Death penalty and torture double-standard?

[RobHom]

Umm…no, actually President Bush took action, he has been the ONLY one who’s willing to do so!

That is a matter of opinion… Many have been willing, but none other than a couple of "chickenhawks: have done anything. All that has been done is we have been engaged into another war that is amounting to little more than another “Vietnam”…that in my opinion has done little more than cost the lives of many American troops, many more thousands maimed and wounded, and the “privatization” of many government functions that has enriched certain people.

Course, he’s always ensured that we haven’t been attacked again since then…I say, he gets a lot of my respect and admiration…he did what was right, simply because it was right…even when NO ONE, not even his when “own” Congress didn’t support him…that’s the markings of a true leader and great man.

Actually, his congress granted the funding for the war, just google the words Congress funds Iraq war, and see your error in thought. It is not the Presidents job to declare war on anyone, that job is delegated in our system to Congress. Actually Bush has violated the US Constitution, and effectively in doing so has declared himself a king or tyrant in declaring war on Iraq and Afghanistan. What he did was not right. He did what his ego and his friends and confidants told him to do.

From here is the explanation: fff.org/comment/com0204a.asp

*Again, reflect on the words of Madison: “The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war [and] the power of raising armies. A delegation of such powers [to the president] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments. The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.”

Therefore, under our system of government although the president is personally convinced that war against a certain nation is just and morally right, he is nevertheless prohibited by our supreme law of the land from waging it unless he first secures a declaration of war from Congress. That was precisely why presidents Wilson and Roosevelt, who both believed that U.S. intervention in World Wars I and II was right and just, nevertheless had to wait for a congressional declaration of war before entering the conflict. And the fact that later presidents have violated the declaration-of-war requirement does not operate as a grant of power for other presidents to do the same.

What about the congressional resolution that granted President Bush the power to wage war against unnamed nations and organizations that the president determines were linked to the September 11 attacks? Doesn’t that constitute a congressional declaration of war? No, it is instead a congressional grant to the president of Caesar-like powers to wage war, a grant that the Constitution does not authorize Congress to make.

Therefore, when a U.S. president wages what might otherwise be considered a just war, if he has failed to secure a congressional declaration of war, he is waging an illegal war — illegal from the standpoint of our own legal and governmental system. And when the American people support any such war, no matter how just and right they believe it is, they are standing not only against their own principles and heritage, not only against their own system of government and laws, but also against the only barrier standing between them and the tyranny of their own government — the Constitution. *

usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060130/30iraq.htm

independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-god-told-me-to-invade-iraq-509925.html

Do not misunderstand me… I fully support a war on terror and terrorists, and I even at my late age volunteered to return to active duty…but I was turned down on age, even though they are activating reservists older than I…go figure, huh?

I think it has been done wrong, and continues to be done wrong. His father was smart enough to let the military run the war, and knew what was required. Junior is clueless, and is supported mostly by people who never wore a uniform, like Cheney who had 6 draft deferments during Vietnam…

I spent two and a half years in Vienam, was not a REMF, and all I see going on now, is much of the same, and having spoken to the sons of friends who have served over there, my feelings are reinforced.

Bush did not do right. He gets no credit for “protecting us”. In fact, his handling of the issue has reduce this country’s respect in the world to its lowest level ever.

I think you need to seek information somewhere besides the RNC or Hannady/Rush…

 

[neat62]

RobHom;

Actually Bush has violated the US Constitution, and effectively in doing so has declared himself a king or tyrant in declaring war on Iraq and Afghanistan. What he did was not right.

Congress has officially declared war on another nation only one other time in our history.

Many other times, Congress was made aware of pending threats, and as you say, voted on funding. THAT was their declaration. If all 538 members of Congress voted to fund a war, then their intent was made and it was perfectly clear.

So sorry, your Bush=Tyrant is not valid and is only a talking point.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

warning…may require thought

…
.

The whole game that so many on here play is really pathetic…I would bet just about anything on the fact that most of the posters here would be all to supportive of the sort of “torture” the US employs if it were their direct families who were being threatened.
…

I would bet just about anything on the fact that most of the posters here would be all against that sort of “torture” the US employs if it were their families who were being “tortured”

 

[neat62]

Texas Roofer;

I would bet just about anything on the fact that most of the posters here would be all against that sort of “torture” the US employs if it were their families who were being “tortured”

Well naturally. I’m sure Tim McVeigh’s mother was against what ended up happening to him. Dosen’t mean that he didn’t have it coming. And I would bet about anything on the fact that most of the families who had relatives blown to pieces in Oklahoma, were all for smoking that turd.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Texas Roofer;

Well naturally. I’m sure Tim McVeigh’s mother was against what ended up happening to him. Dosen’t mean that he didn’t have it coming. And I would bet about anything on the fact that most of the families who had relatives blown to pieces in Oklahoma, were all for smoking that turd.

