Sep 28 2006
Prev/Next Posts: « Lights Out in Iceland || The calculus of history »
A Dark Day in America
In memoriam.
For habeas corpus. And for the moral high ground.
… initially, that was all I was going to write, but I can’t let it stand there.
In a circumstance so ironic I can hardly stand it, I went to United States Senate home page to look into the passing of this bill which, in my opinion, will do more damage in the long run to the United States than almost anything this government has done. This is what I was greeted with on the Senate page:
“We the People”
Celebrating the ConstitutionWritten in 1787, ratified in 1788, and in operation since 1789, the United States Constitution remains a vital and living document. Having been strengthened by amendments, the Constitution serves as both guide and protector of U.S. citizens and their elected officials.
A dark day indeed.
The terrorists hate our freedom. So if we get rid of it, they’ll leave us alone.
Speaking as a poor Aussie, is there any possibility of elaboration here? I followed the link Phil supplied above, and I get the impression that there was some sort of bill regarding how suspected terrorists are or are not to be brought to trial, and that this bill is probably unconstitutional, but there are no details on exactly why this is the case?
Has it authorised torture? Has it authorised a “police state”? Or is it that it leaves open the possibility of doing something like this later that is the concern?
How big are chances that Americans are taking to the streets by the thousands to protest?
PS> hey kids! If ya read this message your mother is alive and well, I pray your the same. Let me know what your opinion is! Love………………………__________________
Since the BA hasn’t provided any useful links for what his rant is about, here’s one to an AP report about the passage of the bill he’s (probably) talking about.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONGRESS_TERRORISM?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-09-28-19-09-50
And here’s a link to the Senate version of the bill.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN03930:
Since, according to the article, the House will be voting on the Senate version of the bill Friday (29Sep06), the version I’ve linked to is what will become law once the President signs it.
Finally, a definition of habeus corpus, for those who may not know it.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm
This is just plain sick.
Imagine that you are a completely innocent person, detained by US forces because someone “reported” you in order to get a reward. This is not an imaginary situation, many detainees considered not quilty and subsequently released from Guantánamo tell such stories (if they really were terrorists, they certainly wouldn’t have been released).
Then you are tortured until you confess. Under pain and fear of death, you WILL tell ANYTHING you think they might want to hear, no matter how innocent you might be. Similarly, someone else tortured may tell that YOU are a terrorist. According to the new law, that can be used as an evidence against you. Do you think that is fair?
In addition, the original version of the law could have allowed court not to tell the charges, nor what evidence they have against you. Not even to your lawyer. What chance you think you would have to prove you innocence?
Who will ultimately benefit from this? Answer: The terrorists! Some terrorists [i]might[/i] get caught, but the intelligence gathered using torturing is just not reliable: The real terrorists may give imaginary names, or names of people already dead. And only a retarded terrorist leader don’t change his plans when he notices that one of his men has been caught. On the other hand, when people hear how the detainees have been handled (remember Abu Ghraib) the number of potential terrorists skyrockets.
Finally, by adopting this law, the United States loses any remaining moral righteousness it might have had. This new law allows the United States act like a appalling third world banana state. What’s the point getting rid of dictators if you can’t do any better?
If the powers that be can remove some of your basic human rights, are you really so naïve that you think it stops here?
The bill actually discards the checks and balances put forth by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution. It reveals to the world a weakening of the moral basis of the fight against terrorism and places our citizens and soldiers at greater risk; either overseas by foreign forces or domestically by law enforcement of our own government. It moves us closer to fascism.
This bill is the final step to turn the World Police into the schoolyard bully.
you’re an idiot
love always, belva
Hey Julie Nolting…off your meds?
I’m quite sure that what the BA is referring to is the description of the Constitution as protecting both the citizens *and* elected officials. Although such officials, as citizens themselves, are protected, it would be rather redundant to need to point this out. Thus, the suggestion in the Senate website’s description is that elected officials are granted *special* protections from their own constituents. Nothing could be further from the spirit of the Law as conceived by the U.S. founders. The Constitution is for making the government an instrument in service to the general citizenry.
Yet another shining example of how the idiots in Congress pay no attention to anyone other than themselves.
Of course, with the apathy of the general public, they’ll get away with pretty much anything and everything.
I just read that the US has suspended funding to Thailand because of the coup there. It will be resumed, according to Sean McCormack it will be resumed after democracy has been restored. I wonder if he meant the Thai or the US democracy…
Why is it that people seem to forget that the greatest threat to our liberty is NOT from an outside force, but from within?
Terrorists can bomb us all they want and that will NOT change anything other than our population (and really piss us off) unless we change the system ourselves. We are doing this and the terrorists are winning the real battle. The real battle is not in how many US Americans are dead, but in how many are left with the rights guaranteed to us by our Constitution. How much of the orginal vision of the Founding Fathers is left?
The dangers to our liberty are legion. They are always in people who believe the individual isn’t as important as the whole group. They are in the people who think they know better than everyone else how people should live their lives. They are in people to whom “Live Free or Die” is just a catchy sloagan.
Maybe it will really take the US becoming a totalitarian theocracy and an ensuing bloody revolution to make people value freedom again. I hope it doesn’t happen that way, but as long as we are willing to trade safety for liberty then it’ll happen.
I’d rather die than live under a totalitarian system. I mean this with all my being.
I hope the Courts strike this down.
And in a nice turn of phrase to Julie, “If you wanna live in a theocratic country that bad, go move to one!” I’m sure Iran will welcome you if you just convert to the One True God’s religion.
LIVE FREE OR DIE! …and mean the ‘die’ part or it’s all for nothing.
RIP Freedom
1776 - 2006
It was nice while it lasted.
And the 30 percent fanatical, unthinking Bush loyalists will support this, too. Party is all that matters to these people; country is nothing.
Let us not forget that habeas corpus was suspended during the Civil War by President Lincoln and during Reconstruction by President Grant.
Grayson makes a good point, there is a historical precedent for such an action. I believe those actions had a finite period on them, I haven’t checked this latest bill to see if it has “sunset clauses” or similar. If not, that is most troubling…
Oh lordy, the sky is falling! Dark night!
There is nothing totalitarian about this bill, soon hopefully to become law. Habeas corpus can be suspended. It’s in the Constitution. And it’s only suspended for non-citizen enemy combatants under this bill.
The bill also clarifies what can and cannot be done to enemy combatants. I don’t think discomfort measures qualify as torture, I don’t even think waterboarding qualifies as torture, but of course reasonable people can disagree on that. It has to be set down in law, though. Otherwise no one will get any intelligence from captured terrorists.
It’s not that the general public is apathetic. Most just don’t agree with you on this issue.
Yes, Grayson, and it was wrong then, as well. Lincoln was not a saint.
I think it quite appropriate that BA Blog has morphed into a complete barking Moonbat political forum. Further illustration that expertise in one arena certainly does not translate into another.
I really hate the way they are trying to legalise torture. This is so ineffective. Under torture, the person will say what the torturer wants to hear, NOT the truth.
You probably heard about the Maher Arar case:
http://www.maherarar.ca
Basically he was sent to the US, and for some reasons the US thought he was part of Al Quaida, so they questionned him about it. They had no evidence whatsoever, but they had to procecute terrorists, be they real or imaginated. After 12 days of him saying he had nothing to do with it, they decided to chain him and send him in Syria to be questionned under torture. He was tortured in 18 hours sessions a day for a year, and of course since they wanted him to say he had relations with Al Quaeda, he eventually broke down and said he had. After a year it became evident he had nothing to do with it and just released him. But COME ON! 18 hours/day of torture for a year, all that asked by and under the supervision of the United States? Of course the Geneva Convension didn’t apply since Bush didn’t want it to apply.
Another story was one about a taxi driver sent in Guantanamo for a year. This case is as frightening, and shows that ANYONE can be sent there. Of course the treatment in Guantanamo wasn’t as bad as in Syrian torture chambers, but still.
