 |
 |
   Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Gnter Grass still thinks reunification was a bad idea.
 Forty years of writing from Taylor Branch, James Fallows, Katherine Boo, Marjorie Williams, Joshua Micah Marshall, and more.
 With help from Washington, the for-profit college industry is loading up millions of low-income students with debt they'll never pay off.
 The best recent memoir from republican Washington is a hoax. That should tell you something.
|
   |
|
|
November 28, 2006
By: HABEAS SCHMABEAS... A lot of shameful things went on in the run-up to the midterm election, but to my mind the worst offence was the rushed passage of the Military Commissions Act, with its denial of habeas corpus to detainees. Jeffrey Toobin has a useful primer in the New Yorker this week which a) reminds readers just how bad the legislation is, and b) details Arlen Specters role in the sorry affair (Specter had sponsored an amendment that would have restored habeas corpus to the bill, but when the amendment was narrowly defeated, he voted for the bill anyway.) At the time, I thought Democrats got way too much credit for their handling of this episodethe Times devoted an entire piece to chronicling how Senate Democrats had supposedly found their voice on national security issues. (They were probably heartened by some polling floating around that week from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, which found that Dems tested well when they talked tough on national security.) Admittedly, some Democrats did make some fine speeches. But without any attempt to filibuster the bill or delay it through procedural means, such opposition was only ever really window dressing. (In contrast, Senate Democrats did manage to stall the administrations efforts to legitimatize its wiretapping activities.) Unfortunately, as Toobin explains, Democrats seem to be in no rush to repair the damage in the foreseeable future: Few Democratic politicians seem enthusiastic about proposing legislation that will principally benefit accused Al Qaeda terrorists, and, in the unlikely event that Democrats passed such a bill, it would face a certain veto from President Bush. The Supreme Courtnot Congressis likely to be the only hope for a change in the law. This is definitely not going to be the first thing out of the box for us, one Democratic Senate staffer said. We make fun of Specter, but were basically leaving it up to the Courts, too. Comments
The Dems seem to be buying the spin that they are being nutty hatemongers when they try to apply normal oversight, even though the last election provided more than enough evidence that this is precisely what the public wants. What's keeping them? It's not like the Repugs needed greener lights to let them unleash their own agendas. Posted by: Kenji on November 28, 2006 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINKthe toobin article link in the first paragraph is broken Posted by: upyernoz on November 28, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINKPoor, poor terrorists. They'll have to undergo a military commission and an appeal to the DC Circuit, rather than habeas corpus. I feel just terrible for them. Thank goodness at least SOME Democrats are sticking up for the rights of terrorists! Posted by: Al on November 28, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINKPlease, Dems, keep fighting for terrorists' rights, and don't forget to impeach Bush while you are at it. Posted by: Bart on November 28, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINKWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. All men ? What a bunch of bullshit. Posted by: Bart on November 28, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINKAl, who's going to stick up for you when the Homeland Saviors take you away? Posted by: freelunch on November 28, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINKAl, whose rights are you fighting for? You clearly believe in a one-party state with no constitutional rights. How are you Korean lessons going? Pyongyang needs good men like you? Hey, Bart, nice job with the talking points. Any attempt at congressional oversight is supporting the terrorists? Clever! Posted by: Kenji on November 28, 2006 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK>Poor, poor terrorists. They'll have to undergo a military commission and an appeal to the DC Circuit, rather than habeas corpus. I feel just terrible for them. (Posted by Al) OK, AL. We'll take this VERY slowly. In Right Trollistan, people maybe can tell a terrorist just by looking at one. But in a civilized country, people have this hangup about giving somebody a fair trial in order to decide whether or not someone IS a terrorist. If Kevin's keeping an eye on us, well, please note that we're being pretty nice to the babysitters so far. Long as you keep Amy Sullivan away. Posted by: CFShep on November 28, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINKJim, I think you should have taken it even more slowly. There's no requirement anywhere to bring prisoners before a military commission in a timely fashion. And as long as the commission hasn't ruled, there's nothing to appeal. So if the commission doesn't get around to trying Abou Ben Adhem until he's 96, well, that's just too bad. Punishment first, trial later. Posted by: paul on November 28, 2006 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK"Punishment