Tim McVeigh had a fair trial any, and all, who wished to present evidence or speak on his behalf were allowed to do that before an impartial jury. His penalty was decided by a judge/jury not by captures. In the US one group investigates and arrests(justice dept), a second group prosecutes(DA), a third group operates a trial (Judge) a fourth group decided the verdict (jury), that is our best justice system. In torture cases one person is allowed all roles. That person plays GOD; usually poorly.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Tim McVeigh had a fair trial any, and all, who wished to present evidence or speak on his behalf were allowed to do that before an impartial jury. His penalty was decided by a judge/jury not by captures. In the US one group investigates and arrests(justice dept), a second group prosecutes(DA), a third group operates a trial (Judge) a fourth group decided the verdict (jury), that is our best justice system. In torture cases one person is allowed all roles. That person plays GOD; usually poorly.

Your comment infers that torture be acceptable on the condition that we establish clearly defined roles…

I know that’s not the case, but as this conversation has already unraveled into a thousand different directions, I just thought I’d point out another thread worthy comment

 

[Oscarthecat]

Well naturally. I’m sure Tim McVeigh’s mother was against what ended up happening to him. Dosen’t mean that he didn’t have it coming. And I would bet about anything on the fact that most of the families who had relatives blown to pieces in Oklahoma, were all for smoking that turd.

But isn’t the whole point of having an independent justice system within a representative democracy to avoid satisfying that kind of mob mentality?

How would your sentiment about “smoking that turd” apply in the event that a legitimate authority decided to torture him for information?

Would at least some purpose of torture in that case be to satisfy the mob mentality, as well?

 

[RobHom]

Congress has officially declared war on another nation only one other time in our history.

Actually, your history lessons have been wrong:

Congress declared war against the German Government in WWI, followed by a Declaration of War against Austria & Hungary in WWI, and declared War against Japan in 1941, and a week later declared war against Germany. Oh, and lets not forget the Declaration of War against Britain in 1812.

And if you look at the wars that they declared, as opposed to the ones that were not declared…look at the results. Look at the handling of those wars ~ micromanaged to death, and not well supported by the people.

Many other times, Congress was made aware of pending threats, and as you say, voted on funding. THAT was their declaration. If all 538 members of Congress voted to fund a war, then their intent was made and it was perfectly clear.

Almost as if they had a choice? To not fund it would have left the troops high and dry… Ask yourself : If everyone was so for it, why no “declaration of war”? Constitutionally it is not the Presidents job to declare war and ship troops off to fight. It is Congress’s job. Remember how our government is set up…you know, the old “checks and balances thing”?

So sorry, your Bush=Tyrant is not valid and is only a talking point.

Hardly a talking point. I think the results of the last election are proof plenty of that. Not all of it was about the economy. There is far more to it than that. Here’s a polling report that covers a time spread: pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm If he had done such a “wonderful” job…why did not the Republicans hold the White House and regain seats in the house and senate?

Perhaps you’d like to illuminate yourself as to the state of affairs:
Read here if you dare: naturalnews.com/016849.html
rense.com/general69/tyr.htm glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/11/true-tyranny-defined-bush-admin-v-jose.html agonist.org/michael_collins/20080725/michael_collins_bush_accused_of_tyranny_and_murder_at_house_hearings
fff.org/freedom/fd0709b.asp globalpolicy.org/empire/terrorwar/analysis/2008/0603tyranny.htm

The ones above are interesting, but the one below makes for even more interesting reading:
globalpolicy.org/empire/terrorwar/analysis/2008/0603tyranny.htm

Statements like these:

The Bush administration is using every strategy to push aside the remains of the legal principles that shield the people from arbitrary government power. It is a short step from denying Americans’ constitutional right to a public trial by an impartial jury to denying every other constitutional right. Clearly, on the basis of an indefinite “war” against an indefinite “terrorist enemy,” the Bush regime is attempting to claim powers that are not limited by the Constitution, Congress, or the courts. It is a life-and-death matter for Americans to understand that the Bush administration is seeking to undermine all rights by shutting off the procedural avenues for enforcing rights. Hmmmmmm?

In June 2007, **** Cheney astonished Americans with his claim that the Office of Vice President is independent of both the executive branch and Congress and is accountable to neither. Hmmmmm? Think he could have pulled that rabbit out of his hat with his boss’s approval?