Basically, the taxi driver owned a very prosperous compagny in Afganistan, and one of his competitor was jealous. So that competitor went to a US soldier telling that the taxi driver was a member of Al Quaida. Yeah, that much evidence…
The driver defended himself by saying he had American music CDs and poster of American girls in swimsuits in his bedroom (things an Al Quaida member certainly WON’T have). But of course that didn’t help, so he ended up tortured for a year (to a lesser extend than Maher Arar, but still, it is US torture…).
I mean come on, take ANYBODY and torture him 18/hours a day yelling at him to say he is an Al Quaida terrorist, ANYBODY will eventually say they are. And during that time, the real terrorists are free and continue their reform of the US.
John, what you don’t seem to see is that they don’t use actual evidence to choose who is an enemy combatant. Like the Maher Arar case and that taxi driver. Pointing a finger at somebody and saying “He is a terrorist” should not be considered evidence. And also they only list a few torture method, but in fact they real tactic is to send people in countries where torture is legal, instead of doing it in the US, so it’s pretty much any torture under the sun. In the case of Maher Arar, he was most often than not tortured with electric shocks, since it causes internal burns that are hard to see from the outside. Don’t forget that “officially”, he wasn’t supposed to be tortured, so you choose torture methods that don’t cause external wounds. Internal is OK, since the torture is long done when you can check for those.
I really am against torture, but also remember that they made sure that they don’t need any evidence to torture people, which maximises the amount of people that had nothing to do with terrorism.
Don’t forget that under that law, being a friend of a terrorist makes you a terrorist too, even if there is no evidence against the 1st terrorist. So if you happened to know Maher, you too could have ended up tortured even though you didn’t know he was an imagined terrorist in the US.
The most frigtening parts are those that say you can’t have legal help, and also that you don’t need to commit a crime to be tortured. THAT is ugly in my opinion. Why would you want a rule to allow you to torture people you don’t have any case against?
Arar was not renditioned to Syria, he was deported, as in immigration enforcement. Probably not the right thing to do given Syria is, well, Syria. Do you really think we would rely on them to interrogate suspected Al Queda guys for us? Syria did what they do best, torture the heck out of an innocent person.
Too bad for the taxi driver. Better safe than sorry. No one is tortured at Guantanamo (depending, I guess, on what you consider torture), and to say “it isn’t as bad as Syria” is silly. There’s no comparison.
What about the inconvenient fact that they’ve gotten lots of good intel from “torturing” terrorists, and even allegedly broken up several plots that were in the works?
[…] A Dark Day in America: http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/09/28/a-dark-day-in-america/ […]
Article I, section 9 of the Constitution: “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” The Civil War was a case of rebellion and thus Lincoln’s suspension was not unconstitutional. It is very hard to fit current circumstances into this discription, however.
John,
The constitution says nothing about habeas corpus being only for citizens.
It is a very sad day, indeed..
This legislation just ripped out a huge chunk of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It suspends Habeas Corpus which introduced in the Magna Carta and so vital to justice and freedom that it was specifically included in the Constitution. It also completely nullifies the Amendment VI which is the basis for our system of justice..
If this legislation is not turned over by the Supreme Court, then the United States of America has ceased to exist.. Like Rome before us, the Republic will have fallen beneath a government of tyranny..
Bill M.
To Jhon:
What about the inconvenient fact that they’ve gotten lots of good intel from “torturing†terrorists, and even allegedly broken up several plots that were in the works?
Personally, I just cannot get myself to think of torture as something positive, especially when this is coming from the US. Though the most frightening parts are those that make it unnecessary to have any evidence against the person and that this person doesn’t have a right of defense.
Also, I really think that torture is immensely counter-productive. It “might” be useful when you can tell what the person says is true or not, but in most cases they’ll just say what the person wants to hear. I’m pretty certain that they try to find parts of information that they don’t already know… though “torture” might be more effective if you are trying to get information that you already have, to make sure it comes from many different people.
Also about the taxi driver… I cannot remember his name, but they made a short documentary about him. What they mentionned is that the worst part wasn’t his detention methods, but that they absolutely refused to tell him why he was in Guantanamo at all. He was released after one year of behing there, and he learned why he was sent there because of his subsequent research. The documentary focused not on the detention methods, but the methods of chosing who does and who doesn’t, and noticed that just about anybody, including you and me, could be sent there without any shred of a case against them. I mean, when you put somebody in prison, especially that kind, at least tell him why he is there…
And the 30 percent fanatical, unthinking Bush loyalists will support this, too. Party is all that matters to these people; country is nothing.
Those 30 percent aren’t the scariest. What is scariest is the other Republicans who close ranks behind their incompetent leader and who toe the party line in spint of the fact that Bush’s incompetence is manifest (the Iraq war has been a disaster on all fronts, and only Tony Snow seems to provide soundbytes that would make you think otherwise), and in spite of the fact that this step-by-step dismantling of the principles this country was founded on is something that Republicans should be just as scared of as Democrats. There are people like commenter John above who seem to believe that it’s all OK; I can’t tell if he’s really part of the lunatic fringe, or if he’s rationalized it all away, but it’s part of what I find scary.
When rationality is sacrificed in the name of party loyalty, yeah, we’re all kinda hosed.
John, expertise in politics doesn’t mean ‘agreement with John’. Are you saying that only politicians can have political opinions? The question is how much freedom do we want?
The argument is whether or not this is constitutional. As Alan B. pointed out, this doesn’t seem to be a good reason for suspending the writ of habeas corpus.
Right or left, we should all be in favor of liberty. This is a strike against our liberty.
Cowards are in favor of this.
Shawn S. - I think you mean philw.
Bah, sorry about that, John.
Here’s a link to the section regarding Habeus Corpus: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:1:./temp/~c1099Xhlak:e104603
It does apply only to non-citizens, or those determined to be enemy combatants. It also prohibits torture and defines those. I didn’t see any place where it says the President can determine what is and isn’t prohibited treatment. I do see how it can make it easy to arrest dissidents and hold them without charge.
Unless I’m reading the bill wrong.
I encourage everyone to read the bill (you may need coffee).
Still, I see serious witch-hunt potential in this.
Alan B. - “It is very hard to fit current circumstances into this discription, however.”
Very true. Do terrorists sneaking into our country to commit acts of war qualify as an invasion? Do sleeper cells? It’s not a traditional method of waging war (traditionally, they’d just be executed, as were German agents landed on our shores in WW2). That’s why it’s important for Congress to pass clarifying legislation. And the Constitution does say that habeas can be suspended, so I don’t think your citizenship point is relevant.
Rob Knopp - Pretty much the lunatic fringe.
Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus was found unconstitutional bySCOTUS in Ex parte: Milligan.
Also specualtion is that it will grant powers to the President to delcare a US citizen an enemy combatant. Which in turn would put that citizen under these military tribunals rather than under normal courts. Which is a flagrant violation of the seperation of powers, the 5th and 4th amendment. Not to mention due process. Hell the 5th amendment and due process was built into the Constitution because of Admiralty courts set up by the English. They were very similar to what these military tribunals are going to be.
This is scary and it’s wrong. I’m a foreigner engineer, married to an american woman and hence a legal immigrant, but not yet a citizen, so then I guess anybody that doesn’t like the way I look can say I’m something I’m not and then I’m done, tortured, deported, you name it!!! I come from a third world country that had a military dictatorship for 17 years and this is starting to feel just like that one.
I think my children, when they born, won’t live here after all…
If your position on habeas corpus is totally dependant on your reading of the US constitution, then you are an ass. It’s the foundation of common law and has been for over 800 years. It is the root of freedom. Without it, no other legal or constitutional guarantee is worth the paper it’s written on. It is the sole basis of a free society.
Arar was not renditioned to Syria, he was deported, as in immigration enforcement.
BZZZT! FALSE!
Arar is a Canandian citizen. He was in transit in the US on his way to Canada when he was detained by US authorities. US authorities do not enforce Canada’s immigration policies.
What about the inconvenient fact that they’ve gotten lots of good intel from “torturing†terrorists, and even allegedly broken up several plots that were in the works?
