The House voted 253-168 to approve legislation on military commissions that authorizes torture and strips detainees of the right to challenge their detention. Also voted down was a measure by Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) which called for an expedited judicial review of the constitutionality of the commissions, and required the bill to be reauthorized in three years to ensure congressional oversight in evaluating the effectiveness of the commissions. The Senate is expected to approve nearly identical legislation tomorrow.
This is a very, very dark day in America. I am ashamed of this administration and devastated that we are condoning the torture of possibly innocent people (and that we are blithely suspending habeas corpus for no reason). This is really going to come back to hurt us and further damage our credibility and reputation around the world. I don’t know what to say … this is not the country I love and cherish; it’s another place entirely.
September 27th, 2006 at 9:51 pmDo Republicans even care what this will do to OUR troops? Why do Republicans hate American troops?
September 27th, 2006 at 9:51 pmGood bye Merika,
September 27th, 2006 at 9:53 pmGood bye Merika,
Good bye Merika,
Its sad to see you go
Yet, not enough for an Admendment. Let the Senate do it’s thing, then after the election look for the Scotus to strike it down.
September 27th, 2006 at 9:53 pmI am not sure which is more torturous:
1) Living as a brainwashed individual who believes there are inexperienced woman waiting to sexually please you in heaven (as bad as they may be), while living your life in a hot, dry land, and while spending your days running around either hiding or killing, or….
2) Sitting in a cell with white men and women beating you up, starving you, electrocuting you, sexually and abusing you?
September 27th, 2006 at 9:58 pmAlso…
This is just one step closer to legalizing the brutal torture of regular Americans being arrested on US soil by United States law enforcement.
September 27th, 2006 at 9:59 pmStupid Server. Come ON!!!! Get it fixed!
Not enough for an Amendment. Let the SEnate do their thing, then after the election SCOTUS will delcare it null and void.
September 27th, 2006 at 10:01 pmThis is wrong.
September 27th, 2006 at 10:01 pmScotus?, Scotus? we ain’t got any stinkin Scotus around here.
September 27th, 2006 at 10:02 pmLet those among you without sin cast the first stone! Let those that voted for this travesty of justice be the first to sample the wares. Waterboard them all!
September 27th, 2006 at 10:03 pmWe keep inching toward fascism, bit by bit everyday. Its the old ‘How to Boil a Frog’ story and they’re turning up the heat.
Has anyone read the bill as passed in the House? Does the language explicitly include CITIZENS of the US? Or does this only apply to “prisoners of war”?
September 27th, 2006 at 10:07 pmi’m pretty sure the democrats in the senate could block cloture if they had any guts.
September 27th, 2006 at 10:08 pmLosing Faith in America
America lies on the operating table this week.
Its chest cut open, its beating heart exposed.
The administration longs to do surgery.
It claims there is something wrong with America;
It claims that the very foundation of our laws:
The right of the accused to face their accusers,
Is not good enough to keep us safe…
(From what?)
To listen to the administration, we are to believe
That America is broken;
That the Constitution won’t let the administration do its job
By keeping it from spying on Americans without oversight.
The administration also claims that
There is something wrong with America’s morality;
That in order to save America we must first lose our soul:
By torturing and abusing fellow human beings.
America lays bloodied this week;
Rushed to the emergency room, laid bare on the operating table.
The administration claims that in order to save America
It must first rip the heart from her.
But no surgery is needed, America is not broken…
September 27th, 2006 at 10:08 pmA principle was not forgotten, a measure of government not overlooked.
No, there is nothing wrong with America.
America would be as fit or fitter than ever
If it only had an administration, a Congress
That had not lost faith in America.
.
#12
34 Dems voted for it. I forget how many (5?) didnt even show up for the vote. only 7 republicans broke from party lines. Cloture? I don’t think so. We will see what the Senate does with it but im not very hopefull at this point.
September 27th, 2006 at 10:18 pmI am ashamed of the government.
I am ashamed of the democrats for not using every measure possible to block this.
That our government would condone torture makes me mourn the democracy that is now lost.
All that was good with this country is gone.
It is time to follow the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson, for now we have Tyrany ruling this county. Because with allowing torture at all, that is what this government has become.
It is a dark day indeed. This is truely no longer a country ruled by “We The People”. We are now ruled by inhuman monsters, who believe in torturing people.
September 27th, 2006 at 10:27 pmwhy am I reminded of Lubyanka..Oh yeh they legalized the same methods of torture.
September 27th, 2006 at 10:28 pmTORTURE USA. The Lubyanka Prison’s heavy oak main door swung open. … where naked prisoners were beaten, then doused with ice water and slowly frozen. …
http://www.ericmargolis.com/ archives/ 2004/ 12/ torture_usa.php
must have been that
Republicans don’t give a damn about our troops. Their only goal is to get their incompetent and destructive brethren reelected. They’re ethical enough to know they “should” care, but they aren’t moral enough to actually care. Their actions define who and what they are.
September 27th, 2006 at 10:31 pmThe enemy propagandists of ThinkProgress are again censoring dissent. Hypocrites.
September 27th, 2006 at 10:38 pmI posted this on an earlier thread:
The Democrats in the Senate have already agreed to limit debate. This will come up for a vote, either late tomorrow or Friday. Then the Senators can all go back home and campaign on how tough on terror they are.
The bill limits the Supreme Court’s review jurisdiction to matters of law, not fact. It also prevents the defendant from claiming the Geneva Convention as a source of rights. So it has the effect of withdrawing from the Geneva Convention.
This has to be the worst legislation vis-a-vis human rights I have seen since the Japanese Internment Camps of WWII. In fact, it may be worse than those, because we weren’t putting Japanese Americans on trial for their life based on testimony elicited through torture.
I repeat: May ALL those who support this legislation be subjected to its provisions.
Yes. I’m that angry.
September 27th, 2006 at 10:49 pm18-”The enemy propagandists of ThinkProgress are again censoring dissent. Hypocrites.”–
Go post at redstate then, slimeball.
September 27th, 2006 at 10:49 pmguys, as a sidebar, just for a moment– the right wing has been talking a lot lately about pelosi appointing hastings to run the intel com. if dems get the house,
1. do you think hastings will get the appointment.
2. do you think he should have it… given his past.
–was just wondering what your thoughts were.
September 27th, 2006 at 10:53 pm# 18 Yes_I_Question_Your_Patriotism
You are worthy of nothing but our contempt. Shame on you and I couldn’t give a rat’s ass if you question my patriotism. I don’t question yours…….you have none.
September 27th, 2006 at 11:01 pmI guess we should be upset about something that we can do nothing about for the 3,147 time? RIGHT? ya’ know this is NOT America. THINK PROGRESS and all your readers listen for just a second - reporting the abuses of power does what exactly? Wakes up the media so you can win little partisan battles while the killers in office keep killing and changing the face of the country? Keeps progressives informed? MY RESPONSE: SO F**KING WHAT! What good does any of this do us? What are you going to do the day they strike/invade Iran? What are you going to do on the night of November 7th when the results come in and oh those “moral values” pull off an inprobable victory for the Republicans? The front of a magazine cover (Newsweek) is NOTHING!!! We are in serious, serious sh*t. We need action to protect ourselves and be ready to get the hell out of this country in a moment’s notice (PASSPORT) and evacuation plan, cause this other stuff of information and getting angry is getting as old as hearing “W” say “the terrorists hate our freedoms”.
