|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 11/04/2006 : 16:01:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mycroft
1) If POWs do not have that right, should illegal combatants?
POWs have rights under the Geneva convention, however "illegal combatants" does not. They are civilians, and should be treated and tried as such.
Since Americans travelling to my country aren't wearing uniforms, I could grab them calling them illegal combatants and subject the to dehumanizing acts and not give a shit about any rights of theirs. Whisk them away in the middle of the night without notifying anyone of their disappearence.
If, on the other hand I was forced to treat them as any other civilians of my country, then I could not detain them without presenting the case to a court.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2006 : 16:13:05 [Permalink]
|
How disappointing. When I saw the title of this thread, I had my hopes set high for the dawn of a new era. But now I realize I'd misread "McCarthy" as "McCartney."
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2006 : 16:49:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Mycroft
1) If POWs do not have that right, should illegal combatants?
POWs have rights under the Geneva convention, however "illegal combatants" does not. They are civilians, and should be treated and tried as such.
Since Americans travelling to my country aren't wearing uniforms, I could grab them calling them illegal combatants and subject the to dehumanizing acts and not give a shit about any rights of theirs. Whisk them away in the middle of the night without notifying anyone of their disappearence.
If, on the other hand I was forced to treat them as any other civilians of my country, then I could not detain them without presenting the case to a court.
What an "illegal combatant" is really is something that is neither a Prisoner of War nor an ordinary criminal. He is something distinct from both groups, and treating him as either group is inappropriate. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2006 : 19:33:46 [Permalink]
|
| To say that arresting a man on the flimsiest of evidence who was changing planes in a US airport on his way home to Canada from a third country and claiming he was an enemy combatant then deporting him to Syria where he was imprisoned and tortured for close to a year was inappropriate is a gross understatement. |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2006 : 23:06:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
To say that arresting a man on the flimsiest of evidence who was changing planes in a US airport on his way home to Canada from a third country and claiming he was an enemy combatant then deporting him to Syria where he was imprisoned and tortured for close to a year was inappropriate is a gross understatement.
Please, let's stick to the topic and not let trivial issues such as which adjectives are too understated distract us. We both agree that what happened to the Canadian was wrong. Where we disagree is the relationship between this incident and the legislation discussed in this thread. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2006 : 02:30:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mycroft
What an "illegal combatant" is really is something that is neither a Prisoner of War nor an ordinary criminal. He is something distinct from both groups, and treating him as either group is inappropriate.
Why don't you educate me in how your government defines an illegal combatant, and tell my how it sets the illegal combatant apart from a civilian criminal. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2006 : 02:37:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mycroft
Please, let's stick to the topic and not let trivial issues such as which adjectives are too understated distract us. We both agree that what happened to the Canadian was wrong. Where we disagree is the relationship between this incident and the legislation discussed in this thread.
I thought the point was that the legislation is just the kind of things that make agents of the government think they could do what they did to that Canadian. What was done to him was not trivial. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2006 : 20:18:45 [Permalink]
|
Mycroft, it seems when you run out of argument you fall back on claims of material being off topic and/or irrelevant. The law passed made the incident that happened to both the German and the Canadian legal. How could the arrest and subsequent torture of an innocent person possibly be irrelevant to a thread on a law that excuses such behavior as legal?
Let's recap:
OP: House OKs bill on handling terror detainees
and: A Dark Day in America
The bill actually discards the checks and balances put forth by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution.
Nor does it clearly define 'terrorist'
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you committ atrocities." - Voltaire
And the point of defining unlawful combatant when you suspend any need to demonstrate they actually are one is?
constant hype over 5 years how much danger everyone was in?
Mycroft: I'm not a legal expert, but I don't see anything terrible about this bill...Isn't that the very legislation required by the Supreme Court in its recent decision on detainees?
The problem with this bill, aside from the fact it legalizes torture, is that is suspends habeus corpus rights to "unlawful enemy combatants", and provides a loophole that lets the government declare anyone (US citizens included) an unlawful enemy combatant if they suspect they have provided assistance to somebody who is, in fact, an enemy combatant.
Shit, the secret service already thinks they can arrest you for publicly (to his face) criticizing Darth Cheney.
When Bush signs this bill into law (it passed both house and senate), everyone is at risk of being detained without any real reason. Check out a few books on Islam from the library? Use you credit card to buy some from B&N? Surf Arabic terrorist websites, or maybe even the Aljazeera website?
Evidence is no longer needed to detain you.
Mycroft: My, that all sounds terrifying.
However, I have not seen evidence to support any of it. Perhaps you could provide evidence of some of these claims? Notably:
1) That the bill legalizes torture.
2) It suspends habeus corpus rights to anyone that had them before the bill.
3) It could be used against any US citizen for merely visiting a web site or checking out the wrong book from the library.
I can see by reading other responses in this thread that there are people who believe this bill is very bad. What I'm looking for is not just another opinion such as what you have offered, but some evidence to convince me I should share that opinion....
If that is your opinion then you need to learn the difference between what *is* true and what you believe should be true....
The relevant questions here are:
1) If POWs do not have that right, should illegal combatants?
2) What body of law would grant such a right?
I have read through these articles by Bruce Ackerman, Feingold and Jack Balkin and find them unconvincing as evidence these laws could be used against any US citizen for merely visiting a web site or checking out the wrong book from the library. While there may certainly be issues with the legislation, time and time again in the definitions section of the bill it's spelled out that they are referring to alien illegal combatants. ...