But the best one is in the next post:

 

[RobHom]

Here you go:

globalpolicy.org/empire/terrorwar/analysis/2008/0603tyranny.htm

*In July 2006, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court ruled that Bush’s military tribunals violate U.S. military law and the Geneva Conventions.

Republicans, who tend to regard civil liberties as devices that coddle criminals and terrorists, turned to legislation in attempts to subvert the Supreme Court’s defense of the U.S. Constitution. In November 2005, the Senate Republicans passed an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act offered by Lindsay Graham of South Carolina authorizing the president to deny habeas corpus protection to Guant‡namo detainees. The fact that it was known by this time that the vast majority of the detainees were hapless individuals who were captured by Afghan warlords and sold to the Americans, who were paying a bounty for “terrorists,” carried no weight with the Republican senators.

The Republicans replied to Hamdan v. Rumsfeld with the Military Commissions Act passed in September 2006 and signed by Bush in October. The act strips detainees of protections provided by the Geneva Conventions: “No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights.” Other provisions of the act strip detainees of speedy trials and of protection against torture and self-incrimination. This heinous law has a breathtaking provision that retroactively protects torturers against prosecution for war crimes.

The act explicitly denies habeas corpus protection and access to federal courts to any alien detained by the U.S. government as an “enemy combatant” and any alien awaiting determination of his status. The act reads: “No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the US who has been determined by the US to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.”

This act is as atrocious a piece of legislation as the world has ever seen. It permits people to be sentenced to death on the basis of hearsay, secret evidence, and on a confession extracted by torture. Indeed, detainees could be shot in the back of the head without undergoing the kangaroo tribunal and no one would ever know or be held legally responsible.

A number of legal experts have concluded that there is no assurance that the act cannot be applied to U.S. citizens. Although language in the act refers to “alien unlawful enemy combatant,” other language in the document does not limit the act’s applicability only to aliens. Legal scholars have warned that the legislation defines enemy combatant in such broad language that the act applies to any person whom the executive branch declares has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States. No evidence for the charge is necessary. By seizing the power to decide who is and who is not an “enemy combatant,” the executive branch has seized the power to decide who shall and who shall not be permitted the protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The Bush administration has resurrected the dungeons and torture chambers that Blackstone’s Rights of Englishmen banished from the English-speaking world.

It is too early to know how the act will be interpreted and applied to American citizens or whether it can be challenged and overturned on constitutional grounds, but forebodings are severe. What we can say is that the act is draconian and dangerous legislation that is completely unnecessary. If the U.S. government has enough correct information to designate a person truthfully to be an enemy combatant, the U.S. government has enough information to put the person on trial in open court with all the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to defendants. The U.S. government needs only indefinite detention, torture, and secret evidence when it has no evidence. Every American should be concerned that John Yoo, one of the Justice Department authors of this totalitarian legislation, is now a law professor at the University of California. Liberty has no future in America if law schools provide legitimacy to those who would subvert the U.S. Constitution. *

Stay tuned for more…

 

[RobHom]

Here you go…

globalpolicy.org/empire/terrorwar/analysis/2008/0603tyranny.htm

***Americans should pay attention to the power that the Bush administration is claiming over them. If Americans are not protected by habeas corpus, the government can pick us up at its will and cast us into dungeons for the rest of our lives without ever giving any accountability of its action. If the Constitution does not grant habeas corpus protection, the administration is under no compulsion to provide indictments, evidence, and trial. The government can simply imprison at will.

The Bush administration is using every strategy to push aside the remains of the legal principles that shield the people from arbitrary government power. It is a short step from denying Americans’ constitutional right to a public trial by an impartial jury to denying every other constitutional right. Clearly, on the basis of an indefinite “war” against an indefinite “terrorist enemy,” the Bush regime is attempting to claim powers that are not limited by the Constitution, Congress, or the courts. It is a life-and-death matter for Americans to understand that the Bush administration is seeking to undermine all rights by shutting off the procedural avenues for enforcing rights.

Few Americans seem alarmed. Conservative attorneys, such as members of the Federalist Society who present themselves as defenders of “original intent,” are pushing for more power to be concentrated in the executive. One of the tools used to obtain this goal is Bush’s misuse of “signing statements.” Scholars, such as Phillip J. Cooper of Portland State University writing in the September 2005 issue of Presidential Studies Quarterly, warn that Bush uses signing statements not only as illegal line-item vetoes that evade congressional override but also as “wide-ranging assertions of exclusive authority and court-like pronouncements that redefine legislative powers under the Constitution. They reveal a systematic effort to define presidential authority in terms of the broad conception of the prerogative both internationally and domestically under the unitary executive theory.”

