Bush signs law authorising harsh interrogation

[BobbyO]

Quote by: RickSp The Artcile III of the US Constitution perhaps? The balance of powers? If the Judiciary can't reign in the thugs in the Executive and the Legislative branch, what hope is there for the republic? Not much it would appear.

Aricle III does not give the judiciary absolute, final authority. Balance of powers does not suppose the exercise of the power of the executive or legislative is subject to the approval of the judiciary.

[madprophet]

Quote by: rmnunez I think this statement is mistaken on 2 counts; there is no pursuit of people merely accused of being terrorists, and no atribution of less than human characteristics in terrorists.

Don't tell me you've never heard anybody refer to the US prisoners in Gitmo as less than human! Xyzer mildly refered to them as "barbarians" in this very thread. I've heard them called "animals" more times than I can count. And then there's the racial slurs. And there's no end to the number of times they've been called "evil" or some variation on that theme. These are all cases of a concerted effort to de-humanize people accused of terrorism.

Quote by: rmnunez We have this formality with the presumption of innocence, but don't think suspects are rounded up on unsubstantiated allegations and tenuous suspicion.

Yes, they are. Some of them were rounded up by the Pakistani government and the Northern Alliance and turned over to us for money.

Quote by: rmnunez Having held them for some time and often subjected them to degrading treatment or torture, by now I'd expect the united statians know which are not actually terrorists. These should be let go, as some have been already.

Do you even know what the new law does? It takes away the measures used to determine who gets to be let go! Habeas Corpus, the ability to challenge your detention. They don't have to charge you. They can keep you forever without ever giving you a hearing. They can torture a confession out of you and try you in a secret court, using your cohersed confession against you. And as any expert will tell you, cohersed confessions are not truthful information.

Quote by: rmnunez But the genuine article has to stay, they should be prosecuted, and as long as the sentence they get is longer than the time served it seems no harm will result.

There is so much wrong with this sentence... What about the people they hold for years and then let go? No harm done? F*ck, dude. They held three kids for something like two years. Kids. Children.

Quote by: rmnunez I know this is supposed to be done more expeditiously, there are supposed to be defense counsel, evidence, testimony, witnesses, magistrates and complicated procedures to be followed in prosecution. I also realize that all of these could result in some of the accused getting off, despite their guilt. I suppose some of this could result in an innocent bystander getting exonerated too, but don't expect this would often be the case as I anticipate the suspects have been properly identified and are reasonably suspected of.

Dude, you are f*cking crazy! Only a zombie could say stuff like this. "We don't need all those pesky rules and laws and stuff, because the government is a perfect ruler who would never mistakenly accuse someone of being a terrorist. Who even needs evidence, the governments word is good enough for me, and it should be good enough for you silly lefties."

Gee, why do we even need all those defense counsels and witnesses and complicated procedures for regular crimes anyway? The government never makes mistakes, after all. All that constitutional malarky just lets criminals go free, because the government knows all, but can't always prove it.

[madprophet]

Quote by: BobbyO Aricle III does not give the judiciary absolute, final authority. Balance of powers does not suppose the exercise of the power of the executive or legislative is subject to the approval of the judiciary.

Well, you see, our system of Checks and Balances provides the three branches with the ability to restrain the other two in order to prevent abuse. So, in actuality, it does suppose the Executive and Legislative powers are subject to the approval of the Judiciary, as the Judiciary power is to the other two and so on. High School Social Studies, dude.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: madprophet Well, you see, our system of Checks and Balances provides the three branches with the ability to restrain the other two in order to prevent abuse. So, in actuality, it does suppose the Executive and Legislative powers are subject to the approval of the Judiciary, as the Judiciary power is to the other two and so on. High School Social Studies, dude.

Hey dude, you are wrong.

The executive has authority which is not subject to the consent of the Judiciary or legislative.

The Judiciary has authority which is not subject to the consent of the legislative or executive.

The legislaive has authority which is not subject to the consent of the executive or judiciary.

[rmnunez]

Somehow this seems foreseable; critics denounced the handling of terrorist suspects as contary to law, Bush said exceptions applied, critics rejected this, he got a law passed that makes an exception, critics reject its validity.

[gallo]

Quote by: BobbyO Hey dude, you are wrong.

Actually, he's not on this issue.

The executive has authority which is not subject to the consent of the Judiciary or legislative. The Judiciary has authority which is not subject to the consent of the legislative or executive. The legislaive has authority which is not subject to the consent of the executive or judiciary.

Nice straw man. That's not the point. Of course, what you fail to recognize it that the judiciary has the authority to determine which actions of the executive and legislative branches comply with the Constitution.

So, hey dude, learn what you are talking about before you speak.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: rmnunez I'm glad you've been enlightened,

Sarcasm, Señor Núñez.

but am more interested in what made you think US foreign policy had somehow provoked terrorism. I realize this is what everyone says, but foreign policy is such a broad thing and US foreign policy includes lots of good things besides military intervention and support for Israel.