September 27th, 2006 at 11:02 pmOh, I am so proud to be an American!
(sarcasm off now)
I am hanging my head in shame.
September 27th, 2006 at 11:03 pmIt’s just awful. What in God’s name are we going to do now. Why are the Democratic asshole excuses for elected representatives not filabustering this?
September 27th, 2006 at 11:08 pmDid anyone hear of the prisoner who was held in Guantanamo, and finally sent home, where he is claiming he is innocent because everything he admitted was given under torture?
September 27th, 2006 at 11:09 pmI only saw it on the CNN crawl, but I can’t find the story anywhere.
Does anyone know of it?
The 253 members of the House of Representatives that voted Yes, for torture, are traitors to the US Constitution, and that means those 34 Democrats who voted for it as well! Only the Republican fascists should have voted Yes, so what is the excuse for the brain-dead Dems who voted Yes? Why does Rep. Nancy Pelosi do nothing to keep the Dems in line? She has failed the Democratic party and must resign in shame!
September 27th, 2006 at 11:11 pm#19 BnF
And I agree it is worth repeating.
May ALL those who support this legislation be subjected to its provisions.
What have we become? Why are we unable to stop them? I fear that even on 11/7, we will be overcome by the power they wield and they will be allowed to continue.
September 27th, 2006 at 11:15 pmJP, For the past 2 1/2 years I have studied the way of the shaman. Shamanism spans cultures across the globe. Ancient Shamans were the healers, the medicine men and women of old. They would utilize a trance-like state to journey to metaphysical realms to heal a person or a community. They were conversant in using forces of light and dark, as the need called for.
I, for one, will do what I can to help, albeit in ways that defy perception using the ordinary senses.
That is why I am deadly serious when I say, May ALL those who support this legislation be subjected to its provisions.
September 27th, 2006 at 11:17 pmBriseadh na Faire ….I believe Karma takes care of that. The same inner laws that make decent people recoil at the thought of torturing a human being are the laws that deal with those who torture. It’s called cause and effect. Or what goes around comes around. Evil boomerangs back on to those who send it out. The Buddha says it, Jesus says it, and so does just about every other major religion on the planet. There is no escape for those who harm. Harm comes to them. It’s all just such a damn shame.
September 27th, 2006 at 11:24 pmYes! At last. If the enemy rapes, we rape twice. If the enemy beheads, we waterboard back. If the enemy bombs people, we bomb dozen times more.
This is what humanity has evolved to. We should extinct.
September 27th, 2006 at 11:30 pmOur gov. should hand their heads in SHAME….letting this happen. There is a price to pay for this, and THEY will pay it. America will get ugly to stop them…
September 27th, 2006 at 11:34 pmDo Republicans even care what this will do to OUR troops? Why do Republicans hate American troops?
Comment by Republicans Are The Fear And Smear Party — September 27, 2006 @ 9:51 pm
Getting re-elected is the most important thing on their minds right now. To hell with the troops.
They have allowed Halliburton to deliver tainted water to our troops.
And what has the reaction from Congress been?
They have allowed our troops to go into battle without the proper equipment to protect them. We went to war “with the army we had, not the one we wished we had.”
And what has the reaction from Congress been?
They have allowed contractors, including Halliburton, to mismanage and waste money appropriated for the “war.”
And what has the reaction from Congress been?
I’ll tell you what it’s been: Not a god-damned thing.
Oversight? Ha!
September 27th, 2006 at 11:43 pmVoting to authorize waterboarding is a war crime.
September 27th, 2006 at 11:45 pmVoting to authorize the administration to authorize itself to use waterboarding is a war crime.
Today 253 U.S. representatives commited a war crime.
If your representative voted ‘yes’, I suggest you put your nose one inch from his/her nose and explain, “You are going to prison.”
and “There is no statue of limitations”.
and “I will be your Ellie Wiesel”.
This is a sad day. All of our children that may be drafted have now been put in harm’s way. They will have no protections if captured. Shame shame shame on these traitors that voted for this legislation.
September 27th, 2006 at 11:46 pmComment by Republicans Are The Fear And Smear Party — September 27, 2006 @ 9:51 pm
And one other thing…
Several days ago I believe it was David Gregory who asked Bush if he got his way and was granted the power to interpret the Geneva Conventions as he saw fit, would that not hurt our troops if they were captured by an enemy, because he would be setting a precedent for other countries to follow.
Bush sidestepped the question and said that allowing intrepretations of the GC would make the world a better place.
September 27th, 2006 at 11:50 pmWell then…..when the Dems take over, I’ll grudgingly be in favor of rounding up, at minimum, the 253 terrorists bend on desecrating our Constitution and inserting a cattle prod where the sun don’t shine….
Hey….what comes around…..goes around…..
September 27th, 2006 at 11:53 pmMay ALL those who support this legislation be subjected to its provisions.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
Well said. And necessary. These are dangerous times — for all of us.
September 27th, 2006 at 11:55 pmWe’re done, put a fork in us.
September 28th, 2006 at 12:06 amFor the text of the House Bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/ cgi-bin/ query/ z?c109:H.R.6166:
September 28th, 2006 at 12:20 amStop the world, I want to get off.
September 28th, 2006 at 12:25 amThe Supreme Court has already said that this is unconstitutional. Congress, making legal what has been illegal, will not change that. Who will be the first to challenge this? BushCo just handed over the keys to the torture chambers, now it’s a free-for-all. I’m sure that the families of those who just ‘dissapear’, will understand, the President MUST be allowed to torture, it’s the only way.
#40. thanks for the link. the bill is 96 pages long. starting about page 86, it lists the limits placed on the president by article 3 of the geneva convention. this is something you should be concerned about, but know what your concerned about by reading it for yourself.
I got to it with hr 6166 in the search window.
September 28th, 2006 at 12:40 amstop voting “fear” and start voting Green Party.
September 28th, 2006 at 12:45 amOne of the few times in recent years that Congress does that right thing. Good for them….Another victory for President George W. Bush. Another victory for those who love the United States. Another weapon approved in the fight against Al Qaeda.
September 28th, 2006 at 12:47 amExley,
See #19, #29 and #38, the portion in bold.
You, too.
September 28th, 2006 at 12:51 amExley, get george bush’s cock out of your mouth!!! Have you lost your conservative values??????!!!
September 28th, 2006 at 12:55 amI hope Exley and the other Bush lover trolls on here get water-boarded > they deserve it for being fascists!
September 28th, 2006 at 1:03 amOne of the few times in recent years that Congress does that right thing. Good for them….Another victory for President George W. Bush. Another victory for those who love the United States. Another weapon approved in the fight against Al Qaeda.
Comment by Exley — September 28, 2006 @ 12:47 am
And I’m sure it’s just fine and dandy with you if another country who just happens to be an enemy of the U.S. captures and holds our troops, or innocent Americans who happen to be caught in that country during war, and refuses to release them or put them on trial, or tell them why they are being held. Right? I mean, after all, an innocent American could be labeled an enemy combatant simply because they are an American.