The key word there is “allegedly”. The Soviets “allegedly” got free and full confessions from all those dissidents they tortured, using techniques indistinguishable from what US officials have openly stated that they use.
For every extraordinary power to detain, torture, and prosecute that Bush’s supporters are willing to grant him, they must ask themselves; will I be willing to grant these same powers to President Sharpton?
If not, why should we listen to anything you say?
.
A T-shirt I saw at Worldcon said it all:
America: Designed by geniuses
Run by idiots
If Thomas Jefferson or James Madison COULD roll over in their graves, they would now!
I don’t think this marks the death of the Constitution, as much as a major amputaion. Like a leg or an arm.
OK, so this isn’t directly related to astronomy, but I still applaud Phil for writing about it. I don’t like blogs/LJs that are oh so focused that you forget an actual human being is writing it.
I´m not an american and i´m not living in the US. So I can say how this bill will be seen in some parts of the other world.
This bill seems to be exactly that what GW Bush wants to fight against: Terrorism! You can´t defeat terrorism by making it!
This bill shall only exist giving the CIA the “right” to kidnap people and to inprison them in “secret prisons” somewhere in europe!
Please, tell your president that he is not going to make new friends…. it´s exactly the other way round: he is gulity if the terroristic attack take place in America!
So, Dunc, you think Arar was sent to Syria so that they could torture him and give us the intel.
Syria.
I’m not saying it was right to deport the guy, but he wasn’t sent there because we thought Baby Assad would help us out.
And of course I say “allegedly.” I don’t have a top secret clearance, so I only know what the gov’t has released. Brian Ross of ABC News seems pretty convinced we got actionable intel from waterboarding KSM, and foiled a major plot. And until we starve and work to death a few tens of millions of our own people, I don’t think you should be comparing anything we do to the Soviets.
Ick - Holding my nose, yes, I would support a Pres Sharpton (shudder) having those powers. Should you now listen to everything I have to say?
Iceland.. I’m thinking Iceland, they turn the lights off to look at the stars and apparently have real grownups in charge. That sounds like a nice place to live. No fossils but I’ll bring my own.
*Sigh* not really but a boy can dream
I loved my country enough to serve in the Marines.
I love it too much to let these chicken-hawks run it into the ground.
John Says:
Arar was not renditioned to Syria, he was deported, as in immigration enforcement.
Right, that’s where we send all Canadian Citizens we deport. And, I wasn’t aware it was an immigration violation to change planes in the US in transit from one country to another. He was picked up changing planes in the US on his way home to Canada.
Grayson Says:
Let us not forget that habeas corpus was suspended during the Civil War by President Lincoln and during Reconstruction by President Grant.
And your point is? We also interred Japanese citizens in WWII, had legalized slavery, denied women the vote and property rights, had a period of mass hysteria during the McCarthy era, and went to war in Vietnam and Iraq under false pretenses.
Whoopie, it’s OK. It isn’t the first time.
We have officially arrived in the country our parents warned us about. Remember those horrible commies that didn’t have any human rights in their awful godless countries? Oh, but this bill only applies to the other guys, those legal residents who aren’t real citizens. So it’s different.
I can only hope this is short lived and doesn’t deteriorate any further. November will be one of the most important elections ever for people to speak out and say whether or not they support this government.
BA I’m really sad, this website has now gone from science to politics. This is SO not my favorite site anymore!
I’m really confused about politics, but I know that if I had neibor that I didn’t like I would either talk to them or move. So why don’t y’all move to Australia there? I hear the reef is pretty neat!
Some commenters give the impression that this law is OK because it applies only to non-citizens. But how is that different from distinguishing jews from “real Germans”? There are plenty non-citizens in your country that make vital contriutions to US society. In fact, your universities rely on them (another parallel with 70 years ago).
John Says:
Oh lordy, the sky is falling! Dark night!
There is nothing totalitarian about this bill, soon hopefully to become law. Habeas corpus can be suspended. It’s in the Constitution. And it’s only suspended for non-citizen enemy combatants under this bill.
Correction John. It’s only suspended for non-citizens. Since anyone can be called an enemy combatant without evidence, without trial, without anything but the governments say so, one need not be an enemy combatant no matter how it is defined. That’s the whole point of the bill. D’oh.
“Please, tell your president that he is not going to make new friends…. it´s exactly the other way round: he is gulity if the terroristic attack take place in America! ”
————————————-
George W. Bush does NOT care what others think of his plans. He’s a firm believe in “stay the course” regardless of where it leads.. He views admissions of fault or mistakes weakness and will not, therefore, back down from a course of action that is already set into motion. He is a most dangerous man.
Here is another example of the power of words. If we say “we can torture the enemy who has information we need to stop terrorists’ plots”, and we say we arrest and detain “enemy combatants” then the listener/reader is distracted from what isn’t said. Those examples are not the same examples this bill really will be used for.
What isn’t said is torture doesn’t yield enough information to be worth the extremely negative impact it has for this country. Terrorist recruitment was an issue just revealed in the Intelligence Assessment we had to learn about through a leak because it was being hidden from those who don’t want their policies to look bad. The terrorist recruitment potential of legalizing torture must be immense.
And some of the information obtained from torture is not just useless, it leads to actions that waste time and resources as well as to actions against innocent persons.
What isn’t said is enemy combatants have quite often been innocent. Why do you need to suspend habeas corpus? Because you don’t have legitimate evidence, of course. Don’t you think capturing a combatant in the act of participating in a battle against you would be sufficient evidence? Of course it would be. Had that been where these people were being picked up, then this bill would not be needed.
Oh so very dark..
Dear BadA and the rest of you proclaiming the death of freedom. How would YOU propose we fight this non uniformed, unconventional enemy? Come on now I’m sure with all of the brain power on this web site you would all be able to come up with a plan to defeat/difuse an enemy that has vowed to kill you. And yes this includes all of you posting on this web site.
You don’t have to believe George Bush on this. They post videos proudly proclaiming it. They do it the name of their (gasp) God. I know how this web site kind of frowns on that whole god thing BUT, here’s a group of people willing (commanded by their religion more accuratley) to kill you if you don’t believe as they do.
I would think that for a group of people so devoted to observable facts that you could figure out who would be the first on the religion of peace’s “hit” list. Yet, time and again all I here from liberals is that Bush is worse than Hitler. C’mon guys, remember to use facts.
How many women can now attend schools that just three years ago couldn’t?
How many people can vote thanks to this country?
Back to the main point though. Does it occur to any of you to ever believe the United States version of a story? Could it be possible that some of these fine jihadists just might lie? Maybe they have a motive to?
Stop, before you even reply that I just blindly follow the party line. I think all government should be watched with a very wary eye. But again when an enemy proclaims it will kill you, and demenstates that by beheadings, bus bombings, shootings oh and driving airplanes into buildings, perhaps we should give just a bit of the benifit of a doubt to our country. But, I guess we wouldn’t want to make any of these fine upstanding folks uncomfortable before they do any of this stuff?
This was from a conservative who tends to vote Republican who comes to this site to get scientific info. Sorry to blow away a stereotype that I see more and more of on this site.
Jason B,
We didn’t have to trammel the Constitution during WWII or WWI or even Viet Nam.
I don’t have a problem with capturing and interrogating possible enemy combatants. But you can still maintain Constitutional guarantees AND the Geneva Convengtion and hold possible terrorists.
The problem is that some of these guys were just in the wrong time at the wrong place. Some of them have done nothing wrong and have been detained for almost five years. Heresay evidence and evidence gotten from torture is generally bogus.
Hell, we even had at least one person in American custody BEFORE 9/11 who knew about 9/11 and his captors failed to get any useful information from him. If we had people in the FBI in those days who paid attention and saw the bigger picture (a man who wanted to learn how to fly a plane but not how to land it…), things might have been different.
How come I’m just seeing a big blac box instead of the blog entry?