Signing statements deserve a closer look than they are receiving. There is no provision in the Constitution for signing statements. Courts often look to congressional debates and proceedings to ascertain legislative intent when a statute’s meaning is not obvious. The Bush administration is endeavoring to establish the judicial practice of also looking to the president’s signing statements in the same way, an absurd idea as the president does not enact legislation. President Bush’s use of signing statements signals the refusal of the executive branch to abide by the rule of law, a frightening prospect.

A growing number of thoughtful Americans believe, rightly or wrongly, that the “war on terror” is a hoax that is providing cover for what former President Nixon’s White House counsel, W. Dean, says is an assault on American liberty by “authoritarian conservatives.” Time will tell whether Americans will continue to tolerate the neoconservatives’ wars and attacks on civil liberty. ***

Sorry sport… but you’ve been getting bad information from somewhere…

What I see is “tyrannical”…not to mention UN-American!

I fully support a war on terror and terrorists…and I support the troops fully…but I do not support the outgoing administrations bungling of the issues at hand.

Remember, George said “I don’t even think about him anymore”, or words to that effect…in regards to Bin Laden. SO much for a “war on terror” and the guy who orchestrated the attacks…

 

[RobHom]

warning…may require thought

I would bet just about anything on the fact that most of the posters here would be all against that sort of “torture” the US employs if it were their families who were being “tortured”

You might be surprised to find out that not everyone agrees with your statement… I can tell you “unequivocally” that if a member of my family was a traitor to this country…I wouldn’t be too worried about what happened to them. I can’t speak for “most”, but I think you should be a little more careful about presuming things.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

warning…may require thought

I would bet just about anything on the fact that most of the posters here would be all against that sort of “torture” the US employs if it were their families who were being “tortured”

 

[RobHom]

warning…may require thought

I would bet just about anything on the fact that most of the posters here would be all against that sort of “torture” the US employs if it were their families who were being “tortured”

Its your wallet…and your life, go for it.

 

[neat62]

Texas Roofer;

Tim McVeigh had a fair trial any, and all, who wished to present evidence or speak on his behalf were allowed to do that before an impartial jury. His penalty was decided by a judge/jury not by captures. In the US one group investigates and arrests(justice dept), a second group prosecutes(DA), a third group operates a trial (Judge) a fourth group decided the verdict (jury), that is our best justice system. In torture cases one person is allowed all roles. That person plays GOD; usually poorly.

What does this have to do with anything? The family of a victim and the family of the KILLER all end up feeling bad. That had nothing to do with a trial. Plus, torture victims are not killed today. Big difference.

 

[neat62]

Oscarthecat;

But isn’t the whole point of having an independent justice system within a representative democracy to avoid satisfying that kind of mob mentality?

How would your sentiment about “smoking that turd” apply in the event that a legitimate authority decided to torture him for information?

Would at least some purpose of torture in that case be to satisfy the mob mentality, as well?

You missed the point. The comment I replied to was about family members feeling bad.

 

[neat62]

RobHom;

Actually, your history lessons have been wrong:

Actually, we only decalred war once, after being attacked by another nation.

Almost as if they had a choice? To not fund it would have left the troops high and dry… Ask yourself : If everyone was so for it, why no “declaration of war”? Constitutionally it is not the Presidents job to declare war and ship troops off to fight. It is Congress’s job. Remember how our government is set up…you know, the old “checks and balances thing”?

And Congress has the power to stop a war before it is begun. They are the ones that write the laws, the President is not.

Hardly a talking point. I think the results of the last election are proof plenty of that. Not all of it was about the economy. There is far more to it than that. Here’s a polling report that covers a time spread: pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm If he had done such a “wonderful” job…why did not the Republicans hold the White House and regain seats in the house and senate?

Where in those polls were people asked if Bush=Tyrant? They don’t! Bush = Tyrant, is a talking point and an opinion by some nutbags in the world. Hardly a majority opinion felt in the US.