How about an enemy who tortures American troops by using the same techniques Bush approves of? Is that OK by you?
Do you support the action of John McCain’s captors in Vietnam, who broke his arms? I’m quite sure Bush would approve of such behavior, seeing as how it doesn’t cause death.
Or do you think breaking someone’s arms to get information is OK only if America is the one doing it?
September 28th, 2006 at 1:08 am#45, Zooey….You KNOW deep down you are pleased that this legislation has passed….You know the savages who slaughtered nearly 3,000 innocent men, women, and children (Remember them, Zooey????) on 9/11 must be stopped before they carry out another such atrocity….I realize that it makes you feel better to pretend here that you object to Al Qaeda members being interrogated. But you know that I know that you know that you approve of interrogating captured Al Qaeda members….
September 28th, 2006 at 1:10 amFound this via TalkLeft.
Senator Dick Durbin advises the Bush administration that for 4 years Congress has been ready to create military commissions to try terrorists. Arlen Spector asked him to co-sponsor the legislation.
Yet neither Bush nor the rest of Congress ever bothered to act.
Now all of a sudden Bush wants them to act, and act NOW!
And people say Bush isn’t politicizing the war on terror.
September 28th, 2006 at 1:14 am“The 253-168 vote in the House came shortly after senators agreed to limit debate on their own nearly identical bill, all but assuring its passage on Thursday.”
Sweet.
September 28th, 2006 at 1:14 amwc. i’m confused. is this a terrible bill that promotes american sponsored torture, or is it terrible that bush is able to politicize now what dick durbin has wanted for 4 years?
September 28th, 2006 at 1:22 amI realize that it makes you feel better to pretend here that you object to Al Qaeda members being interrogated. But you know that I know that you know that you approve of interrogating captured Al Qaeda members….
Comment by Exley
You presume to remind me about the 3000 dead on 9/11? The mother of two draft age sons? If you could get over yourself for one second, you might realize how insulting you are.
Let me presume to remind you of our dead troops in Iraq; our dead troops in Afghanistan; coalition troops dead in Iraq and Afghaniston; thousands of injured and maimed troops; and countless dead and injured Iraqis.
Let me also presume to remind you that this nation is a shell of what it once was, and you may not realize it, but we’ve really lost something. I hope you feel safe in your little nightmare world.
You just lost the right to talk to me.
September 28th, 2006 at 1:28 amThe truth of the matter is, Exley, the way things are now, every American is considered a possible terrorist. Even you.
What happened after the alleged terrorist plot in Britain was recently foiled? No American, from a member of Congress to 90 year old Aunt Mabel, the great-great-great grandaughter of George Washington, boarded a plane without having their Crest toothpaste and bottle of Listerine confiscated.
The NSA went to 3 phone companies to get the calling records of not a select group of known or alleged terrorists, but those of tens of millions of Americans. Yet our government, who is supposed to be protecting us, simply walked away from Qwest when that company asked for a warrant.
Tell us, Exley, what if Qwest had phone records that would have led to the revelation of a terrorist plot? What was it Bush said? Oh yeah…”If a terrorist is calling someone in America, we want to know about it.” Or something like that.
Seems to me Bush is not as serious about protecting America as he says he is. I do wonder how much he emboldened al Qaeda when he said he wasn’t all that concerned about bin Laden? I wonder how it made the 9/11 victims’ families feel when Bush said that?
September 28th, 2006 at 1:41 amExley:
Eat some bagged spinach for me:Will you,Popeye?
September 28th, 2006 at 1:42 amZooey > I find it creepy that people like Exley think it’s wonderful the Congress agrees that torture is OK > some Germans who supported Hitler ended up being sent to Dachau concentration camp, and tortured or murdered, so they discovered the hard way that a despotic leader is dangerous! I have been to Dachau, in Germany, so I know what is coming for America under Fuhrer Bush!
September 28th, 2006 at 1:45 amWell said, WC, Jay, and especially Bingo.
Goodnight.
September 28th, 2006 at 1:51 amOr like Al Franken said today.
Shrub claims we haven’t been “hit” since 9/11.
What about all our dead and disfigured servicemen? Seems like because of Dumbya, we’ve been “hit” tens of thousands of times since in Iraq.
Stupid little Chickenhawk IDIOTS.
SUPPORT THE TROOPS.
September 28th, 2006 at 1:52 amNOT THE WAR.
Paul,
Did you read all of Durbin’s letter? He also said this:
Obviously, what Bush is getting, gift-wrapped it seems, does not meet what Durbin, and at the time, Spector, wanted.
I posted the info from Durbin to point out the fact that Bush wasn’t pushing for legislation until weeks before an election. Durbin also points out the similarity to events prior to the 2002 Congressional elections, at which time Bush was pushing for a vote on the question of authorizing the use of military force and giving the him the authority to invade Iraq. Bush was saying he needed a vote right then. Couldn’t wait. Durbin said many people were telling him he may not get re-elected if he voted “no.”
September 28th, 2006 at 1:54 amDieNowForPeace:
I agree;they act as if our troops aren’t our citizens.
Thank’s Zoo…
September 28th, 2006 at 2:04 ama ‘high moral ground’ that gives you soggy feet
September 28th, 2006 at 2:11 amwc. Durbin said many people were telling him he may not get re-elected if he voted “no.â€
if durbin voted yes, i have a problem with him using this as an excuse.
i get your point about timing.
i am not confident, but i think hr 6166 is more consistent with the rule of law and our constitutional values than many here believe. unless i am reading it wrong, the president is still bound by the geneva convention. there is, i believe, more clarity in what you can and can’t do during an interrogation. if it was as lawless as some would make it out, you wouldn’t have 34 democratic yeas.
September 28th, 2006 at 2:12 amA “Rubber-Stamp” Congress is what America has had for the past 6 years, so nothing the House or Senate does surprises me anymore!
September 28th, 2006 at 2:18 amIgnorance and cowardice always leads to despotic dictatorship, so American democracy is practically dead now! Hitler’s first detention camp was Dachau and Bush’s first detention camp is GITMO in Cuba! The next 2 years in America are going to be horrible, so be prepared!
If you want to really know how insane this is, I would invite you all to webstream the show from March 10, 2006 on http://www.thisamericanlife.org .
September 28th, 2006 at 2:32 amIt is a chilling account of what happened and is happening at Guantanamo, and where these prisoners came from. There is no way anyone with a rational mind can listen to it and not be horrified. This is the darkest period our nation has seen since the introduction of slavery.
Goodnight, Zoo…and everyone else.
Oh, and Exley, I do hope you sleep well tonight. As you are drifting off to sleep, I want you to think about all the forms of treatment Bush might authorize against enemy combatants — held without knowing what the charges are against them — to get them to talk, such as breaking arms, pulling fingernails off, making them sleep naked in their own feces and urine, pulling hair out, waterboarding…well, you get the picture. Think about what you would do to a detainee to get them to talk.