[quote]How would YOU propose we fight this non uniformed, unconventional enemy? Come on now I’m sure with all of the brain power on this web site you would all be able to come up with a plan to defeat/difuse an enemy that has vowed to kill you. And yes this includes all of you posting on this web site.[/quote]
Well, firstly, they don’t have the power to kill everyone they don’t like. World is too big, and they are too little.
Second, frankly, you fight this non uniformed, unconventional enemy where they are weakest. Economically. It isn’t sexy, but it has teeth.
Say, as an example, we were able to import oil from somewhere else; say Russia. Say we increased our importing of oil from there by fifty percent, and using some conservation methods, were able to tell countires we suspected of harboring terrorists that we weren’t going to buy there aymore, until they, themselves, took care of whatever group we didn’t like within their borders.
With the sudden disapperence of BILLIONS MONTHLY, now flowing into coffers not their own, do you really think the governments of several Middle Eastern countries would’t fall all over themselves trying toget rid of the elements that caused this horrid calamity: that the U.S. isn’t buying anymore?
The U.S. is the world’s biggest consumer. We’re the customer. In that lies both our weakness and our strength.
Laurie Mann
Are serious you?
FDR - Japanese Internments - Exective Order - 9066
FDR - German spies executions
JFK/LBJ - Vietman the undeclared war
JFK/LBJ - Martin Luther King Jr. Illegal Wiretapping
LBJ - Wiretapping of Goldwater
Another thing many forget is how your laws can be used by others when you are in trouble.
Let’s suppose a person from Finland has trouble aboard, it is very easy for Finland to ask for the protection of that person, since Finland and other north Europe countries don’t have much problems with human rights. So they are in a situation of authority.
Now, let’s suppose an American who is taking a plane to the UK and transits by France for economical reasons, and that during that transit gets randomly arrested by French Police since his face was different from the average and then gets deported to Iran where they torture him for a year. What could the United States do? Ask for the protection of his human right since he is innocent? All Iran will do is laugh at the US and say “but you do it you too, so who are you to ask us to behave?”.
This has happened before. The only difference is the word used: “comunist” instead of “terrorist”. Are those of you calling the BA a moonbat really longing for the good old days of McCarthyism?
Skeptigirl:
-No, we don’t send all deported Canadian citizens to Syria. We send people who are suspected of being terrorists, WHO HOLD DUAL CANADIAN-SYRIAN CITIZENSHIP, back to Syria. In Arar’s case, mistakenly.
Do you believe we would send someone to our bosom buddies in Syria for intel?
-”November will be one of the most important elections ever for people to speak out and say whether or not they support this government.”
So, if the Republicans win the election, again, making them 4-0 over the last 6 years, what will you say?
-”Correction John. It’s only suspended for non-citizens. Since anyone can be called an enemy combatant without evidence, without trial, without anything but the governments say so, one need not be an enemy combatant no matter how it is defined. That’s the whole point of the bill. D’oh.”
The bill has specific language on who is to be considered an enemy combatant and not. What more do you want? A trial for every guy we pick up on the battlefield? Your want to give unlawful combatants, who violate the Geneva Convention and do not fall under its protections, more rights than lawful combatants? I’m sure plenty of innocent French farmers were captured in WW2, but they got held. It’s a shame, but the alternative? Let them all go to attack us again? They go before a review board to determine if they’re being held properly or not, as per the Geneva Conventions. We’ve let plenty go who have been found innocent. The rest are “rotting” in Guantanamo.
-Re: Torture - Every method of gathering intel brings in alot of junk. You have to separate the wheat from the chaff, basic intel work, which of course wastes alot of time. Your argument in this regard isn’t against torture, it’s against all intel gathering!
Go watch ABC’s Brian Ross at this site:
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/20/bombshell-abc-independently-confirms-success-of-cia-torture-tactics/
[CONTENT WARNING: IT’S A MICHELLE MALKIN WEBSITE WITH A CLIP OF ROSS ON O’REILLY! BE SURE TO SHOWER THOROUGHLY AFTER WATCHING!]
He says we stopped a dozen terror plots because we waterboarded KSM, Ramsi Bin-Alshib, Zubaydah, etc. Worth every penny, if you ask me.
Dan: I fear the answer might actually be yes.
D’oh!
No one cares exept you BA nerds
Jonathan,
Bingo. You got it! Now which party fights tooth and nail to avoid becoming energy independent. Alaska. Might spoil the view for some carribou. Gulf of Mexico. Might despoil the water. Wind power. Spoils the Kennedy’s view. Nuclear. Let the screaming begin.
So were stuck buying from the very people who really don’t like us. Now here’s the tough question. Who out there has REALLY changed their lifestyle to use less energy? Sitting there, with the light on and reading this uses power. Going to dinner, the beach, that concert you just have to see; hey it’s to fight global warming. How about flying to sci-fi conventions?
Don’t get me wrong. These are all what we individually find important. I wouldn’t presume to make that decision for somebody else. That’s Freedom. The Taliban was not a fan of freedom. Nor was the Soviet Union.
To those of you who claim communists were just a buggaboo to scare people with could you please tell me to the nearest ten million how many people were killed under Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot? Makes Hitler look like a rank amature.
Cafeenman, you go with the tried and true, “the Christans did it too”. If the Cardinal of New York were currently issuing statements calling for the deaths of non believers I’d have a real big problem with him too. But, were talking about the present. I don’t believe it’s common practice for the Sunday bible class to chant Onward Christan Soldiers and saw the head off of a bound captive.
Please take a look at this link, and I do sincerly mean please.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com
Also into this argument on “torture” I constantly hear that torture doesn’t work. Many experts that I’ve heard and read say there are better ways to get good and reliable info. ie, sleep depravation, loud noise, cramped conditions etc. (this is eerily like the Eric Clapton show I went to last night) meant to keep a person out of sorts works better. Now are many of you so jaded that you think the military would use other methods just to get their kicks. If what I described above is torture to you then you should just go cut up the bed sheets for surrender flags. Tie dye some black for those stylish burkhas coming out for the Spring.
Did you know that waterboarding was one of the primary torture methods of the Khmer Rouge. Remember them? They killed a few million people in Cambodia during their insane reign in the 1970s.
This is what waterboarding looks like:
http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/2006/09/this_is_what_wa.php
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.
While I despise this bill, we should keep a little perspective here. It’s all smoke and mirrors. Folks, this is politics, not serious lawmaking.
Congress knows perfectly well this bill will not pass Constitutional muster. The Supreme Court has already ruled on these practices, including some of the very things this bill “allows”. Several prominent Republican senators made this point during debate. Nobody expects this legislation to withstand a court challenge.
So why even pass it? Very simple. This is an election year, and the Republicans are in deep trouble. There’s a very good chance they’ll lose control of the House, and a smaller chance they could lose both houses of Congress. This bill gives them a weapon to use against their Democratic challengers. “You didn’t support this bill? Oh, so you want to coddle terrorists!”
So don’t let’s panic about this. Even the current SCOTUS can be trusted to overturn legislation that tramples on habeas corpus. The only real concern is whether the tactic might work to swing some close congressional races; let’s hope that the electorate is sharp enough to see through the ploy.
Kallat - the only difference being, I imagine, that the US didn’t shoot the waterboardees in the head and make nice pyramids out of their skulls afterwards. But why quibble over details! Hey, the Khmer Rouge used guns, too! And they wore sandals! By using guns and wearing sandals, we are no better!
Donnie - IIRC the SCOTUS overruled Bush because he didn’t have specific Congressional authorization for military tribunals. Which this legislation authorizes. SCOTUS might have additional objections up its sleeve, of course.
The sad thing is that many people will judge this on partisan grounds. Which, of course, is why an abomination like this was allowed to pass. “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.” But ya know, this is not about evil Republicans or evil conservatives. Real conservatives would be appalled. And Republicans? The very concept of a republic relies on certain freedoms. If these guarantees can so easily be stripped from non-citizens currently in US jurisdiction (US laws definitely apply to non-citizens while they are under US jurisdiction; I really don’t understand why the US constitution shouldn’t), how much longer before these guarantees can be stripped from citizens?