Perhaps you’d like to illuminate yourself as to the state of affairs:
Read here if you dare: naturalnews.com/016849.html
rense.com/general69/tyr.htm glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/11/true-tyranny-defined-bush-admin-v-jose.html agonist.org/michael_collins/20080725/michael_collins_bush_accused_of_tyranny_and_murder_at_house_hearings
fff.org/freedom/fd0709b.asp globalpolicy.org/empire/terrorwar/analysis/2008/0603tyranny.htm

The ones above are interesting, but the one below makes for even more interesting reading:
globalpolicy.org/empire/terrorwar/analysis/2008/0603tyranny.htm

Statements like these:

The Bush administration is using every strategy to push aside the remains of the legal principles that shield the people from arbitrary government power. It is a short step from denying Americans’ constitutional right to a public trial by an impartial jury to denying every other constitutional right. Clearly, on the basis of an indefinite “war” against an indefinite “terrorist enemy,” the Bush regime is attempting to claim powers that are not limited by the Constitution, Congress, or the courts. It is a life-and-death matter for Americans to understand that the Bush administration is seeking to undermine all rights by shutting off the procedural avenues for enforcing rights. Hmmmmmm?

In June 2007, **** Cheney astonished Americans with his claim that the Office of Vice President is independent of both the executive branch and Congress and is accountable to neither. Hmmmmm? Think he could have pulled that rabbit out of his hat with his boss’s approval?

But the best one is in the next post:

LOL YOur first link was Al Gore. You have produced a non credible link.

 

[neat62]

RobHom;4576162]

Sorry sport… but you’ve been getting bad information from somewhere…

What I see is “tyrannical”…not to mention UN-American!

I fully support a war on terror and terrorists…and I support the troops fully…but I do not support the outgoing administrations bungling of the issues at hand.

Remember, George said “I don’t even think about him anymore”, or words to that effect…in regards to Bin Laden. SO much for a “war on terror” and the guy who orchestrated the attacks…

Can you provide ANY links with unbiased authors?

Paul Craig Roberts= 911 conspiracy nut.

 

[Ender]

In July 2006, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court ruled that Bush’s military tribunals violate U.S. military law and the Geneva Conventions.

Yes it did - those same justices who rendered the Casey decision got this one wrong as well. This comment (allegedly made by Scalia) makes the obvious point: “I’m not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it’s crazy”

The act strips detainees of protections provided by the Geneva Conventions: “No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights.”

The Geneva Convention was written to apply to regular armies, it never included “unlawful enemy combatants” in its protections.

The act explicitly denies habeas corpus protection and access to federal courts to any alien detained by the U.S. government as an “enemy combatant” and any alien awaiting determination of his status.

Does it surprise you that non-citizen enemy combatants are not protected by the US Constitution and should not have access to US courts? Did we hold individual trials for the thousands of German and Japanese prisoners we captured in WWII?

A number of legal experts have concluded that there is no assurance that the act cannot be applied to U.S. citizens.

This is mere heavy breathing, there is no reason to take this stuff seriously.

Ender

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Does it surprise you that non-citizen enemy combatants are not protected by the US Constitution and should not have access to US courts?

All US government activities are under the US Constitution, no one speaks or acts on behalf of the US without Constitutional limts. That includes all Presidents and military personnel.

 

[RobHom]

RobHom;

Actually, we only decalred war once, after being attacked by another nation.

Again, do some historical research and you will find that you are in error.

And Congress has the power to stop a war before it is begun. They are the ones that write the laws, the President is not.

And yet, the current President has engaged troops in two different countries and rattled the saber in the faces of others without consent of a Declaration of War issue by Congress. You can paint it any way you want…but it remains that it is not the Presidents job to declare war, which is precisely what he has done.

Where in those polls were people asked if Bush=Tyrant? They don’t! Bush = Tyrant, is a talking point and an opinion by some nutbags in the world. Hardly a majority opinion felt in the US.

While it may not be specifically stated, the fact that he currently has a 29% approval rating speaks volumes. Sadly many Americans are oblivious to what is going on around them and are too easily distracted to pay attention. I think in reality, the fact that the last election was a landslide AGAINST Republicans makes it very clear that the MAJORITY spoke out loudly. I know many people that for years have been die-hard Republicans…who are now literally embarrassed to admit that they voted for him… Don’t be so sure about the opinions of others…unless they tell you…you’ll never know.

LOL YOur first link was Al Gore. You have produced a non credible link.

So you don’t like Al? I don’t think he’s that wonderful either, but the fact is…he’s not alone in his statements, and there are “conservatives” that are in agreement…and just because someone does not tow the RNC line does not make them a “nutbag” or a whacko. Frankly, if one actually was to embrace that kind of thought process…then anyone who listens to or ever has listen to “Rush” would have to be a “nutbag”…for listening to the ranting and ravings of an drug addicted crazyman.

What is credible or not is subject to proofs. The problem is that when you have someone riding roughshod over government functions…there are problems.

Tell me, why was it necessary for a government agency to get a court order to stop Cheney destroying documents?