first, trial later." As long as you realize that appilies to you, too, right? Posted by: Kenji on November 28, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINKFew Democratic politicians seem enthusiastic about proposing legislation that will principally benefit accused Al Qaeda terrorists Look, if they are terrorists, Habeus will not benefit them. If they aren't terrorists, they should not be denied Habeus. Restoring the right of Habeus will not benefit terrorists, it will benefit our Constitutional form of government. Posted by: tomeck on November 28, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINKIt's a not-so-subtle appeal to racism, since the sight of water-boarded, electrocuted, raped, or murdered arabs, innocent OR guilty, barely stirs any emotion among many americans. Hell ... we can't even get our media to cover any hispanic or african american kidnappings, but missng white girls get entire fucking sagas built around them. The wingnuts count on this bigotry, and couch it in the confines of "security." It is done with the same wink and a nod that every repub has used since the 1970s to appeal to white trash voters. Sadly, it seems to be working. Posted by: Nads on November 28, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINKI guess we can't hold those truths to be self-evident anymore. When those on the Right voice the belief that habeas corpus is ready for the trash heap I can only think about the exchange in a Man for All Seasons: William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that! Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake Problem is we know what happened to Thomas More. Posted by: matt on November 28, 2006 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINKIn Right Trollistan, people maybe can tell a terrorist just by looking at one. But in a civilized country, people have this hangup about giving somebody a fair trial in order to decide whether or not someone IS a terrorist. . . . which is why we listen to their phone conversations first. . . Posted by: impeach.remove.convict.punish.justice on November 28, 2006 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINKRestoring habeas corpus won't do anything for "accused al Qaeda terrorists". Habeas is the right to ask "on what basis am I being held?" and benefits only those being held in legal limbo without any charges being filed. Whoever came up with that self-flattering cock-and-bull story about how Americans prefer freedom to their own skins? Posted by: BruceMoomaw on November 28, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINKHabeas is the right to ask "on what basis am I being held?" and benefits only those being held in legal limbo without any charges being filed. Um. No. It benefits those of us who are currently free, have done nothing wrong, and might be mistaken for legitimate, bona-fide terrorists. On Accident, or On Purpose. Why might I be mistaken for a terrorist? (on purpose): Could someone tell me why Sherrod Brown voted for the thing. I thought he was such a lib. Posted by: ally's gift on November 28, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINKMove on, Bart. You're not up to the level of discussion here. Posted by: Ace Franze on November 28, 2006 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINKJust which focus group decided that the constitutional protection provided by Habeas Corpus pamper's terrorists? Who elected them anyway? Earth to Democrats. Regardless of what the Jane Harman/Joe Leiberman wing of the Democratic party thinks, sometimes you have to stand up for the Constitution. Even if standing up is unpopular for the moment. That is why you are paid the big bucks. If Democrats stand up in the right way and at the right time they will earn the respect of the voters. Respect is more important than popularity. If the Republicans had earned respect by working hard, doing their job both honestly and competently, nothing Democrats said in the last election about Mark Foley or Macacca or anything else would have mattered. The Republicans would have won. Posted by: Ron Byers on November 28, 2006 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINKI think the phrase "beaten like a red-headed stepchild" may have to be changed to "beaten like Arlen Specter at a White House meeting." Posted by: norbizness on November 28, 2006 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINKPoor, poor terrorists. They'll have to undergo a military commission and an appeal to the DC Circuit, rather than habeas corpus. I feel just terrible for them. Al, I suggest you read the text of the Miltary Commissions Act of 2006 here. I know what terrorists look like: they look like Eric Rudolph or William Krar. What do you look like? Posted by: Peter VE on November 28, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINKHere is the deal-the gutting of our constitution is a terrible thing, but Dumbya's administration has postured the issue so that the Democrats would have to have a lot more courage than they do to change things. Even slight tweaking of the legislation and when the next terrorist attack occurs-and everone knows it will-will be blamed on Democrats taking away Dumbya's "tools". We are screwed plain and simple. Posted by: terry on November 28, 2006 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINKOne of the instructive indices here comes from another