And me without my armbands....

Lou, you're smarter than that. Or at least you should be.

The U.S is a signatory to the Geneva Convention. I don't think I have to remind you of the recent Supreme Court Ruling regarding violations.

There's also a small piece of U.S. legislation called The War Crimes Act, under which members of the Bush administration could conceivably  be charged.

So, let's forget once and for all "They're terrorists, might be terrorists, might know a terrorist, might be married to a terrorist so we can do whatever we want with them" argument.

Not only is it morally indefensible, it's now legally indefensible as well.

 

I always love it when someone makes the argument that the U.S. is no better than al-Qaeda.

Nice.

 

dThe Bill of Rights extends only to US citizens (unless you want to impose our laws on all the peoples of the world). Did I miss something or did that story you linked to say these measures would be extended to US citizens or are they just for foreign enemy combatants captured in civilian garb?

Democrats will continue to lose national elections as long as they continue to appear to care more about the "rights" of the terrorists our miliatry catches than about the men and women in the military who are risking their lives fighting them. Do you think these people fight according to Hoyle or obey the Geneva Convention? Maybe in your hippy dreams.


The problem, Lou, is that you've never learned the lesson that to make a caricature of someone's position is not the same as refuting it.
This, to me, is the nut section here:

"A draft Bush administration plan for special military courts seeks to expand the reach and authority of such "commissions" to include trials, for the first time, of people who are not members of al-Qaeda or the Taliban and are not directly involved in acts of international terrorism, according to officials familiar with the proposal.
The plan, which would replace a military trial system ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in June, would also allow the secretary of defense to add crimes at will to those under the military court's jurisdiction. The two provisions would be likely to put more individuals than previously expected before military juries, officials and independent experts said."

Nothing there about citizens or non-citizens. Nothing there about "enemy combatants." In fact, it specifically mentions people who are not combatants at all. Anybody they want to grab and throw into this authoritarian system, they can.
Phrases like "not directly involved in acts of international terrorism" and "add crimes at will" make me nervous, especially with this bunch in charge, since they've shown themselves more than willing to ignore constitutional and statutory limits whenever they want to. This, in fact, is an attempt to get around the Hamdan decision by pretending it doesn't exist. This is power that they want because all they want is power. This is a lawless administration with a lot of the reflexes of a junta. We disagree, I guess, on how dangerous that is.
Fenian - what can I say?

You start off by saying:

This is coming from someone who tried to make a Nazi comparison joke in his thread title. And you talk about caricature?

You also mentioned the trampling of the Bill of Rights in your original post - yet no mention of the Bill of Rights is made in that entire article you linked to.

You point out a section that you feel is the crux of the argument you wish to make but this section clearly says:

The military trial system referred to was for foreign fighters found in civilian garb. Cases for individuals like Johnny Walker Lindh are handled separately under the rules and laws set up for US citizens. As far as the "not directly involved" stuff - that's word parsing. A person who gave intelligence to a terrorist raid but did not pull a trigger could easily be said not to be "not directly involved" with the raid. That's doesn't make that person any less dangerous an enemy.

One final point - you throw out the phrase "authoritarian system" but completely miss the fact that this proposed legislation is being sent to Congress. What kind of authoritarian / fascist works within the legal system? If Congress passes the legislation then the Supreme Court still gets to rule on whether it's legal. You've thrown about the phrases "Nazi", "fascist" and "authoritarian" so much that I'm afraid that you've forgotten what the words actually mean or refer to.


Oh, Lord above. Where do I begin?
I said "armbands," which have been a fashion accessory for every form of authoritarian movement of the past 100 years, including the Weathermen in the 1960s. You want to take that as implying "Nazi," then that's on you, not on me. "Authoritarian," I stand by, and about which more later.

"Not directly involved" is not word-parsing. Words are what law is made of. It could cover the hypothetical you mention. It could also cover someone whose uncle used his phone, without his knowledge, to call someone with the same last name as the grandfather of a terrorist leader. The guy uses the phone, gets picked up and gets disappeared into a system without any legal recourse, and one, as the piece makes clear later on, in which the Secretary of Defense can create new legal categories without any oversight at all.

And a short trip through history will note that many authoritarian regimes gain their power, or increase it, through the passive or active help of tame national legislatures, where those legislature exist. If this latest power grab gets stopped, it will be because the Congress has done its job, having been prompted by a press that is doing its job. I guarantee you the authoritarians in the Executive Branch will not be happy about this.

 

JR - the current administration has put together the framework of legislation that they feel would be helpful in fighting terrorism vis the enemy combatants captured. This legislation is properly being considered by Congress. Things are happening all within the proper legal framework yet bleeding hearts are arguing that we are still not bending over enough for these scumbags.

The net result will be that soldiers will be less willing to take prisoners if they think the prisoners will have to be read their Miranda rights before being taken into custody.

The big complaint about the Clinton administration regarding terrorism is that they treated terrorsism as a legal not a military issue. Now people are trying to tie the hands of the military with more and more rules and paperwork.

 

Fenian - it would be easier to read your replies if you figured out how the quote function works.

 

Lou:

Don't feed the troll.

 

The good news is that a ton of conseravtives and Republicans are seeing through this naked power grab.

The bad news, is much like Nazi Germany and Facist Italy, there are apologists for pretty much whatever this administration does.

So explain to me, exactly, how repatedly ignoring the Bill of Rights is a good thing.

As Ben Franklin put it: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The biggest attacks on liberty have come not from Al-Queda — a bunch of people who live in caves — but from within. Much like the Jews and Communists were blamed for attacks, such as burning down the Reichstag (which conviently gave Hitler an excuse to dissolve the German parlament), Bush and his crew have beaten the "terrorist" drum, but incidently, have failed to do anything to really curtail them. People living in caves.

So there's two choices: The U.S. government is wildly incompetant or it chooses not to do something about Al-Queda. Say what you will about Israel, but they seem to be doing "something" about Hezbollah.  

 

Hate to say it but after reading that reply with all the spelling mistakes - I can see why you are a "former" editor.

 

There is a difference between working aboveboard within the laws and sneaking around and flitting through every loophole.

A president who signs an anti-torture law and tells the American public that we won't torture people but then slips in a signing statement that allows that we might just torture folks if the need arises is not someone I feel good about.

 

Thanks for chiming in with your always thoughtful comments.

 

Nice comeback, Lou. You really showed 'em.

 

And it would be easier to read your replies if you knew what in hell you were talking about.