Such as?

The US chaired the High Commission for Human Rights for decades incessantly calling for their respect and defending victims of oppression. The US has been, and remains, by far the most generous purveyor of development assistance to third world countries. Vital legal international frameworks for everything from commercial arbitration to patent protections have advanced through US foreign policy initiatives. US foreign policy has produced benefits for humanity; defeat of the Nazis and Imperialist Japan, Soviet containment, enhanced trade, development, medical, educational improvements around the world, all flow from US foreign policy.

LOL.

Tio Rico at its finest, eh?

Tell me, Señor Núñez, would none of those things have happened had the US government not stolen money (oops, I mean, taxed) from its people to those ends? Is the rest of the world helpless without "US"?

I think this statement is mistaken on 2 counts; there is no pursuit of people merely accused of being terrorists, and no atribution of less than human characteristics in terrorists.

Two stories stand out here: the "terrorist cell" in Miami and the one up in Canada. You've looked into those, right?

We have this formality with the presumption of innocence, but don't think suspects are rounded up on unsubstantiated allegations and tenuous suspicion. Having held them for some time and often subjected them to degrading treatment or torture, by now I'd expect the united statians know which are not actually terrorists. These should be let go, as some have been already. But the genuine article has to stay, they should be prosecuted, and as long as the sentence they get is longer than the time served it seems no harm will result.

Obviously not all of those who have been suspected, but proven innocent, have been let go. The reason is simple. Torture assumes that a person has information in the first place. In other words, torture implicitly assumes guilt until proven innocent. Problem is, the only sure-fire way to prove a person innocent under torture is to kill them. Actually, scratch that -- even then, it could be that that person's will was simply stronger than his interrogators', and he preferred to die rather than reveal information. So hopefully you see now why most of the detainees have not been released -- the entire rubric of torture means that one may never be proven innocent.

I know this is supposed to be done more expeditiously, there are supposed to be defense counsel, evidence, testimony, witnesses, magistrates and complicated procedures to be followed in prosecution. I also realize that all of these could result in some of the accused getting off, despite their guilt. I suppose some of this could result in an innocent bystander getting exonerated too, but don't expect this would often be the case as I anticipate the suspects have been properly identified and are reasonably suspected of.

Heh. Define "reasonably".

Critical lefties should lose this phobia the Bush administration as after them, the only thing Critical lefties and Islamic fundamentalist-inspired terrorists share is opposition to Bush, this alone does not make critical lefties terrorists.

You love that phrase, don't you. Tell me, are "critical lefties" defined by their opposition to Bush, in your opinion?

- Rob

[brien]

Quote by: madprophet This statement only holds true if you use the dishonest accounting tactic of counting only in real dollars, and not, as any sane and intelligent person would, by percent of Gross National Income. By this more reasonable standard, we are very near rock bottom among the other Western countries. Thanks to the generosity of our private citizens, we just barely beat out Italy. (To be fair, I don't think the IMF counts all the bombs we generously hand out to those nations who pledge fealty. We're surely number one at giving other people the developemental ability to kill each other.) We're not even close to the UN goal of 0.7 percent of GNI. I feel so generous.

We're not even close to the UN goal of 0.7 percent of GNI.

Since when is the US obligated by the UN to send anyone money? Where is this written?

[madprophet]

Quote by: brien Since when is the US obligated by the UN to send anyone money? Where is this written?

When ignorant people on Internet message boards (and with syndicated columns and national TV and Radio shows,) try to claim that we are "by far the most generous purveyor of development assistance to third world countries."

Oh, and since all 191 UN member states, including these United States, agreed to try to implement the Millennium Development Goals. Not only is it written, I think it might even be signed. Nootch.

[madprophet]

Quote by: rmnunez Somehow this seems foreseable; critics denounced the handling of terrorist suspects as contary to law, Bush said exceptions applied, critics rejected this, he got a law passed that makes an exception, critics reject its validity.

Yes, Lord forbid you think something is illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, and un-American.

[madprophet]

Quote by: gallo Actually, he's not on this issue. Nice straw man. That's not the point. Of course, what you fail to recognize it that the judiciary has the authority to determine which actions of the executive and legislative branches comply with the Constitution.

And I even gave him a helpful link to an easy-to-understand tutorial. It even had a picture! A picture, I tell you! I think it might have been the same picture from my eighth grade Civics textbook. You know the one, with the triangle of government branches and the arrows going back and forth between them.

[madprophet]

Quote by: BobbyO The executive has authority which is not subject to the consent of the Judiciary or legislative. The Judiciary has authority which is not subject to the consent of the legislative or executive. The legislaive has authority which is not subject to the consent of the executive or judiciary.

Could you be more specific? What unaccountable authority does each branch have? And where are these powers granted?

[rmnunez]

are "critical lefties" defined by their opposition to Bush?