More to the point, how do we know that they haven’t been already? Bush has admitted to secret prisons. We cannot know that none of them have US citizens incarcerated in them. Plus, we know that the alleged terrorists recently captured in Britain were British citizens; why not Al Quaeda members with US citizenship? That will be the next step, I predict. To strip citizenship from people so that they can be legally tortured. (Legally tortured. I cannot believe I said that. But once this bill becomes law, it will be legal to torture captives.)
And if a detainee is a citizen, how are they to obtain their guaranteed rights and liberties? Such as habeas corpus? This would reinstate the military tribunals, which for obvious reasons don’t let you appeal your case to the Supreme Court. They can’t. It’s a completely separate chain. If you are a US citizen and end up in one of these prisons, you won’t have the chance to prove you are a US citizen unless they are conscientious enough to check on your status and generous enough to acknowledge that it means something.
This isn’t equivalent to dictatorships such as existed so recently in Romania. Those situations are far worse. But they all started small.
I won’t get seriously worried about a dictatorship until Bush tries to get Presidential term limits revoked. That’s our protection from dictatorship. And I’m sure as hell going to exercise my right to vote this November, and in all subsequent elections. I don’t know who the Republicans are going to endorse in 2008, but you can bet I’m going to vote in the primaries. It had better not be someone only interested in continuing Bush’s legacy.
Note: I am not a left-winger. Nor am I a right-winger. I’m a moderate. I voted for Bush in 2000. I voted for Kerry in 2004, but not because I liked Kerry; I voted for him because I thought he had the best shot of defeating Bush. I am not a Bush-basher; I don’t like to bash by nature. There’s always another side to the story. But the more I hear from the White House, the more disturbed I become about Bush.
Once again equating the most free and open country with the worst of the world.
Evidence for my claim. Look at all the divergent opinions on this. Look at what we can call the president without fear of late night visits from the authorities. If you threaten him what do expect? Try that with the Khmer Rouge. Slightly different outcome.
You make the comparison of the US military attempting to wring information out of what are many times hardened criminals that is for the benifit of protecting you and your family and the sensless torture of common peasants for not thinking the right way. I still give the benifit of the doubt to our guys. And if one of our guys are found to be acting criminally we have remedies. What was in place in Cambodia for agrieved persons to take thier complaints to?
All countries are not created equal.
*waits patently for January 2008 when GWB is replaced and the internet stops exploding with “outrage” every time he opens his mouth*
This country has faced constitutional challenges, civil war, slavery, civil unrest, market crashes, dust bowls, internment of 10s of thousands of citizens, political assassinations, and a legion of other problems that were far more dangerous to this nations fabric then anything thats happened in the past 10 years.
Get a grip, America isn’t self destructing, freedom, Democracy, and the Republic still stand tall and GWB isn’t Satan himself out to steal your soul.
I imagine, that the US didn’t shoot the waterboardees in the head and make nice pyramids out of their skulls afterwards.
Yeah, people are no longer executed in the US by shooting? You have more “humane” methods to carry out the “problem”.
The authorities can also simply “outsource” terrorist suspects into countries which don’t have problems with “quaint” human rights.
Kallat
Methinks you need to take a deep breath and think about the difference of years of a trial, DNA evidence, appeals, some more appeals, and the scouring of the country side to terrorize the citizens into compliance.
Good night, I’m going home to spend time with my family knowing I’m safe thanks to the efforts of many.
Once again equating the most free and open country with the worst of the world.
I wonder is there any basis on the claim that the United States is the most free and open country in the world? It certainly was true when the country was founded and probably more or less true until the end of the World War II. In the case you haven’t noticed, there are many democratic and free countries all around the world.
The sad fact is that the United States hasn’t been so “free and open” in its actions abroad. It has supported many dictatorships (currently for example Pakistan, the appallingly despotic Saudi Arabia along most Arab countries). Worser, it has helped in coups that have terminated true democraties. For example, one reason why Iranians don’t much like Americans is that their democracy was ended in the 1950s in a coup supported by CIA that brought the brutal Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi into power.
jrkeller - those were certainly the wrong things to do, but I do think what we’ve been doing now is worse.
Sometimes, I’ve got to wonder if any of tthose bound and tortured bodies found in Iraq were killed by Americans or by American orders, that’s how cynical I’ve become about some members of our military/CIA.
skeptigirl
Says:
September 29th, 2006 at 11:22 am
Grayson Says:
Let us not forget that habeas corpus was suspended during the Civil War by President Lincoln and during Reconstruction by President Grant.
And your point is? We also interred Japanese citizens in WWII, had legalized slavery, denied women the vote and property rights, had a period of mass hysteria during the McCarthy era, and went to war in Vietnam and Iraq under false pretenses.
Whoopie, it’s OK. It isn’t the first time.
We have officially arrived in the country our parents warned us about. Remember those horrible commies that didn’t have any human rights in their awful godless countries? Oh, but this bill only applies to the other guys, those legal residents who aren’t real citizens. So it’s different.
I can only hope this is short lived and doesn’t deteriorate any further. November will be one of the most important elections ever for people to speak out and say whether or not they support this government.
My point is that it has happened before. As a historian I simply make this point.
Oh, and BA, I won’t be frequenting this site any longer (there are too many political blogs out there already).
“What more do you want? A trial for every guy we pick up on the battlefield? Your want to give unlawful combatants, who violate the Geneva Convention and do not fall under its protections, more rights than lawful combatants?”
Well… Yes, frankly. I do want all of that. Because we’re supposed to be better people. I don’t want safety if it comes at the price of dignity, freedom, and human rights. That’s the trade-off we’re making, and you, Jason, are on the wrong side of it. You’re completely reprehensible.
And for that mater, shame on you for playing the relativist game here. Shame, shame, shame. Certain things are just wrong, no matter who does it or why. Torture is one of them.
In no war that the US has fought has the other side honors the genveva rules of war. The Germans did not, nor the Japs, nor the North Koreans, nor the Chinese, not the North Vietnamese, and not the Russians and the Iraqis didn’t either. And especially not these terrorists.
These terrorists could quite legally under the conventions be dragged out to the nearest tree and hanged at any time. They are not parties to the conventions, they do not wear uniforms, they have no command structure and they themselves reject the conventions. They are out side of the legal structure and are partisans who are legally subject to summary execution.
Why don’t you try looking at the facts before spouting nonsense, you are supposed to be a scientist after all.
I visit (or rather, USED to visit) your site to read about interesting things regarding astronomy. If I want to read Democratic Party talking points, I’ll go to Democrats.org, Daily Kos, or one of the other moonbat sites.
What does this post have to do with astronomy…I get it, you are a liberal, but I like your thoughts on science, you are getting close to the Huffington blogspot, please stick to items related to science
So now scientists, like entertainers, are not supposed to voice their opinion on matters political? To all who contemplate leaving this site just because of political therads: instead of running away, voice your dissent (as you already have), stop name calling and JUST SKIP THE POLITICAL THREADS. So what if ANY scientist has political opinions? As long as those opinions aren’t making up lies about the science, just read the science.
I normally don’t care for the political rants on any side, yet I’ll still come here for the science news.
For the record, I’ll also go elsewhere for science news in addition to coming here. Just because I generally like this site doesn’t mean I think it’s the only one out there. But just because politcal opinions are put up here doesn’t mean I’ll abandon this site, either. Sheesh! Talk about getting a grip!
By the way, I believe Phil Plait has gone on record as saying he’d verbally (or blog-ally) blast any liberal or Democrat that abused science as well… he doesn’t just target conservatives nor Republicans.
Please correct me if I’m in error about that.
And Phil, if that is indeed the gist of what you’ve said in the past, perhaps a reminder (and active example, if available) would help calm things down a bit.
Laurie Mann,
You stated,
“We didn’t have to trammel the Constitution during WWII or WWI or even Viet Nam.”
We surely did trammel the Constitution during those times. Putting thousands of American citizens in internment camps simply because they had Japenese acestors (62% were US citizens) without any sort of trial clearly was a violation of the Constution and the Bill of Rights. Amendments 4,5,6 and possibly 9 were all violated. I would bet that the 2nd Amendment was also violated. There was no Habeas Corpus here.