And then think about performing these acts on a friend or neighbor or family member who currently serves, or will be serving, in the military. Think about a likely war with Iran, and who knows, maybe North Korea. Surely we will commit troops; it can’t be an all nuke war. This is, after all, the next step in the war on terror. A war that will last a long, long, time. It’s possible that our troops may be captured in these wars. How will they be treated? Will the enemy follow the Geneva Conventions, or will they follow their own interpretation?
Think about the 16 and 17 year old kids in your neighborhood who, thanks to the No Child Left Behind Act, which was designed to improve education in America, have been put on a list that is specifically accessible to military recruiters who may just talk them into joining the armed services. Think about an enemy treating them as Bush would.
As you enter the first stages of sleep, think about Jessica Lynch, who was captured and held captive in the early stages of the war. Think about the treatment she could have received while being held, against her will. What kind of things do you think Bush would have approved of?
September 28th, 2006 at 2:33 amGoodnight all > I knew the Congress would do more bad stuff before they recess this Saturday! Democrats in DC never learn > they should never vote YES for any GOP authored bill! Better to let Republicans hang themselves, but instead 34 Dems committed suicide yesterday!
September 28th, 2006 at 2:47 amPaul.
Well, Durbin voted “no.” He was one of 22 Dems.
As for Bush still being bound by the Geneva Conventions, I’ll have to look into it further. Will do so tomorrow…it’s 2:30am here. Going to bed. But I did take one quick look at a news report and found this:
I take “international standards” to mean the GC. And since the bill gives Bush.
And this:
So I think it will all come down to what the “other techniques” are. If memory serves, Bush doesn’t consider anything falling under the title of torture unless it leads to internal organ failure.
September 28th, 2006 at 2:51 amExley,
In effect, our government is authorizing other countries to torture American soldiers. Why do you support that? Do you hate our soldiers? Or have you simply dehumanized them in your feeble mind?
September 28th, 2006 at 2:56 amwc. if you read the bill, you’ll understand more of what can and can’t be approved, instead of having to image it. this concerns me very much, but it concerns me less after reading the bill.
September 28th, 2006 at 2:57 amRealScientist. nobody is for global warming in a vacuum. nobody is for war in a vacuum. nobody is for torture in a vacuum. sometimes the question is: what is the cost of absolute protection from global warming, what is the price for not going to war, how many lives can be saved with interrogation that includes, hypothermia, waterboarding, and sleep deprivation. i’m not comfortable with this, but i believe it is too easy to say: how can you be for torture? imagine, you are in a situation where, you’ve got results from sleep depreviation in the past, and your organization has disrupted a terror planning cell that you believed had intentions to deploy a dirty bomb in Los Angeles, would you use the tactic of sleep deprivation in the hopes of stopping it from happening and saving thousands of lives?
September 28th, 2006 at 3:35 amThe United States Of Torture
Matthew Yglesias
September 27, 2006
“The United States is committed to the world-wide elimination of torture,†George W. Bush explained in a June 2003 speech , “and we are leading this fight by example.â€
Oh, the irony! How can any American society just let Bush walk all over them ??
September 28th, 2006 at 4:22 amCant wait for the waterboarding of Americans to appear on OGRISH.com …………. That would be instant Karma
September 28th, 2006 at 4:24 amI Now wish to completely wash my hands of America ,,,,,, goodbye all you liberals ( I hope you get your country back )and to all you others who side on Torture the war of economics starts right Now ….Im Off to ASDA to smash their windows
September 28th, 2006 at 4:28 amBefore I get my Brick to smash ASDAS windows
Heres a list of the people who voted for this bill … I highly recommend terrorising their family and homes
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll491.xml
Republican
Ayes 219 Naes 7
Democratic
Ayes 34 Naes 160
This alone should tell you who to vote
September 28th, 2006 at 4:36 amdoug
I don’t think Pelosi should get re-appointed. I think the independents need to have a go, seen as the Democrats have shown, yet again, that they don’t care enough to oppose the Republicans, and the Republicans frankly support torture.
I think it is time for the two main parties in America to die, and I think that the only reason why anybody votes for them anyway is pure defeatism. The sort of philosophy of “Well I don’t want to waste my vote.” In reality the only way anybody can ever really waste their vote is to not cast one. America needs to get a turnout that says once and for all, to both parties, “We don’t care if they did it too, we will just elect someone else then.”
It is time for the “They did it too” Republicans to lose their seats not to the Democrats, who have shown themselves once and for all to be as spineless as the Republicans always claimed they were, but to independents.
September 28th, 2006 at 4:45 amNo in Fact Im off right now to buy 10 tins of red paint they will be on ASDAs drive In not the Drive out……… I will make everyone aware that America now legalised TORTURE
September 28th, 2006 at 4:46 amA vote for the bill was a vote for torture, plain and simple. Congressmen can hem and haw and pretend that they are only authorizing Bush to make decisions on what methods of interrogation will be used. But everyone who has been paying half-attention knows that the US govt. has been torturing people since 9/11. And now the House of Representatives has sprinkled its holy water over American barbarity.
This Torture/Tribunal bill looks to me to be far more dangerous for both Americans and for the world than is the Patriot Act.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll491.xml
Republican
September 28th, 2006 at 5:03 amAyes 219 Naes 7
Democratic
Ayes 34 Naes 160
Continueing my campaign of bad poetry:
GWB.
Threaten those wogs, insult those frogs
Fight them unions and polish those cogs
Call liberals Islamo-fascist hogs
And don’t listen to the progs
Just roll over like a bunch of logs
And giggle at Bill Clintons socks
The President never has to explain
Because…
He’s got God on his side
And a brain that thinks its smart
Talk’s like a Klu Kluck Chicken
With his office he just won’t part
Cause, he was a Dixiecrat’s Republican
And an idiot from the start…
Wave that flag, burn that fag
Ignore that mother who’ll whine and nag
About her kid dying in Iraq
She is just another lefty to slag
Anyway who will listen to that hag
If she’s a commie, its in the bag
The president never has to explain
Because…
He’s got God on his side
And a brain that thinks its smart
Talk’s like a Klu Kluck Chicken
With his office he just won’t part
Cause, he was a Dixiecrat’s Republican
And an idiot from the start…
Don’t let them see, the detainee
He was tortured for you and me
Take his evidence on that Iraqi
And as god says, let it be
Don’t question our morality
It is a matter of Democracy
See the president never has to explain
He’s got God on his side
September 28th, 2006 at 5:24 amAnd a brain that thinks its smart
Talk’s like a Klu Kluck Chicken
With his office he just won’t part
Cause, he was a Dixiecrat’s Republican
And an idiot from the start…
Can anyone point to what is the ‘torture’ that is allowed in the bill. Our soldiers or citizens captured are beheaded, burned and dragged thru the street and put out there on video.
I’m genuinely serious, I have not read or seen the definition of what ‘torture’ is that has everyone so upset.
September 28th, 2006 at 5:50 amWill there be a moment of silence for respect when they finally kill America? Will anyone be there to mourn her passing?
I will miss her.
September 28th, 2006 at 6:42 amjust giving you guys a heads up, I don’t know if you covered it or not, I think you did
in 04 wallace did ask rumsfeld why terrorism wasn’t a priority
rumsfeld says terrorism was a domestic issue which he was forbidden to address
wallace actually does a good job trying to hold rumsfeld’s feet to the fire
September 28th, 2006 at 6:57 amIn “A Platform For Bigotryâ€, Bob Herbert takes us on a merry historical stroll through the GOP’s proud history of racism from Reagan to George Allen.