of our Republican Fascist issues: the ticking nuke as an excuse for torture. Well, there have been no ticking nukes uncovered or even menaced, and yet, as forewarned, innocents have been repeatedly tortured. Similarly, no terrorists have been set free due to an appeal for habeus corpus and yet innocents have been imprisoned. Allegedly non-fascist libertarians please note. Your entire political psyches, your rationale for never actually taking part in any political process, has been distrust of governments and states. Allegedly, you feel the tax on a pack of gum to be the equivalent of the Holocaust. And yet, you waved bye-bye to habeus corpus on the assurances of George W. Bush that nobody's rights would be abused. Rather like taking Humbert Humbert's assurance that Lolita's virginity was safe with him, don't you think? So, your humbug humbuggery about "jealously guarding rights" has been noted and mocked. Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) introduced what's now being called the "Military Commissions Civil Liberties Restoration Act" on November 17; the word is the bill will be taken up by the 110th Congress. I've read Leahy is working on similar legislation. There's many a slip, etc., and a veto looms, but let's not immediately get cynical about this. Instead, urge your Senator to co-sponsor Dodd's bill. PS: your Toobin "useful primer" link is broken. Posted by: Thomas Nephew on November 28, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINKMost of the detainees at Gitmo are innocent Afghani goat farmers who were the slowest runners when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan. By paying bounties, the CIA, who trained many of the mujaheddin, rounded up a lot of poor bastards who got sold down the river by their greedy brethren. This legislation is the most shameful since the Japanese detention camps during WWII and has no business being part of America. Every politician, Democrat or Republican, who voted for this atrocity should be impeached. Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on November 28, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINKJeffrey Many of the self-proclaimed liberatarians I've encountered are much more concerned with their rights (i.e., the right to do anything I please) than they are with other's rights. I don't expect them to be against torture until it's them on the rack. Posted by: tomeck on November 28, 2006 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINKAl, I suggest you read the text of the Miltary Commissions Act of 2006 here. No, there is a requirement for a review tribunal in the Geneva Conventions, which is US law. US citizens are not subject to Military Commissions, but may be declared an Illegal Enemy Combatant. President Clinton will declare John Yoo an "Illegal Enemy Combatant", and hold him until the War on Terror is over, or until he confesses, or until he changes his name to Jacobo Timmerman. US citizens may challenge their detentions as Illegal Enemy Combatant through habeas corpus proceedings. Jeebus. You need to read the act yourself. Posted by: Al on November 28, 2006 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINKAl, I rarely accord you much reading time, but I want to ask you this one question - after all this time, knowing that the Pres has violated both the US Constitution AND the Geneva Convention, and not least wrt the Gitmo detainees, what in Heaven's name leads you to believe that he, or his party, will follow any law that inconveniences them? Also, and feel free to inform me differently, this Administration specifically holds that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to Illegal Enemy Combatants. If so, then how will a requirement of the conventions be applicable? Specifically, the following is right out of the Act: "(d) Inapplicability of Certain Provisions- (1) The following provisions of this title shall not apply to trial by military commission under this chapter: IOW, there is no requirement to EVER hold a trial. and this: "(g) Geneva Conventions Not Establishing Source of Rights- No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights." IOW - no matter what the Conventions say, if the Pres says you are an unlawful enemy combatant, rights under the Conventions don't apply to you. I don't get it. Why would you say "Jeebus. You need to read the act yourself.", when clearly you have not? Jake Posted by: Jake - but not the one on November 28, 2006 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINKThis law is proof beyond a doubt that the Repukes are a criminal conspiracy of traitors and should be disbanded as a political party. Time to try, convict and throw these fascists in prison. Posted by: Tom3 on November 28, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK
On the day the Military Commissions Act passed, I was reading--coincidentally--an essay by E. L. Doctorow called something like "A Writer Reads the Constitution." It seems, according to Doctorow, that when the Founding Fathers began debating what they'd include in the Constitution they immediately agreed not only on what constituted treason but on the necessity of including habeas corpus. There was little or no discussion on these issues. In other words, they were no-brainers. Harrison Posted by: harrison on November 28, 2006 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK
My apology. Harrison Posted by: harrison on November 28, 2006 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINKah, will the dems ever finally throw off the yoke of their general pussy-ness when it comes to the GOP's "war on terror"? which is about as well defined and executed as a "war on all bad things." just waitin' for my pony. Posted by: mencken on November 28, 2006 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK>>This law is proof beyond a doubt that the Repukes are a criminal conspiracy of traitors and should be disbanded as a political party. Time to try, convict and throw these fascists in prison. Sign me up. Posted by: CFShep on November 28, 2006 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINKYeah the war on terror sounds like the phrases, "Making poverty history," or "Universal Health care," or "No one is illegal." Yeah get rid of all those too. Posted by: Orwell on November 28, 2006 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINKMost of the detainees at Gitmo are innocent Afghani goat farmers who were the slowest runners when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan. By paying bounties, the CIA, who trained many of the mujaheddin, rounded up a lot of poor bastards who got sold down the river by their greedy brethren. This legislation is the most shameful since the Japanese detention camps during WWII and has no business being part of America. Every politician, Democrat or Republican, who voted for this atrocity should be impeached. Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on November 28, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINKThese detainees have MORE rights than detainees in past wars. In past wars, uniformed enemy soldiers didn't have a right to a habeus corpus hearing. Non-uniformed enemy fighters had no rights at all. They could be summarily shot. Today, all these detainees have a right to a habeus corpus hearing and an appeal process. Those who complain about the loss of civil liberties are ignorant of history. Posted by: ex-liberal on November 28, 2006 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINKYeah the war on terror sounds like the phrases, "Making poverty history," or "Universal Health care," or "No one is illegal."
Legitimatize? Is that really a word? Or should it be "stall the administration's effort to legitimize its wiretapping activities"? Posted by: kwo on November 28, 2006 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINKIn past wars, uniformed enemy soldiers didn't have a right to a habeus corpus hearing. so, you've determined these people we're holding today are all enemy fighters ? how did you do that ? Posted by: cleek on November 28, 2006 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINKex-liberal: "Non-uniformed enemy fighters had no rights at all. They could be summarily shot." So you're claiming that in Vietnam and WWII, say, any non-uniformed person accused of being a enemy fighter, and captured, could be legally executed without any sort of hearing, is that correct? Posted by: ignorant on November 28, 2006 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINKI wonder what George Orwell would have thought of the phrase "war on terror." No, really. I can't imagine at all what he would have thought. "When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink." Posted by: Orwell on November 28, 2006 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINKcleek: so, you've determined these people we're holding today are all enemy fighters ? how did you do that ? cleek - in past wars, people picked up by the army in battle had no right to habeus corpus. Neither military nor civilian hearings were available. It may be a good idea to provide civil as well as military hearings to detainees, but even the military hearing process is much more than past detainees had. References to the Constution and civil liberties from Kenji, matt, et. al. are incorrrect. Bush is giving detainees more rights than in past wars. Those who are concerned about detainee rights should be praising Bush for having moved in the direction they believe is correct. Posted by: ex-liberal on November 28, 2006 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINKImpeach.remove: I am white, albeit a touch "swarthy," but that's about it as far as being "OK by a checklist." I'm single, over-40, looking enough like bin Laden to go to a couple of Halloween and New Year's parties dressed as him, a non-homeowner and ... an atheist. Of course, I'm concerned. Posted by: SocratricGadfly on November 28, 2006 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINKThe Conservative Deflator: Every politician, Democrat or Republican, who voted for this atrocity should be impeached. You make it sound as though they swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. Oh wait, they did. The Senators and Representatives ... shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution Ok, hang 'em. Posted by: alex on November 28, 2006 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINKWe're not talking about people picked up in battle, they fall under separate law, but people who are arrested within the borders of the US. Some who are arrested in their homes and held for years (so far). The ref to H.C. in the Constitution seems pretty clear to me: US Constitution: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." So, are we under invasion or rebellion? No.