To the rest of you,
Instead of whining, writing blogs, posting on BB and calling each other names, get off your butts or out from behind your monitors and do something. Join a political party (it’s pretty cheap), attend their party meetings, help a candidate run for office or do something meaningful. I have.
Why do you assume that we don’t, jr? Because we’re on the internet? Aren’t you, as well? Does that mean you’re equally useless?
I’ve done my duty as a citizen since I earned my voting rights five years ago, and I continue to do it now. But there’s only so much I can do, especially as I live in a state that’s solidly blue. Mind you, I’m pretty damned happy about that right now. None of the Congressmen from my state voted for this atrocity, and I’m proud to say it.
But you’ve got all these other bastards drowning us sane people out, and I can’t tell you what’s to be done about them. They should have been better educated about what democracy means and why the legal protections of the Constitution and Bill of Rights are important — even if those protections do make us less safe, which is something I do not believe and never have believed. But it’s too late for that now. The damage is done, and the people are either not voting or voting without an understanding of the stakes.
I hope for all our sakes that enough of them wise up and get sick of this disgusting treatment to vote out the traitors in Congress who decided yesterday to throw out 900 years of legal tradition and turn their backs 230 years of American freedom for a little bit of imaginary safety. But I’m not hopeful.
Greetings from a fellow UVa-PhD. I’m a lot more politically conservative than most of the people who read this blog, I would guess — and I’m appalled by what was done today. Disgraceful. I don’t know our Congress anymore.
Interesting that you would take the term liberal as me name calling CR…guess it is a dirty word. Phil can write anything he wants on his blog, and now I will probably come back here less than previously. No skin off his nose and none off mine. I agree with Phil’s critical thinking regarding the Intellegent design issue to a point, I happen to beleive that HE started the whole ball rolling and how the ball bounces and shakes around is based on HIS parameters…does that make me a kooky right wing Christian? Enjoy life, its the only one you have on this earth
>Say we increased our importing of oil from there by fifty percent, and using some conservation methods, were able to tell countires we suspected of harboring terrorists that we weren’t going to buy there aymore, until they, themselves, took care of whatever group we didn’t like within their borders.
Non-sense. They’ll sell it someone else, who’ll sell it to us (UK, Germany, Japan, Brazil, Belarus, Mexico or even Russia you mentioned). For example, U.S. may not participate in secondary-embargo itself, so it is unlikely to be followed by others. Economic profit on arbitrage to clear a market provides strong incentives. So we may end up paying slightly above whatever price and they get slightly less. But oil is largely fungible and widely traded, so with small-enough transaction costs, the prices won’t change too much either. Except that the markets may reevaluate their expectations that the US trade policy is more random than usual and extra volatility, also known as risk, is a bad thing.
But say you managed to reduce Iran’s (I imagine that’s the suggested country) oil profits by 15% at expense of American gains from trade. Terrorists’ income is smaller by, say, 3% and Iran’s civilliation population loses 12% (it can’t be otherwise, unless you were specifically importing from Al-Qaeda’s supply chain). Might as well shoot people randomly, in “hope” they are terrorists (NOT!).
I am quite frankly appalled at this post. So many people that think of themselves as patriots who are so upset by what people are saying that they want to quash the first admendment as well as the others listed above. Freedom of speech (and expression) is designed to protect that which you do NOT want to hear!
Honestly though, yes habeus corpus was suspended once before during the Civl War (a much greater threat to or nation) and wasfound to be unconsitutional………..after the fact. Will the Supreme Court find it unconstitutional now….probably…after the fact. Does this mean that this is right? Absoultely not IMO. The brightest light of freedom that exists in the world is getting steadily dimmer beginning with the Patriot Act (I find it hard to trust anything labeled such as this, does this mean you’re unpatriotic if you have problems with detaining people with no evidence and no court oversight?) up until this….thing. What comes next? Internment camps? Oops we already have those!
So, nobody has any ideas besides torture to keep our nation safe? How about a larger military to do more than wave the flag in Iraq and Afghanistan and quash the insurgencies? Maybe give the generals the troops they said they needed for stability in post-Sadam Iraq? How about going after the people we are sure that have attacked us? Have any of these poor bastards in the internment camps told us where Osama is?
Does keeping people prisoner far from hier homes win us any FRIENDS in the Middle East? I’d say we’re in dire need of some, wouldn’t you? I wouldn’t be your friend if you were keepng my father, brother, son or cousin in Cuba or a proxied torture camp. In fact I’d probably be looking to take up arms against you regardless of what my views were prior to that.
Another thing is I sincerely doubt that the “terrorists hate us because we are a free country”. They’ll hate us just us much after we start posting immigration police at state lines looking for terrorists…. or any other foriegn national legal or otherwise they find. The terrorists hate us because for many reasons, such as: we support the brutal regimes in the middle east which opress them and thier families; we certainly have the appearence of being anti-Islamic in our national policies wether it’s true or not (open to debate IMO); and last but not least we’re not an Islamic country.
More than that this is the wrong way to go because it is quite frankly WRONG. If we become our enemy and use tactics that they would in fact use against us won’t make us win, it will make us lose our moral perogative if we haven’t already. Moral high ground matters as some of the previous posts have pointed out. How can you be upset about what they do to us when we are doing wrong as well?
P.S. To Mr. Plait, I am a very long term reader and first time poster. My hat is off to you for speaking your mind. While this is not an astronomy related subject you are dong the right thing as an American and speaking out against what you see as wrong in the forum that you have available to you. Wether or not your readers agree with you and even if I didn’t, it still sound like the act of a patriot….who just happens to be an astronomer.
For me the issue isn’t so much the question of whether watergboarding or any of the other secret-police-creep methods of extracting confessions meet some specific definition of “torture”.
I think the really important issue is whether the potential of being deprived of life, liberty or property remain in the hands of a truly independent judiciary or whether they become mere administrative functions of an all-powerful executive. Whether or not this particular bill breaks the camel in two, there has definitely been a thrust towards the “administrative fiat” model on the part of the current Washington regime for the duration of its existence, and we can rationally expect that to continue.
“In that case your sentence will be pronounced administratively.” Does anyone here recognize that quote? Does anyone really want to take the risk of living in that book?
R.I.P. Bad Astronomy
As a libertarian mimded person, I don’t support the bill in question, but this web site has just become another mindless, hysterical, overreacting, Chicken Little poltical bashing forum.
This panic over what is just another in a long series of Constitutional challenges (a series that started in 1776, and will continue into the far future) is about the level of those who seriously believed Planet X was going to hit the Earth.
Phil, you have become what you once criticized: a monochromatic, oversimplistic, hyperbolic moonbat who traffics in preschool level models of the world and reductio ad absurdum arguments- just in politics instead of science.
Good riddance and good luck.
Paul, Frank and TheGalaxy trio, don’t let the door hit you on the butt. You won’t be missed.
Am I the only one flashing back to the witch trials here…
Paul, Frank and TheGalaxy trio, don’t kid yourself. You’ll be back to this blog, if only to vow again that you leave forever. It’s pathetic. If you really don’t enjoy this thread, why do you read the 90+ comments?
Rumour Mongerer - No, there was some other Cassandra above talking about McCarthyism.
I think small doses of politics is healthy for any site.
Couldn’t agree more, and delighted to see Phil’s take on the action in the Senate. I had written a more lengthy but similar observation at http://www.turningleft.net.
You do a tasteful job commenting on politics and science. How long until NASA is completely swallowed up by the Defense Dept. and the only science we see in this country is for the expansion of some pols Napoleonic obsessions?
Let’s not forget this part of Harry Reid’s essay:
“I strongly believe this legislation is unconstitutional. It will almost
certainly be struck down by the Supreme Court.”
The darkness is not yet total.