September 28th, 2006 at 7:26 amHow far back will this be retroactive to,Jan20,2002? Does this bill if signed into law,vacate the sentences of people all ready convicted of detainee abuse?
September 28th, 2006 at 8:28 amTorture the losers who want this so bad then watch the cowards crumble and rat everyone one out like the gutless losers they are and yes we know there are some proud idiots after this passes thru , unbelievable
September 28th, 2006 at 8:43 amI never thought that America would come to this. I am outraged.
September 28th, 2006 at 8:52 amAnd who the hell cares that the people maybe outraged? Certainly no our elected represenatives.
One word to them all. If they voted for this legislation they will not see my vote. Throw these no good bastards the hell out on the street.
America is now just the same as communist china.
Ah yes, yet another politically timed vote that demonstrates that Dems are WEAK ON TERROR. The voters are getting the message, which is causing the DOW to hit new highs ….
I can only hope that I live so long as to see Hill’reh fail in ‘08, the Dem Party finally resolve who’s in control - mods or progs, and the Dem Party finally changing their party platform to show tough love to the black community, as outlined in Juan Williams’ book “Enough”, to pursue viable clean energy while also extracting our own oil from the Gulf of Mexico and to become pro-Defense, not anti-military.
September 28th, 2006 at 8:55 amPaul, you’re reading it wrong. Some exerpts:
In other words, the President is not bound by the Geneva Convention.
Detainees cannot raise the Geneva Convention as a source of rights.
In other sections, statements made under torture may be admitted. Judicial review is limited to errors in law, which means that once a statement is admitted, it cannot be reviewed. Someone can be convicted and executed based on statements elicited under torture.
Now, for another chilling thought: The provisions of this bill can be applied to all non-citizens, including legal immigrants. All one might have to do is participate in a protest against the government and one could end up in custody. A determination of Unlawful Enemy Combatant status cannot be reviewed by any court. And once someone is labled an unlawful enemy combatant, s/he loses the right to a speedy trial and can be held indefinitly.
Today, it’s non-citizens. But that won’t give the President the tools he needs to root out the Timothy McVeighs, the unibombers, the anthrax mailers, the belt-way snipers. The next logical step is to extend this to include citizens as well.
September 28th, 2006 at 9:11 amI am deeply ashamed to be an American today. We have become the countries that we used to decry. Bush has not only wasted and damaged the lives of our current troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but all the lives of those who ever fought in any previous war…including the American Revolution. And the 253 representatives who voted in favor of this bill have also dishonored this country. Damn them all to hell!!
September 28th, 2006 at 9:19 amEXLEY,
my post with a link disappeared, but you should see this, so I’m trying a different route. Google “operation vigilant truth”"911 in Plane Site” and go to the first site.
You may want to reconsider just whom you believe is responsible.
September 28th, 2006 at 9:20 amSection 948(d) Punishments- A military commission under this chapter may, under such limitations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe, adjudge any punishment not forbidden by this chapter, including the penalty of death when authorized under this chapter or the law of war. So basically, people are GOING TO DIE Without Due Process. This is egregious. This is SCARY. Today, the enemy is the Muslim Terrorist. Who is the enemy tomorrow? Protestors? Under the Detainee Bill, the persons subject to the punishment by death without Due Process are any alien unlawful enemy combatant. “Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.” See Sec. 948(c) What is an “Alien unlawful enemy combatant.”? More importantly, what is “an unlawful enemy combatant?” That seems vague to me. When enacting statutes, Congress should be careful to narrowly tailor those subject to PUNISHMENT BY DEATH, moreso than “alien unlawful enemy combatant,” don’t you think? It seems quite far reaching to me. Does this mean that if you are not an American Citizen and you are Muslim, that the military can come and get you and sentence you to death without a Civilian Trial? Does this mean that if you’re an Irish person and George Bush visits your country and you protest him, perhaps throw an egg at his motorcade, that you could be taken from your country and sentenced to death by a military tribunal as “an alien unlawful combatant?”
September 28th, 2006 at 9:25 amyes. and you could be tortured until you named names of other people involved in this egg-throwing conspiracy. Those people could then be rounded up by our CIA as co-conspirators. Once so abducted in the middle of the night, they would be sent to a secret prison somewhere in the world. They would then be “interrogated” to get to the bottom of the conspiracy. Years later they could be finally charged, tried and executed, based on testimony elicited under torture.
The above scenario is possible under this law.
September 28th, 2006 at 9:43 amRemember all, as you go about you’re posting day, JASON H. AND THE REPUBLICANS WANT ALL DEMOCTAY’S DISTROYED……IN HIS OWN WORD’S ON A THINK FAST THREAD….THIS IS VERBAL TERRORISM.
September 28th, 2006 at 9:46 amGuilty unless proven innocent is now Amerikas’ standard. And since it will be almost impossible to prove innocence if you aren’t allowed to see the evidence or confront your accuser just being arrested means you are guilty.
September 28th, 2006 at 10:25 amAMERICA! Can you say…
…slippery slope?
September 28th, 2006 at 10:47 amTwo of the House Democrats who voted with the GOP in passing the detainee legislation: Sherrod Brown and Harold Ford.
September 28th, 2006 at 10:51 amExcrement #98
…both are running for senate seats in…
…inbred al Cracker Bushite red states…
September 28th, 2006 at 10:59 amEvery single person who voted for this torture bill should themselves experience a little torture themselves. Directly. Firsthand. Live. In person.
Congresscritters who voted for this are in-human!
September 28th, 2006 at 11:06 am#99….So, “big papa’s” defense of Brown and Ford is that neither one of them have the political courage to take a stand against legislation in which they don’t really believe….That’s a quite a defense, BP.
September 28th, 2006 at 11:11 am[…] Congress moves to authorize torture. […]
September 28th, 2006 at 11:29 amWe still have a chance to stop on of the most egregious features of the Detainee/Torture bill. Please contact your Senators and tell them to support Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter’s ammendment to restore habeas corpus rights, allowing suspects at the very least an opportunity to challenge their detainment in court. Senators Collins and Snowe, both moderate Republicans, need a bit of a push on this
capital switchboard: 866.340.9281 .or. 866.808.0065
September 28th, 2006 at 11:55 am…
Excrement #101
That wasn’t a “defense”, that was a statement of fact…
…and given that fact…
…perhaps Brown and Ford actually DO support torture…
…like the inbred racist constituencies in the states which they serve…
…of course this argument is WAYYY too logical for you…
September 28th, 2006 at 1:26 pmExley, maybe I’m coming into this debate too late, but why is it that so many people in the military believe we’re on the wrong track? Why do so many men and women with actual combat experience think that we should adhere scrupulously to the requirements of Common Article III, no matter what the enemy does.
