As far as Bush’s statement regarding him not worrying about Bin Laden or thinking about him… I personally saw and heard him say it on TV!! Its very real.
On one hand I can agree with Scalia… I feel somewhat the same.
Frankly, for non-citizen enemy combatants I see absolutely no reason to provide them Constitutional protections. They are not entitled in my view of things.
We held many individual trials. Many war criminals were tried, some in groups, others not. Though at present there is a bit of a difference… We “conquered” enemies who had attacked us, and we vanquished them on the field of battle. It was our place to settle the scores. At least we did give them fair trials under our military laws.
Ender, you can say that, but the fact is this: It may not be. Once rules are bent and the applications are bent, misapplications begin, then the force of the rules are misapplied and disabused.
Yes, but this is the point: they were tried under military, not civilian, law.
I don’t believe there was an attempt to bend the law but to clarify it to prevent precisely what the Supreme Court did. The idea that alien enemy combatants should be tried by US civilian courts is insane.
Torture is (by definition) an assault on the very humanity of the person undergoing it. The humanity of that person is the image and likeness of God, so when you torture someone, you are wilfully damaging the image of God in that person.
this assumes that torture works, as an interrogation technique. Actually, all it does is confuses the issue, since people will often say whatever they think you want to hear, to avoid being hurt. They do that even in situations where there is no torture involved - kids lie to their parents to avoid things like having to do their homework instead of watching TV, and people lie to those in authority to avoid things like speeding tickets.
Because it isn’t, always. A nomadic society that has no prisons, with an insane person in it for whom banishment and other punishments mean nothing, would have to make use of the death penalty, in that situation. For the safety of their other members, they would have no alternative but to put the insane person to death. They would do this as painlessly as possible, and with every opportunity for the person to express contrition for their crimes.
Well tell me then.
And it was precisely what Congress has done and gone along with. This declar of war nonsense has been debated many many times now. It is clear, that however the government is entering war, has been Constitutionally allowed. If Congress is backing the President, any president, then Congress is okaying that war or conflict. The Iraq WAR Resolution, approved and signed by CONGRESS, was a declaration of war, however you look at it.
Real clear and real easy, where does that poll or any poll, say that Bush = Tyrant?
No, one is a nutbag when one belives in 911 conspiracies. When speculation becomes fact to people, then they become nut bags in regards to conspiracies.
Which government agency? Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington?? Them? A private group? Or these guys: Two historians and three groups of historians and archivists?
And what do you expect him to say? How much satisfaction should he give Al Queda?
Who? Show me one single time where I used any of them to back up my claim? You show me that, and I swear to God, I will quit this site and never come back.
And why do you assume that it never works? It is not our business to hurt people to hurt people. If it didn’t work, we would not use it. But the fact is is that it canand does work. Maybe not 100% of the time, but it does work as well as other means.
You still don’t know which or how many of your confessions were just what the subject thought you wanted to hear, or the truth.
I think the powers that be, know. I don’t think they take the word of one guy and then go assasinate someone. I think that they are pretty confident beforehand, who the guilty party is. OR, they can use it to crosscheck information. And I also think that in most cases, they are doing it to someone they know or reasonably suspect to have intelligence. They know how the game is played much better than we do.How many innocent people have been assassinated, because a subject under torture fingered them for various different crimes, out of desperation to make the torture stop?
I didn’t miss the point.
Satisfying mob mentality. Yeah, I’m sure some people would feel good knowing that Tim McVeigh was tortured.(had he been tortured for information) But I do not think that he would have been tortured as a form of justice. It would have been an extra “benefit” to the families of the victims, though not all of them, I’m sure.
How many benefited from torture to eliminate the WMDs?
Can you expand on this comment?
Yes, and that is well and good. Due to recent changes in the UCMJ, there is little difference between the two law sets, but, if outside the US, then there is a larger difference, as the presumption of a foreigner having “US Constitutional rights” is wrong.
Unfortunately, in their rush to do what they did, they apparently left loopholes that an elephant can walk through…because the Supreme Court…walked through them. Apparently the writers and sponsors of those laws took about as much time to refine the documents as the people that flew the Patriot Act…
Ender, you get no argument from me there. I think its not onlyu insane, but completely ludicrous as well.
I already did.
Why then, if it was…what you say it was, why then did they not pass a formal Declaration of War, afterall…we were going after a “sovereign nation”, right? Because its political hopscotch.
Actually, given the known atrocities that were occurring in Bosnia, my complaints were more along the lines of "WHY HAVEN’T THE GUTLESS WONDERS IN THE US DONE SOMETHING ABOUT THIS!!! Somalia was poorly thought out, and poorly planned and poorly executed. And again…the same question applies to the UN. Twice the gutless fairies in the UN sat on their hands…and we had to do something about it. Did I complain that we went in…no, but I have in the last few years have been convinced that the UN is little more than a place where a country’s losers can get a paycheck…and thats about it.
Asked and answered. But as to tyrannical behavior:
Who said anything about 911 conspiracies? Nutbags come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and political parties.
32 different historians…and the PRA (Presidential Records Act of 1978) archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html Cheney and Bush do not “own” the documents, the public does. Therefore, they are not entitled to destroy them. Its a US Law.
Under the PRA, which is a Federal Law, ownership of the documents is in the hands of the public, though there are provisos that allow for classification and withholding of the documents for certain time frames. As to Tarbell, I have no idea where anyone was, but whats interesting is that he was a “holdover from the Clinton Administration”…meaning that he did what he did while employed by the Bush Administration… curious thing that. So one has to ask…who was really behind it all…
Could it be that you perceive their bias to be what you say it is because the Republicans have been in office for 8 years and have provided the majority of the reasons to make noise?
Perhaps that we haven’t given up on that search? You had to have seen it when he said it, as I did…it was not one of his “better” soundbites. Frankly, I could not believe he was “lame enough to even think about saying that…” and the problem probably was that he put mouth into motion before putting brain into gear.
I never said you did, did I? I simply asked you a question, but from the tone of some of your responses and posts to others, you seem to me, in my humble opinion, to run parallel to them with precious little wiggle room.
That’s our blog, and I am glad to hear that we do agree on much. Naturally nobody is gunna be in 100% agreement on everything, but to agree with much, is good enough for me! Have a great Christmas, a very Happy New Year, and God Bless you!neat62… I looked at that BTT&S link…interesting, and you might find it interesting that I tend to agree with much said there.
I said show me where we declared war other than WW2 after being attacked.
The WW1 resolution and the Iraq War Resolution are almost the exact same thing.
We are in absolute agreement here.
[
www.lewrockwell.com
]()
Sure they do. But 911 conspiracy nuts hold no water for me in terms of credibility.
It is law, but this was a preemtive act brought up, not by a government agency, but by private Bush Bashers via a lawsuit. The court didn’t order Bush to do anything that was not already law.
SO this guy was destroying things that Clinton had done, that could help Bush, and you think that Bush ordered it? Humm. Did Bush order Sandy Burger to steal government property in his sock?
No, because from day one, even before Bush took office, he was hated because the Al Gore nuts claim that he stole the election. And the attacks never stopped and only grew. So based on that, how can percieve any hatred at Bush, not born out of that accusation. (NOTE: not all things aimed at Bush are uncalled for, like big spending)
Or perhaps I could do what they do for a living? lol I do my own independat reseach and formulate my own opinions on every issue, because I have learned the hard way about parroting what other people say. The left would call this “Free Thinking”, even though they have no real concept of it.