It sure seems that way, haven't encountered a critical lefty who doesn't oppose everything and anything related to Bush (either one). But I suppose critical lefties would knee-jerkingly oppose anything to emanate from a US president. The same people who now criticise Bush for intervention in Iraq criticised Clinton for going in to Yugoslavia. But before you figure maybe its interventionism which the critical lefty opposes, note they also damn the US for not intervening to help the Afghans in their struggle against the Soviets, the Rwandans against the Burundi and Timorese against the Indonesians.

[rmnunez]

I remember doing extensive research on assistance after the Tsunami 2 years ago. I found three or 4 big, but not so greedy, US multinationals each donated more than any EU member, and there were dozens of these generous corporations. Pfizer, Coke, Nike, Johnson & Johnson, Dell and others donated millions of dollars. Coke airlifted tons of water, UPS provided free shipping to the striken area. An innovation was seen in the generosity of philanthropic foundations and many religious organizations, including all the large institutionalised faiths in the US and lots of Christian agencies were also involved. As a percentage of the GNP, the US doesn't seem so generous, but if we considered how much more than anyone else's GNP the US' is (in those "real dollars") we'd appreciate better who is doing what for development in the third world.

Everyone remembers the dumb comment from Mr. England the former High Commissioner who criticised Bush's stingyness a few hours after news of the Tsunami broke, after that governments outdid each other, the US had over a dozen navy ships deployed to assist, hundreds of helicopters and other aircraft engaged in the effort.

[madprophet]

Quote by: rmnunez It sure seems that way, haven't encountered a critical lefty who doesn't oppose everything and anything related to Bush (either one).

I'm pro-gun. Hey, it's something.

Quote by: rmnunez The same people who now criticise Bush for intervention in Iraq criticised Clinton for going in to Yugoslavia.

Ahem.

“Well, I just think it’s a bad idea. What’s going to happen is they’re going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years.” –Joe Scarborough (R-FL) “Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?” –Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99 “[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.” –Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) “American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy.” –Rep Tom Delay (R-TX) “If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.” –Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush “I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn’t think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.” –Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

And I know I've heard quiet a few "critical lefties" explain there support for the Nato bombings, because it's something I mildly disagree with a lot of them about. Kos, I think, supported the Nato campaign.

Quote by: rmnunez But before you figure maybe its interventionism which the critical lefty opposes, note they also damn the US for not intervening to help the Afghans in their struggle against the Soviets, the Rwandans against the Burundi and Timorese against the Indonesians.

We didn't simply stand by and do nothing while Indonesia slaughtered a quarter of the population of East Timor, we publicly and shamelessly supported it. We were enablers. We wouldn't have had to do anything, not a damn thing, to help the East Timorese except stop supplying weapons and training to Indonesia and apply a little diplomatic pressure. Which is what we did, eventually, and hey, look, East Timor is free and soveriegn! And why did we support Indonesia's thuggery for nearly twenty-five years? Could it have something to do with control of off-shore oil fields, perhaps? Or is that just a coincidence that keeps popping up?

The problem we "critical lefties" have is that the United States intervenes in the wrong places, for the wrong reasons and in the wrong way. And we fail to intervene, and even enable crimes, for the same reasons. We support Saddam Hussein through his worst crimes, and then use the very crimes we tolerated in an ally to justify attacks on an enemy. We support Indonesia when it invades East Timor, but villify Iraq when it invades Kuwait. It smacks of Hypocrisy and Imperialism.

[madprophet]

Quote by: rmnunez As a percentage of the GNP, the US doesn't seem so generous, but if we considered how much more than anyone else's GNP the US' is (in those "real dollars") we'd appreciate better who is doing what for development in the third world.

I really didn't think I'd have to use this analogy. Sigh.

John makes a million dollars a year and gives one thousand dollars to charity. That's 1/10th of a percent. Twenty other people make fifty thousand dollars a year each and give one hundred dollars to charity each. That's 2/10ths of a percent each. That's two thousand dollars combined, twice as much as mister fucking money pants.

Who's more generous? Who should be more appreciated and applauded, the ones who do more, or the one who has more but does less? Who should feel ashamed of themselves?

Is any of this getting through to you?

[madprophet]

Addendum:

Is it not obvious to you that people who have more should give a larger percent because they have more to spare?

[jose]

double post

[jose]

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has expressed concern over a newly-approved US anti-terrorism law.

snip
the law omits certain violations from the list of acts that are war crimes under US domestic law
BBC NEWS | Americas | Red Cross lambasts US terror law

[BobbyO]

Quote by: gallo Actually, he's not on this issue. Nice straw man. That's not the point. Of course, what you fail to recognize it that the judiciary has the authority to determine which actions of the executive and legislative branches comply with the Constitution. So, hey dude, learn what you are talking about before you speak.

Not absolute power on it. The Hamdi decision overturned the previous law governing interrogations. But that law, constitutionally, had barred the courts from jusristiction. I suppose Bush could have continued constitutional crisis created by the USSC.