Paul Rieckhoff, founder and Executive Director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (and, a combat veteran with the Army’s 3rd Infantry and 1st Armored Divisions in Iraq), had an outstanding op-ed piece in the New York Times on Sept. 25. You should read the whole thing, but here is a particularly important point: “The success of America’s fight against terrorism depends more on the strength of its moral integrity than on troop numbers in Iraq or the flexibility of interrogation options.â€
Read the rest here: New York Times Runs Rieckhoff Oped
September 28th, 2006 at 1:38 pm#105…Dave, Once can’t “adhere scrupulously to the requirements of Common Article III” because it is so vauge and the language so broad and imprecise that no one knows the parameters of Common Article III. Even Justice Stevens (as I recall — I don’t have the opinion in front of me) alluded to the nebulous nature of Common Article III.
All this legislation does is give clearer guidance to interrogators as to what is and is not acceptable under Common Article III.
September 28th, 2006 at 2:05 pmComment by Exley — September 28, 2006 @ 2:05 pm
THEN MAY YOU BE SUBJECTED TO ALL MEASURES AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS LEGISLATION.
You dare presume to know what this legislation does and does not allow? THEN SHOW ME THE LANGUAGE!!!
It is growing ever more apparent, Exley, that the only thing you understand is violence. You support torture. You support indefinite imprisonment. I pray you receive a first-hand understanding of all that you support.
September 28th, 2006 at 3:14 pm#107,
Here ya go, BnF….Knock yourself out:
http://thomas.loc.gov/ cgi-bin/ query/ F?c109:1:./ temp/ ~c109OmIo6w:e107775:
September 28th, 2006 at 3:34 pmI said show me the language, not the whole bill. I’ve read the bill. YOU claim it gives “clearer guidance to interrogators as to what is and is not acceptable under Common Article III.” It is therefore incumbent upon you to find the language that supports your contention.
YOU have not and cannot do so. You are incapable of understanding this bill. You only understand doing violence to your fellow human beings. You condone violent acts against innocent human beings. May violence be done to you as well. As you sow, so shall you reap.
September 28th, 2006 at 4:31 pmAMERICA IS DOOMING ITSELF
September 28th, 2006 at 4:36 pmThe world knows what america stands for and it is NOT apple pie or hotdogs.
The actions of this U.S. GOVERNMENT are all the proof that anyone needs to totally condemn any idea of fairness or democracy associated with U.S. policies.
AMERICA’s image goes from bad to worse almost daily and the world’s only hope is that” THE MACHINE EATS ITSELF “.
I will admit that I used to enjoy visiting america ,but cannot return to the INSANE FASCIST POLICE STATE that america has become,it is just too sickeningly obscene to be even an observer…
I truly hope these diseases infecting america can be brought under control before it’s too late, GREED and CORRUPTION seem to be terminal in american society.
#109, BnF,
That’s not the whole bill. It is obvious you haven’t looked at. It is Section 8 of the bill titled “Implementation of Treaty Obligations.” It is only few pages long…Read it and then get back to us, BnF.
http://thomas.loc.gov/ cgi-bin/ query/ F?c109:1:./ temp/ ~c109ibGt5B:e107775:
September 28th, 2006 at 4:38 pmOkay, BnF, I kinda feel bad for you…Since you just proved that you didn’t read the bill, I guess I will have to spoon-feed it to you….Here ya go, sparky:
`(d) Common Article 3 Violations-
`(1) PROHIBITED CONDUCT- In subsection (c)(3), the term `grave breach of common Article 3′ means any conduct (such conduct constituting a grave breach of common Article 3 of the international conventions done at Geneva August 12, 1949), as follows:
`(A) TORTURE- The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.
`(B) CRUEL OR INHUMAN TREATMENT- The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions), including serious physical abuse, upon another within his custody or control.
`(C) PERFORMING BIOLOGICAL EXPERIMENTS- The act of a person who subjects, or conspires or attempts to subject, one or more persons within his custody or physical control to biological experiments without a legitimate medical or dental purpose and in so doing endangers the body or health of such person or persons.
`(D) MURDER- The act of a person who intentionally kills, or conspires or attempts to kill, or kills whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause.
`(E) MUTILATION OR MAIMING- The act of a person who intentionally injures, or conspires or attempts to injure, or injures whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, by disfiguring the person or persons by any mutilation thereof or by permanently disabling any member, limb, or organ of his body, without any legitimate medical or dental purpose.
`(F) INTENTIONALLY CAUSING SERIOUS BODILY INJURY- The act of a person who intentionally causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, serious bodily injury to one or more persons, including lawful combatants, in violation of the law of war.
`(G) RAPE- The act of a person who forcibly or with coercion or threat of force wrongfully invades, or conspires or attempts to invade, the body of a person by penetrating, however slightly, the anal or genital opening of the victim with any part of the body of the accused, or with any foreign object.
`(H) SEXUAL ASSAULT OR ABUSE- The act of a person who forcibly or with coercion or threat of force engages, or conspires or attempts to engage, in sexual contact with one or more persons, or causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, one or more persons to engage in sexual contact.
`(I) TAKING HOSTAGES- The act of a person who, having knowingly seized or detained one or more persons, threatens to kill, injure, or continue to detain such person or persons with the intent of compelling any nation, person other than the hostage, or group of persons to act or refrain from acting as an explicit or implicit condition for the safety or release of such person or persons.
`(2) DEFINITIONS- In the case of an offense under subsection (a) by reason of subsection (c)(3)–
`(A) the term `severe mental pain or suffering’ shall be applied for purposes of paragraphs (1)(A) and (1)(B) in accordance with the meaning given that term in section 2340(2) of this title;
`(B) the term `serious bodily injury’ shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(F) in accordance with the meaning given that term in section 113(b)(2) of this title;
`(C) the term `sexual contact’ shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(G) in accordance with the meaning given that term in section 2246(3) of this title;
`(D) the term `serious physical pain or suffering’ shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(B) as meaning bodily injury that involves–
`(i) a substantial risk of death;
`(ii) extreme physical pain;
`(iii) a burn or physical disfigurement of a serious nature (other than cuts, abrasions, or bruises); or
`(iv) significant loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; and
`(E) the term `serious mental pain or suffering’ shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(B) in accordance with the meaning given the term `severe mental pain or suffering’ (as defined in section 2340(2) of this title), except that–
`(i) the term `serious’ shall replace the term `severe’ where it appears; and
`(ii) as to conduct occurring after the date of the enactment of the Military Commission Act of 2006, the term `serious and non-transitory mental harm (which need not be prolonged)’ shall replace the term `prolonged mental harm’ where it appears.
`(3) INAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO COLLATERAL DAMAGE OR INCIDENT OF LAWFUL ATTACK- The intent specified for the conduct stated in subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F) or paragraph (1) precludes the applicability of those subparagraphs to an offense under subsection (a) by reasons of subsection (c)(3) with respect to–
`(A) collateral damage; or
`(B) death, damage, or injury incident to a lawful attack.
(c) Additional Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment-
(1) IN GENERAL- No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
(2) CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT DEFINED- In this subsection, the term `cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment’ means cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.
(3) COMPLIANCE- The President shall take appropriate action to ensure compliance with this subsection, including through the establishment of administrative rules and procedures.