J. D.
Joshua - “Well… Yes, frankly. I do want all of that. Because we’re supposed to be better people. I don’t want safety if it comes at the price of dignity, freedom, and human rights. That’s the trade-off we’re making, and you, Jason, are on the wrong side of it. You’re completely reprehensible.”
I think you mean me, not Jason. You shouldn’t equate someone disagreeing with you on an issue to being reprehensible. We disagree. I don’t think you’re a bad person for disagreeing with me; why would you think that of me? We’re both patriotic Americans. These are difficult issues with many different moral dimensions. I realize it’s easy for me to say this, since my side has been kicking the crap out of your side in every election since 2000, but still, show some civility.
Btw, we’re not a democracy, we’re a republic.
Don’t you recognize that there are severe issues with giving all of these guys a court trial? There are no rules of evidence or chains of custody on a battlefield. Troops don’t read Miranda rights to people they capture. There are pressing issues of intelligence that have to be exploited immediately because lives are at stake. Do we then let known bad guys go because we obtained that intel by coersion, only to see them take up arms against our country again? It’s a dilemma, and you refuse to recognize the legitimate other sides of the issue.
The Geneva Conventions say you can’t try prisoners. But you can hold military tribunals for those who commit war crimes. Most detainees are not protected by the Geneva Conventions - they don’t qualify, for the 4 reasons agesilaus points out above. So do we treat them as common criminals, giving them MORE rights than legitimate POWs would get under the conventions, while hamstringing our intel gathering efforts? Brian Ross says that we broke up at least a dozen plots, including one to crash jetliners into the Library Tower in LA. Is it worth waterboarding KSM to save those lives? Does KSM then get a pass to go free because our interest in saving those lives outweighs his civil rights? The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
agesilaus,
Stop confusing the argument with the facts!
Joshua,
My point was that what you call ‘torture’, I call getting information from an enemy who has VOWED to kill you. Torture serves no pupose.
To many on this blog who are convinced that freedom itself just died, what would be an acceptable questioning technique? Should we play 20 questions? If they don’t wish to talk; no desert? Weather you wish to admit it or not these folks are at war with us.
BadA,
Still love the site. You had the link to the shuttle/space station photo 2 or 3 days before Drudge. (Okay Cafeenman you can start pounding away at your keyboard now telling me what a vile website he has. ) I think a healthy discourse on matters such this helps to break up the monotany of trying to figure out the universe through space exploration. One last quick question. As you are a scientist could you please tell me how 100 years of man made CO2 emissions caused the glaciers to receed 15,000 years ago?
Its early just thought I’d tweak ya.
(For some reasons, my last post was blocked as spam)
John: Btw, we’re not a democracy, we’re a republic.
Last time I checked, the United States were still a democracy, no matter how hard people try to change that. I don’t see how there is a link or a contradiction between democracy and republic.
France is a republic and a democracy as are the United States
North Korea is a republic but not a democracy
Canada is not a republic and is a democracy
Saudi Arabia is neither a republic nor a democracy
A dark day? We entered the dark ages when the axis of evil, Bush/Cheney/Falwell, began the Christian Taliban takeover.
Non-citizen enemy combatants are not entitled to the same rights and priviledges as American Citizens! We are trying to protect ourselves from terrorists trying to kill us. I don’t care about terrorists rights, they have none! This is a war between 21st Century Rationalism and 7th Century
Monotheism, and we must use whatever means required to win. I don’t want to democritize terrorists, I want to kill them.
Hate to interrupt all this happy Republican bashing with any facts, but the vote was 65-34 in the Senate. Doesn’t that mena some Democrats also voted for the bill…?
For everybody who thinks that what we are doing is right, I should probably quote few passages from the Declaration of Independence. These list grievances that we had against Great Britain, the reasons we split away and formed our own country:
“For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:”
“For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:”
“He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.”
Current: In an interview with the BBC last week, Abu Izzadeen, the radical Muslim who disrupted the Home Secretary’s speech in dramatic fashion, explains that Sharia and democracy are incompatible:
Democracy means sovereignty for man; and as a Muslim, we believe in the sovereignty of Sharia…
Abu Izzadeen goes on to say that since Allah created the entire planet, all of its people belong under Sharia, and Muslims should work to bring this about through “Islamic methodology” (which, he makes clear, is not via the democratic process).
Moderates may prefer to see Sharia established through democracy, but it won’t feel any better once it’s here. (At least we were warned…).
And you folks are worried about terrorist rights and Christian fundimentalists? WAKE UP! Peace is OVER. It’s kill or be killed, and I want History to record that Western Rationalism triumphed over Primitive Theism.
“Non-citizen enemy combatants are not entitled to the same rights and priviledges as American Citizens!”
I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention, but Americans don’t have these right either anymore. Or maybe you’ve never heard of Jose Padilla?
Besides, my understanding of the Constitution was always that these rights were intrinsic to us as human beings - not granted to us by a benevolent government.
It’s hilarious to read people saying “this blog has gotten too political, I’m outta here!”. Phil posts maybe one political blog a month.
Thomas Wentzel said:
“Non-citizen enemy combatants are not entitled to the same rights and privileges as American Citizens!”
The passing of this bill applies to American Citizens - including you. The bill discards the checks and balances put forth by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution. There is nothing in it to prevent a Machiavellian political persecution of Americans who oppose the policies of whoever is in office.
Darn, I was so hoping The Black Cat’s wonderful post would remain the last word.
Apparently Joe, Confuddled, Grayson, Paul, and TheGalaxyTrio, prefer not to be disturbed thinking about current political events and haven’t figured out they can skip blog entries. I hope they do figure out they can skip the polls on election day.
John has an odd rationalization of the Arar case. OTOH he says we sent the Canadian Arar to Syria but would not have expected Syria to torture Arar for information since we have such poor relations with Syria. OTOH, if we suspected Arar of terrorism why would we send him to a country that we believe supports terrorism, especially given there were 2 choices?
If there was any real evidence against Arar, we could have arrested him. If there was no evidence, a trip to Canada was certainly cheaper and they could have kept an eye on him for us. Did Syria torture Arar for us to get US brownie points?
I’m waiting for more evidence to make sense of this case because as it stands right now, my conclusion based on this evidence is we sent Arar to Syria because we knew Syria would torture him and that was the actual goal. There was no information expected.
The other possible conclusions are we sent a terrorist back to a country that would welcome him and he could continue to be a threat. Afterall, as a citizen of Canada, what would have stopped him from just returning to Canada from Syria? Or perhaps the Syrians made a deal with the US to seek information from Arar for us. But then we supposedly don’t make deals with terrorists now do we? The best explanation for this case is we sent Arar to Syria with the goal they would torture him, (there was evidence to that effect because his family had political enemies in the Syrian government).
That may sound implausible as well, but it better explains the actions of the US than we just arbitrarily picked Syria over Canada. If torture wasn’t the intended deterrent for this guy, sending him to Syria would have only deterred him from returning to Canada by a day or so.
Based on the suspcicious events in the Arar case alone, does it appear the Bush government is being truthful about this whole interrogation thing? The case of the German man abducted in Macedonia revealed the secret prisons we are using outside the US. These are the actions of a President routinely disregarding the intent of the law, if not the laws themselves.
The law does NOT only apply to non-US citizens (at least not the version approved by the house and senate).
Under section 948a Definitions:
This says nothing about them being aliens. Now later, under section 948d Jurisdiction of military commissions, it says:
(emphasis added)
Now that looks like they are restricting it to only aliens. But later on in the same subsection:
(emphasis added)
Note that this section says nothing about the subject being alien. So under this clause anyone determined to be an unlawful combatant by any tribunal set up by the US president at any time, whether they be alien or not, is subject to the provisions of this law. It very much applies to US citizens.
There is no definition in the law for “competent tribunal”, so it appears that the president can set up any tribunal he wants and then find anybody he wants to be an “unlawful enemy combatant” with no oversight.
There are other problems. There is no trial by jury. Under Sec. 948i. Who may serve on military commissions, the miltiary gets to decide those who will be the “jury” for the case (actually officers of the US military). This is the most unjust thing I can possibly imagine. Do you know how easy it would be to stack the “jury” with people who are sure to agree with the prosecution. In fact, they specifically say “judicial temperament” is a valid criteria on which to decide potential “jurors”.
