rhode Island news | projo.com | The Providence Journal | Opinion: Editorials "Let's be realistic. While experts disagree on whether torture works, and surely the same can be said of less aggressive methods, U.S. security cannot rest on methods that amount to polite questioning. Just imagine a nuke hidden in an American city; in seeking to learn its location, who would object even to torture?" from Senate approves bill on interrogation guidelines : HindustanTimes.com "Noting that the bill "recognizes that we are a nation at war," Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said, "we are not conducting a law-enforcement operation against a cheque-writing scam or trying to foil a bank heist." "We are at war against extremists who want to kill our citizens, cripple our economy and discredit the principles we hold dear -- freedom and democracy," he said." Stop cheerleading for the enemy and come to your senses. Terrorists are not American citizens so why should they enjoy the same rights you and I do, people who aren't trying to seek the death of millions? Why should they claim a share of the rights our predecessors died fighting for? What gives you the nerve to callously give it away to our enemies?

To answer your first question, I refer you to your Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It was self-evident to them, yet you callously take it away from people who have yet to be judged in a court of law? How interesting....

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: weasel What gives you the nerve to callously give it away to our enemies?

And what gives you the nerve to callously give it away to our politicians?

[RickSp]

A letter I sent to my senator today:

When you took your oath of office, you swore to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” By voting “aye” on the Military Commissions Act of 2006, you betrayed both your oath and the citizens that you are sworn to represent. I am ashamed to have you as my Senator.

I do not understand why I should vote for a Democrat who supports the worst aspects of the Republican administration. Does your vision of America include torture and the abuse of prisoners? That is not my vision of this great land. If habeas corpus applies only those we favor and not to all as a matter of right, how long will it be before the case of Jose Padilla becomes the rule and not the exception? How long can the rule of law survive if the president claims the right to interpret law and treaty as he sees fit? This bill has nothing to do with increasing safety and everything to do with dangerously increasing presidential power.

The Military Commissions Act is a disgrace. It violates the standards of decency and fairness that are central to American justice. We do nothing to fight terrorism by acting like terrorists. And what indeed are we fighting for if we surrender our most sacred principles?

Do not expect my support in the future, sir. I prefer to vote for candidates who honor their oath of office and respect the Constitution.