September 28th, 2006 at 4:43 pmWell, I’ve called Senator Clinton’s office, and left a message, and Sherrod Brown, who I USED to contribute to, but will no longer. I even wrote to John McCain. (Please don’t ask me why. I don’t have an answer.) It would be great if the hundreds of people who will no doubt post a response in protest to this horrible bill, would first take the time and energy to call their representatives or any others who they think might make a difference.
September 28th, 2006 at 5:15 pm#90. authorizations that are ‘not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions’. grave breaches are covered starting on 86 of the bill.
September 28th, 2006 at 5:41 pmI read the bill. You apparently skipped over post 91.
Now, as far as showing us the language, you merely copied and pasted sections of the bill. Can you apply your wonderfully trained legal mind to interpret it for us lay people?
For example, where in this bill it the phrase “severe physical or mental pain or suffering” defined as applies to ” 1 (A) - TORTURE”? It isn’t! There’s only a definition of severe mental pain or suffering for 1(A). How does that clarify anything?
Note by comparison, “serious physical pain or suffering’ shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(B)…” And under that definition, you can cause all kinds of pain, as long as you do not cause bodily injury. Hence waterboarding, stress positions, sleep deprivation, even the new microwave weapon would be permissible.
And merely copying and pasting portions of the bill supports my contention that you are incapable of understanding this bill.
If, on the other hand you do understand it, and still support it, you belong with the rest of the criminals at the Nuremburg Trials.
September 28th, 2006 at 6:00 pmhttp://www.boston.com/ news/ nation/ washington/ articles/ 2006/ 09/ 28/ legal_residents_rights_curbed_in_detainee_bill/
As such (legal resident), I guess I have to be extra careful the next time I go to a peace rally. It scares me to think that I now live in a country, that is going to enable law enforcement to - should I ever get arrested - detain me, torture me, and then, years later, put me on trial in the most unjust way possible. I am beginning to get an idea of how Jewish people must have felt when they fled Germany, after the Nazis came into power but before they were officially targeted. It’s like hearing the thunder of an upcoming deadly storm and you figure you better get the hell out of its way. I am in utter disbelieve that this is happening.
September 28th, 2006 at 6:19 pmSoula - my heart goes out to you, and to all similarly situated. This bill flies in the face of the 14th Amendement guarantee of due process to all persons, not just to citizens.
The problem is, once you’re rounded up and declared an unlawful enemy combatant, you have no right to a speedy trial, hence no right to a hearing, and no standing to file habeaus corpus. As long as you don’t get a trial, how can you challenge the Constitutionality of the law? You can’t.
This law makes the United States of America the biggest, baddest TERRORIST STATE the world has ever known.
Exley and Hendler must be thrilled at the prospect of being able to incarcerate and torture with impunity.
September 28th, 2006 at 6:43 pmBriseadh+na+Faire well if you want to talk about post #91 and the soldiers of the american revolution, here is something to think about. remember the term ‘tarred and feathered’? that is what patriots did to loyalists to get them onboard during the revolution. at the time 1/3 of the colonists were patriots, 1/3 were loyalists and 1/3 were uncommitted. loyalists were dipped in hot tar and covered with feathers as humiliation and torture. many died.
you get the feeling that people here believe that intimidating interrogation and torture has never been used in the u.s. until now. it’s only that it’s never been debated.
September 28th, 2006 at 6:53 pmpaul,
Your point is what? Since we tortured in the past, it is ok to torture now?
Gee, you might as well point out that the British used perhaps one of the first incidences of biological warfare when, during the colonial period, they gave smallpox laden blankets to the Native Americans and wiped out thousands, if not tens of thousands.
Maybe the Tower of London makes it ok for us to torture. Or how about the Spanish Inquisition?
How is torturing someone even open to debate? It’s wrong. Period. Under any circumstance. Note: I’ve already challenged those who support this Administration to cite even one example from history where torture under the “ticking time-bomb” scenario has resulted in averting the disaster that the terrorist planned. No one cited even one incident. Ever. It hasn’t happened.
Torture is wrong. Period. No debate. Any argument in support of torture is morally wrong.
September 28th, 2006 at 7:09 pmWell done, Briseadh na Faire.
September 28th, 2006 at 9:26 pmSenate Passes Detainee Bill Sought by President Bush
By KATE ZERNIKE 57 minutes ago
The bill, approved 65 to 34, establishes far-reaching new rules on the treatment of terrorism suspects and is expected to go to the president by week’s end. Twelve Democrats crossed party lines to support the legislation
Major, MAJOR victory for President George W. Bush. Good for those 12 Democrats for putting the interests of the country ahead of partisanship.
Well done, Congress.
September 28th, 2006 at 9:37 pm#121: Major, MAJOR defeat for freedom and justice.
May you learn first hand what it is like to live without either. And may you cry, “But I didn’t mean THIS!”, and find no one willing to listen.
September 28th, 2006 at 9:48 pm#123 I am pretty sure that was not aimed at me.
September 28th, 2006 at 9:50 pmHehe, never mind. My post was deleted and probably rightfully so as I was very angry and vulger. However, if this doesn’t make every American citizen angry and vulger there is a problem.
September 28th, 2006 at 9:55 pmOk, now it isn’t. Thanks TP until you delete it :)
September 28th, 2006 at 9:57 pmMajor, MAJOR defeat for freedom and justice.
Comment by TheOtherMaven
The official end of our precious democracy. We will never be the same again.
May ALL those who support this legislation be subjected to its provisions.
September 28th, 2006 at 10:02 pmComment by Briseadh na Faire
Exley,
Almost 24 hours later and you still haven’t responded to my post #48. Yet you danced around it last night and posted to others.
As you have congratulated the Bush administration twice now, do you feel like responding to me? I’ve reposted my note below:
I’m sure it’s just fine and dandy with you if another country who just happens to be an enemy of the U.S. captures and holds our troops, or innocent Americans who happen to be caught in that country during war, and refuses to release them or put them on trial, or tell them why they are being held. Right? I mean, after all, an innocent American could be labeled an enemy combatant simply because they are an American.
How about an enemy who tortures American troops by using the same techniques Bush approves of? Is that OK by you?
Do you support the action of John McCain’s captors in Vietnam, who broke his arms? I’m quite sure Bush would approve of such behavior, seeing as how it doesn’t cause death.
Or do you think breaking someone’s arms to get information is OK only if America is the one doing it?
September 28th, 2006 at 11:03 pmExcerpts from the link posted at #116:
A last-minute change to a bill currently before Congress on the rights of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay could have sweeping implications inside the United States: It would strip green-card holders and other legal residents of the right to challenge their detention in court if they are accused of being “enemy combatants.”
Congratulations, Exley. You are supporting a bill that allows legal residents of the United States to be locked up indefinitely simply by being ACCUSED of being an enemy combatant. They can’t even challenge it.
You do understand this, don’t you? Or is it too simple for your mind to grasp?
And yet you have no problem with this.
Guilty until proven innocent. That is what you are supporting.
I guess you missed the story some time ago of the man in California who was paid a visit by the FBI. Seems he made a negative remark about Bush at work, and one of his co-workers, a Bush supporter, apparently got pissed off and called and reported him.
Just think if the guy’s co-worker took it to the next level and reported him as a terrorist supporter and claimed he heard him talking about blowing up a federal building.