I don't think [a person arrested and charged with aiding terrorists because he sold a satellite TV package with the Hizbollah network included.] Al-manar is a Hezbollah propaganda tool. Their programming incites hatred and violence. ...
What evidence do you have that:
1) Any specific crimes can be brought against Bush.
2) That this bill would shield him in any way?
Go to Top of Page...
What an "illegal combatant" is really is something that is neither a Prisoner of War nor an ordinary criminal. He is something distinct from both groups, and treating him as either group is inappropriate.
To say that arresting a man on the flimsiest of evidence who was changing planes in a US airport on his wa |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2006 : 20:57:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
I thought the point was that the legislation is just the kind of things that make agents of the government think they could do what they did to that Canadian. What was done to him was not trivial.
I never claimed what was done to him was trivial, and I will ask that you not create such straw-men and attribute them to me.
At the same time, it is obvious that this legislation comes long after the detention of this Canadian and thus cannot be a contributing factor. |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2006 : 21:13:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Mycroft, it seems when you run out of argument you fall back on claims of material being off topic and/or irrelevant.
I asked you two specific questions, to provide evidence that:
1) Any specific crimes can be brought against Bush.
2) That this bill would shield him in any way.
Your response apparantly was a non-sequitur, to admonish me for trivializing what happened to this Canadian which I had not done.
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
The law passed made the incident that happened to both the German and the Canadian legal. How could the arrest and subsequent torture of an innocent person possibly be irrelevant to a thread on a law that excuses such behavior as legal?
Since this legislation came after his arrest, it's self-evident the legislation is not a cause of his being arrested. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2006 : 22:14:45 [Permalink]
|
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - Rubber stamping violations in the "war on terror": Congress fails human rightsquote:
In the "war on terror", the US administration has resorted to secret detention, enforced disappearance, prolonged incommunicado detention, indefinite detention without charge, arbitrary detention, and torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Thousands of detainees remain in indefinite military detention in US custody in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay. Congress has failed these detainees and their families. President Bush has defended the CIA's use of secret detention and in the debates over the Military Commissions Act, members of Congress have done the same. Yet this is a policy in clear violation of international law.
Accountability among higher officials for human rights violations authorized or committed by US personnel in the "war on terror" has been absent, as has been reparation for such abuses. Investigations into alleged war crimes and human rights violations have lacked independence and have not gone up the chain of command. Not a single US agent has been charged with war crimes under the USA's War Crimes Act or torture under the extraterritorial anti-torture statute, despite compelling evidence that such offences have occurred.
Meanwhile, the Military Commissions Act provides for trials of the "enemy" in front of military commissions using lower standards of evidence than apply to US personnel, and with the power to hand down death sentences. Whether charged for trial or not, those detained by the USA as "enemy combatants" will not be able to challenge the lawfulness or conditions of their detention in habeas corpus appeals. Habeas corpus is a fundamental safeguard against enforced disappearance, arbitrary detention and torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
The legislation will lead to violations of international law and standards. Among other things, the Military Commissions Act will:
Endorse the administration's "war paradigm" – under which the USA has selectively applied the laws of war and rejected international human rights law. The legislation would backdate the "war on terror" to before the 11 September 2001 in order to be able to try individuals in front of military commissions for "war crimes" committed before that date.
Amnesty International deeply regrets that Congress failed to resist this executive pressure and instead has given a green light for violations of the USA's international obligations.
Many people have expressed the opinion the backdating of the acts the bill covers is to prevent crimes being charged for the things already done which the Supreme Court found in violation of law. The SC decision that led to the legislation ruled the activities surrounding enemy combatants were not permitted by law prior to this bill. If the bill is found unconstitutional as many believe it eventually will be, then the acts will have been illegal. But a Constitutional challenge will take about the 2 years Bush has left in office. No criminal charges, no conviction. No conviction, no grounds for impeachment.
Agree or disagree all you want, Mycroft, this is what many people who know the law believe.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 11/05/2006 22:16:23 |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2006 : 23:56:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/document.do?id=ENGAMR511552006UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - Rubber stamping violations <snip>
Agree or disagree all you want, Mycroft, this is what many people who know the law believe.
So what parts of the bill "backdate" the war on terror and in what ways?
What crimes do you believe this bill shields Bush from? |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2006 : 00:12:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What crimes do you believe this bill shields Bush from?
All the "extrodinary renditions" to secret prisons in eastern Europe and some islamic countries.
Guantanamo. (Git-Mo)
And so on.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2006 : 01:07:21 [Permalink]
|
| You're like talking to a brick wall, mycroft. It seems you cannot admit you are wrong in any of these threads. But you are wrong and your beliefs indeed reflect the distorted media which is where this started. |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2006 : 10:25:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
What crimes do you believe this bill shields Bush from?
All the "extrodinary renditions" to secret prisons in eastern Europe and some islamic countries.
Guantanamo. (Git-Mo)
And so on.
Would this bill also shield Clinton and his administration?
"The procedure was developed by Central Intelligence Agency officials [citation needed] in the mid-1990s who were trying to track down and dismantle militant Islamic organizations in the Middle East, particularly Al Qaeda. At the time, the agency was reluctant to grant suspected terrorists due process under American law, as it could potentially jeopardize its intelligence sources and methods. The solution the agency came up with, with the approval of the Clinton administration and a presidential directive (PDD 39), was to send suspects to Egypt, where they were turned over to the Egyptian mukhabarat, which has a reputation for brutality. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#1990s |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