The absolute worst part is: this bill didn’t have to pass. it didn’t have enough for a filibuster. A single Senator - a Biden, for example, who has announced he is running for President again - could have stopped it. A Kerry could have stopped it. Yet when the time came, all these brave souls who think they are worthy of promotion, just timidly raised their hands to say ‘no’ - and then shut up and stared at the floor, frightened of their own shadows.
Below is a letter I wrote to Sen.McCain, someone I have financially supported in the past; I sent a similar one to Sen. Biden.
Dave
–
29sept06
Senator McCain -
I’m in my 50s; and your 2000 Campaign for President was the only time I’ve contributed to a Presidential campaign.
Why, Senator? Why have you given up on us - our Constitution - on everything you’ve previously fought - and suffered - for, by caving on the ‘terrorist detainee’ bill? It violates our Constitution. It violates our laws; it violates our principles. What I thought were your principles.
And you could have stopped it. Just you. Hell, it wasn’t even filibuster proof, either.
Something in America died this week, Senator. And you could have stopped it. And you didn’t.
Please, take my name and address - and the phone number your Republican machine has of mine - out of the database.
But me asking you to do that doesn’t bring America, the Constitution, and our laws and values back.
I’m only in my 50s. But I’ve never felt we were paralleling Nazi Germany of the 1930s more in my life, than right now, this minute.
And you could have stopped it. A Profile in Courage. Remember when another US Senator used those words in a book? He gave as an example a single Senator who bucked his party to keep Andrew Johnson from being (unjustly) removed from office.
I guess Senators don’t believe in things like that any more. Not ones running for ‘higher’ office, anyway. Do you really, really think you can wipe the much off you, after you get to the White House? That it won’t stick?
Dave Huntsman
Cleveland
i’m from a spanish speaking country, excume my wording, but this bill is forever and ever??? the next administration: could annull it???? if so, please vote well in the next election and case close!!!
While the next administration can change it, it pardons all past incidents where torture, kidnapping, and illegal incarceration might have occurred had this not been the law. Many people have commented that one of the main purposes of this bill was to prevent the prosecution of anyone who may have already committed crimes in the Bush administration including Bush. His top level people have been ordering hundreds of people tortured and imprisoned without trial already. While most were not American citizens, at least one was:
Jose Padilla
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_%28alleged_terrorist%29
Padilla was arrested in May, 2002. When there wasn’t evidence to charge him with any actual crimes, (his crime was he spent extensive time with probable terrorists), Bush declared him an enemy ‘combatant’ and had him sent to a military brig. He remained there for 3.5 years without being charged. And while a lower court ruled the government could keep holding him, the Bush administration feared a Supreme Court ruling against the government. Better to try this guy than to have a final ruling that arresting a US citizen on US soil and then voiding the person’s habeas corpus rights by labeling him an enemy combatant was illegal. In fact, if the Bush government does it again, they can put the next citizen into the 3+ year holding tank and repeat the process.
Padilla was indicted on charges that he plotted to kill people overseas. We have not seen the evidence but let me guess, someone fingered Padilla to stop from being tortured. The original claims by the government were that Padilla was plotting to set off a “dirty bomb” in the US. The Bush administration has made sure Padilla’s name has been synonymous with “dirty bomber” indicating he planned to use a radioactive bomb.
I don’t know what evidence the government really has. Obviously they didn’t have much or they would have tried him three years ago. And maybe Padilla has been hanging out with terrorists. Maybe he is dangerous.
So are men that threaten to kill their ex-girlfriends and ex-wives but all we do in those cases is file court orders for no-contact and wait until the guy actually goes after the poor woman.
Drunk drivers are dangerous, level 3 sex offenders are dangerous, the list is endless.
If you have evidence, arrest the terrorists and charge them. If all you have is a tortured person’s claim (or confession), or the fact the guy went to Afghanistan, or attended the same Mosque as known terrorists, that is not evidence of anything, that is merely suspicion. And for mere suspicion we sent Arar, later cleared of any association with any terrorists or even friends of terrorists, to be TORTURED FOR OVER A YEAR, KEPT IN A CELL AS BIG AS A COFFIN FOR MORE THAN A YEAR!!!
The innocent German guy had a similar fate. Even after the Bush administration learned the German was entirely innocent, they debated for several months how to release him without causing an incident with the German government. These people did not care they had held and tortured an innocent man. They cared it was going to be embarrassing.
As far as it being an unconstitutional law, it may be but they can follow it in the mean time and it won’t go before the Supreme Court for at least a couple years.
John says The bill has specific language on who is to be considered an enemy combatant and not. What more do you want? A trial for every guy we pick up on the battlefield?
If you don’t have to produce evidence for a crime, if the detained person cannot talk to anyone, let alone a lawyer, then what difference does it make what the bill defines as an enemy combatant? There’s no mechanism in place at all to defend against the charge.
And as to being picked up on the battlefield, I could agree with that. But most of these people are not being picked up on a battlefield. Convenient Bush admin talking points: we are torturing them to find out where the nuclear bomb is and they are ‘combatants’. Neither of these talking point examples represents the detainees they are used to represent.
There have been many claims of torture revealing terror plots that were then thwarted. Considering the fanfare over group with the liquids on planes and the wannabes in FL that were arrested as terror plotters, I’d have to conclude this is the best the government’s gotten as far as thwarting plots. Both cases have been way overblown as far as the risk posed and neither resulted from torture confessions as far as I know. Yet both cases were flaunted in the media as government successes. Doesn’t it make you wonder why the government hasn’t flaunted a few more of these successes? They tell us there have been some.
I’ll look into the claim, John that, “[Ross] says we stopped a dozen terror plots because we waterboarded KSM, Ramsi Bin-Alshib, Zubaydah, etc.,” but if it only turns out to be a claim, then maybe you can figure out why there was no gloating publicity like with the two events we did hear about. Can’t be too secret if the names of the confessors are public.
John saysDon’t you recognize that there are severe issues with giving all of these guys a court trial? There are no rules of evidence or chains of custody on a battlefield. Troops don’t read Miranda rights to people they capture. There are pressing issues of intelligence that have to be exploited immediately because lives are at stake. Do we then let known bad guys go because we obtained that intel by coersion, only to see them take up arms against our country again? It’s a dilemma, and you refuse to recognize the legitimate other sides of the issue.
That part we get, John. Now how about addressing the real world version where the people we’ve detained were not picked up in a battle? There are the poor saps who were turned in by someone claiming the 5K reward for turning in Taliban, no questions asked, in Afghanistan, like that would be a reliable way to find the bad guys. And then there are the rest like Arar who were picked up after a rumor or other very unreliable bit of info.
An act of congress can make the law, and pull it back.
The reason for the law is so there is legal backing to acts that have and are not defined by the Geneva Convention. Considering that this has been passed by an elected body, and can be revolked by an elected body, I don’t see this as the end of democracy.
I did hear that the bill mentioned that citizens can appeal to the DC Court of Appeals, the second highest court in the land, but I’m not sure if the wording is actually in the bill.
The suspension of HC isn’t unheard of, but I am not sure if it completely applies here. As far as I knew, the constitution doesn’t speak much about aliens and the country relies upon the acts and laws set up by congress in that regard.
Sorry, I’m one of those moonbat conservatives (and christian no less) that isn’t really disturbed by this. I can honestly say that under a democratic administration, it wouldn’t bother me either. I personally think there are other checks and balances than just that written in the constitution. I think most people act with honor. So far, my faith hasn’t been shaken all that much.
I do think that to prosecute this “war” like a criminal investigation is silly. We are fighting an ideology that begins with “We want to kill you.” I don’t know if you can rationally work with that.
Aside from tyranny, oppression, slavery, facism,
communism and nazism, war never solved anything.
What would be the reaction of US Gov and citizens of US citizens were held, interogated and tried under identical legislation by any other country?