Is there anything, Exley, that you can cut-and-paste from the legislation that would save this guy from being locked up for, say, 5 years based on this accusation?
September 28th, 2006 at 11:26 pmThe message from the Universe regarding this bill:
MANN, HUMANITY: REVERSED
you can look up the Rune definition yourself, but the name says it all.
September 29th, 2006 at 12:48 am[…] Think Progress […]
September 29th, 2006 at 11:25 amWC, That is incorrect. There is a lot of hysteria about this very reasonable and limited bill. The claim that it applies to U.S. citizens is one of the most hysterical.
Section 948b(a), which defines the purpose of the military tribunals generally, provides:
“(a) Purpose- This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission.”
Section 948a(3) defines “alien” as follows:
“(3) ALIEN- The term `alien’ means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.”
You cannot fairly construe the definition of “unlawful combatant” in a manner that is inconsistent with the rest of the Act, including the defined purpose of the subject of the Act.
In sum, the tribunals have nothing to do with American citizens
September 29th, 2006 at 11:38 am#127. WC
A few quick points — As you can see from the language of the legislation contained in posting #112, the type of physical cruelty and injury caused to John McCain by his Communist captors is strictly prohibited….
Secondly, John McCain and other uniformed soldiers in a nation’s military are “lawful combatants” who enjoy additional, more stringent protections under the Geneva conventions. This legislation deals with Common Article 3 of the Conventions, which applies to Article 3 is applicable in case of armed conflict not of international character occurring in the territory of one of the contracting parties to the 1949 Conventions. It also applies to a situation where the conflict is within the State, between the Government and the rebel forces or between the rebel forces themselves (NOTE: The fact of the matter Common Article 3 should not even bee involved in this matter…It clearly is not applicable to the War on Terror. However, five justices of SCOTUS misapplied the Article, thus requiring this legislation).
Finally, it is a strawman argument to claim that because of this bill, our enemies will no longer feel compelled to adhere to the requirements of the Geneva Convention when treating captured U.S. forces….The fact of the matter is we have not had an enemy who adhered to the Geneva Conventions in treatment of prisoners since WORLD WAR I. In every conflcit since 1917, the enemy has flouted and violated the Geneva Conventions…..So, to argue that this bill will cause other states to ignore their obligations under the Geneva Convention is most unconvincing.
September 29th, 2006 at 11:58 amExley, you are way, way off when you say that Common Article III has no applicability to the war on terror. Common Article III is the baseline for treatment of ALL detainees under ALL circumstances. By its express language, Common Article III applies to those detainees that would not otherwise be entitled to Geneva Convention protections - i.e., combatants from non-signatory nations; combatants from organizations like al Qaeda, which are not associated with a particular nation; combatants who are otherwise deprived of Geneva protections because they do not wear a recognizable uniform, etc.
Also, your characterization of this statute is not accurate. It does not simply “clarify” the requirements of Common Article III (requirements which had never previously required “clarification”; which were written into the Uniform Code of Military Justice and have been taught to our soldiers and marines for decades; which the military itself - y’know, the organization actually bound by the Geneva Conventions - never said were vague … I could go on. The bigger problem, though, is that the only thing the statute defines is “grave violations” of Common Article III - i.e., violations which are so significant that they rise to the level of war crimes under the U.S. War Crimes Act. Aside from the specifically identified “grave” violations, the statute allows Pres. Bush, in his sole discretion, to decide what conduct does or doesn’t violate Common Article III - and the president’s decision is not subject to review.
That’s the whole point. If waterboarding is not defined in this statute as a “grave” violation of Common Article III (and, it’s not), the President has the sole authority to determine that waterboarding does not violation Common Article III, and NO ONE can challenge that determination, including the people who are subjected to it. Now, if you’ve read anything about waterboarding - a tactic favored by the Khmer Rouge, by-the-by - you’ll be hard pressed to argue that it doesn’t constitute “cruel” or “inhuman” treatment. But, in the alternative universe of the Bush administration, the President can declare that waterboarding is okay, and voila, no one can stop him from waderboarding to his little heart’s content.
I will say this - having re-read the Court’s Hamdan decision today, I have serious doubts that this statute will be upheld if it is challenged. The media have interpreted the decision to say that the existing military commissions were defective because they were not specifically authorized by Congress - as though passing a statute authorizing commissions automatically cures any problem. That is not at all the case. The Court concluded, among other things, that the Pres. is bound by Common Article III and that any and all treatment of detainees has to be measured against Common Article III standards. The Court also expressed considerable doubt about Congress’ authority to restrict the Court’s appellate jurisdiction and the Court’s right to review the actions of military commissions by habeas corpus review.
September 29th, 2006 at 7:27 pmFrom Common Article 3:
The only way around this language is to redefine what is meant by “persons.” Exley, you have used your magnificent legal skills to say that the Supreme Court erred when it read that “Persons” applied to all human beings.
Next, from SB 3930:
That means United States citizen’s can be declared an unlawful enemy combatant.
and:
That means once you’re declared an unlawful enemy combatant, you cannot challenge that determination.
This is a great way to quell civil unrest. All you have to do is participate in a peace rally, and you could be found to have engaged in hostilities against the U.S. People who speak out against Bush’s War have already been labled traitors. Now Bush has the tool he needs to lock up the opposition indefinitely.
There is nothing reasonable nor limited about this bill.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:30 amBriseadh na Faire. okay i by your argument that torture is morally wrong. now indulge me. it is possible that if you use a technique like waterboarding, you could get information from a terrorist that could avert an attack that would save hundreds/thousands of lives.
now picture someone you love. image that person is being held hostage. the hostage takers are captured. they reveal that your loved one is alive but they are unwilling to say where. you know your loved one will die, if not rescued. the authorities tell you, if you authorize it, they will waterboard the hostage takers to try to get the information. okay, Briseadh na Faire, what do you do?
now, if you so principled to say it is morally wrong and you wouldn’t authorize it, go tell the person you pictured in you mind the scenerio and how important it is to live in your simple black and white world.
October 1st, 2006 at 7:46 amPaul,
First off, your ticking-time bomb scenario has NEVER played out in real life. If so, you or others surely would have provided evidence of such, instead of this repeated hypothetical.
Secondly, other methods of interrogation have proven far more effective than torture. You are using a falacious hypothetical to justify using an ineffective method.
” it is possible that if you use a technique like waterboarding, you could get information from a terrorist that could avert an attack that would save hundreds/thousands of lives.”
Sure, it is possible. But it is more likely you’ll get accurate information if you use other methods of interrogation.
It’s too bad you don’t know the history of torture. Torture isn’t used to save a life. Torture is used to get names. If you’re tortured and all the oppressor wants is a name, any name, of some co-conspirator and your pain will stop, you’ll give him names. And those people will be tortured, all in the name of rooting out some conspiracy, some heretics, some witches. If they want to know about plots, you’ll tell them of all kinds of plots.
As I said, there are far more effective methods of interrogation than torture. I would authorize those, as they have a greater liklihood of success. Torture only fills a perverse desire to inflict pain on another for your own sick gratification.
October 1st, 2006 at 9:45 am