'We by no means assert that Congress can establish and apply the laws of war where no war has been declared or exists. Where peace exists the laws of peace must prevail. What we do maintain is, that when the nation is involved in war, and some portions of the country are invaded, and all are exposed to invasion, it is within the power of Congress to determine in what states or district such great and imminent public danger exists as justifies the authorization of military tribunals for the trial of crimes and offences against the discipline or security of the army or against the public safety." "Where peace exists the laws of peace must prevail." So, does peace exist in the USA? Yes. Note in both the Constitution and Milligan the standard is WHERE not WHEN. Being at war somewhere else doesn't cut it. Anyone want to argue we are under Invasion? Rebellion? Most of us had a great Thanksgiving and are looking forward to Xmas. It seems pretty clear that no one within the borders of the US should have to fear being dragged out of their home to indefinite or eternal imprisonment. Not to mention "interrogation." Yet it is happening and it has been enabled by our Congress, including many weak- kneed Democrats. Posted by: ADAMS on November 28, 2006 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK Those who complain about the loss of civil liberties are ignorant of history. That's pre-1776 thinking. Posted by: impeach.remove.convict.punish.justice on November 28, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINKIn past wars, uniformed enemy soldiers didn't have a right to a habeus corpus hearing. You've got it backwards. In past wars, uniformed enemy soldiers didn't need habeus corpus because 1) they knew they were being held because they were enemy soldiers and 2) they knew they'd get out when the war was over. Few in Gitmo are uniformed enemy soldiers picked up on the battlefield. Many were arrested off the street in Pakistan, Aden or some other country. Since there is no hope the "War on Terror" will ever be over, they have no hope of ever being freed. So anybody who was picked up by the Pakistani secret service for no good reason needs habeus corpus as their only way out of that nightmare. Posted by: tomeck on November 28, 2006 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINKShorter "ex-liberal": Oh, what the hell, go for the Big Lie! Posted by: Gregory on November 28, 2006 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINKADAMS wrote: We're not talking about people picked up in battle, they fall under separate law, but people who are arrested within the borders of the US. Some who are arrested in their homes and held for years (so far). That's news to me. I thought the prisoners at Gitmo were almost all people who were picked up during the battles in Afghanistan. A question for those who claim there's no war still going. Are you the same people who are blaming Bush because Afghanistan isn't pacified or even claiming that we're losing there? Posted by: ex-liberal on November 28, 2006 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINKI would beware any unattributed source these days for indications about what the Dems will really do. "one Democratic Senate staffer" could very well be a plant. For example, it could be Marshall Whitman Let me tell you who is talking about this stuff that really matters, who will actually do something about it some day. Eighth graders. You want to know what America is going to look like in 20 years? Visit an eighth-grade classroom today, and then go home and get some sleep, because these kids are going to fix our fuck-ups. They are talking about the constitution and the war. I'm in rural Iowa, these are the kids who know they are going to be the ones fighting it if it keeps on. they are smart and wired and informed and cynical and they are going to hold us accountable in a very unpleasant way. And we have it coming. Posted by: Perpetually Inquisitive on November 28, 2006 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINKI thought the prisoners at Gitmo were almost all people who were picked up during the battles in Afghanistan. "ex-liberal," it's no matter whether your bullshit is from ignorance or dishonesty; it's still bullshit. For your information, no, the prisoners at Gitmo were not in fact almost all people who were picked up during the battles in Afghanistan. A question for those who claim there's no war still going. Ah, I see, it is dishonesty. Thanks for clearing that up. Posted by: Gregory on November 28, 2006 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINKThe habeas corpus bill was a heartbreaker, passed as it was the day before the Foley scandal broke. Had the Dems delayed legislation by just one day, we would live in a freer country. Posted by: Ronn Zealot on November 28, 2006 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINKGregory: "ex-liberal," it's no matter whether your bullshit is from ignorance or dishonesty; it's still bullshit. For your information, no, the prisoners at Gitmo were not in fact almost all people who were picked up during the battles in Afghanistan. Gregory, this site, which agrees with your politics, says: "Most [of the Gitmo prisoners] got yanked from Afghanistan..." I do believe my assertion was correct. Posted by: ex-liberal on November 28, 2006 at 9:15 PM | PERMALINKHere is the whole paragraph, in case anyone didn't follow the link: Most got yanked from Afghanistan, hauled across an ocean, and jailed in a complex of open-air wire cages where their families can't visit. They've been held without lawyers, trials, and no idea of how long they'll do time. Many were tortured, some force fed, 23 attempted to commit suicide, and several succeeded. In fact, i do believe we should read just a bit more of that article ex-liberal (*rolling eyes so hard it hurts*) was so thoughtful as to point us toward: Was the reason the hearings were cancelled because so many men were swept up in dragnet arrests or turned in as "terrorists" by bounty hunters who were not? We may never know. In late 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney spoke bluntly when, referring to the military commissions set up to try the men, he said: "We think it guarantees that we'll have the kind of treatment of these individuals that we believe they deserve." Got that? Cheney knows in advance of trial what they deserve. Sure, just as he knew "for a certainty" Iraq had WMD. He long ago passed judgment on the captives: "Prison term first, trial later." It's right out of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. Posted by: Perpetually Inquisitive on November 28, 2006 at 9:41 PM | PERMALINKDoes this person do this a lot? Take a snippet of a sentence and try to bolster an argument that is 180-degrees off from the position put forth in the piece the snippet is lifted from? Posted by: Perpetually Inquisitive on November 28, 2006 at 10:45 PM | PERMALINKShould habeas corpus apply at Cheney's trial? And will it apply when he's been cryogenically frozen (for extra freshness)? Posted by: Kenji on November 28, 2006 at 10:46 PM | PERMALINKIronic that Gitmo is turning out to be the latest version of Castro turning out his jails. Should habeas corpus apply at Cheney's trial? Oh absolutely. When the noose goes around that fat fucks neck, every "i" needs to be dotted and every "t" needs to be crossed. Whether they deserve the protections or not, they get them, because that is one of our core principles. "You got anything to say for yourself before we find you guilty?" --Judge Roy Bean Posted by: Perpetually Inquisitive on November 28, 2006 at 11:11 PM | PERMALINKOkay Kenji, now i'm seeing Cheney's head talking to Nixon's head and Clinton's head in that creepy room on Futurama. Thanks for that. Posted by: Perpetually Inquisitive on November 28, 2006 at 11:14 PM | PERMALINKEx-lib, there are actual facts underneath everything. A great many of the prisoners were not seized in Afghanistan, and very few by US forces. Many were picked up in Pakistan -- some by Pakistani police in raids on apartments in major Pakistani cities -- while others were arrested in Bosnia (in a courthouse where the court had just ordered them released for lack of evidence against them), Gambia, southeast asia, among other places. While some may have been seized on a battlefield, a great many were not. This is why it's important to have a fair process that sorts them out. As noted above, habeas isn't going to help the guilty. They're not in open air cages anymore, by the way, and have not been for a very long time. Posted by: CharleyCarp on November 28, 2006 at 11:29 PM | PERMALINKRegarding the Gitmo detainees, here is an excerpt from a chat session that Washington Post reporter Dana Priest did earlier this year: Chicago, Ill.: I had been under the impression that most of the detainees at Guantanamo had been captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan, but I recently read that this is not true. The majority of them have been captured in Pakistan, where our government has distributed flyers promising reward money for identifying al Qaeda operatives. How confident can we be that many of these detainees have not been framed? Posted by: Foo Bar on November 28, 2006 at 11:34 PM | PERMALINK "Most [of the Gitmo prisoners] got yanked from Afghanistan..." I do believe my assertion was correct. Your claim was that they were picked up during battles in Afghanistan. Your source only says that they were arrested in Afghanistan. The Northern Alliance and other warlords arrested all kinds of people who were sent to Gitmo. Many of these were not in battle. Plus there are others who were arrested in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and other countries. Shouldn't they at least have some right to contest their detainment (I mean in some other forum than a military tribunal that offers them no rights)? Posted by: tomeck on November 28, 2006 at 11:44 PM | PERMALINKtomeck: Shouldn't they at least have some right to contest their detainment (I mean in some other forum than a military tribunal that offers them no rights)? Maybe they should have such rights. (As an aside, a military tribunal has real value; a number of Gitmo prisoners have been released after military tribunals.) However, my point was thst comparable prisoners in past wars had no habeus corpus rights at all, not even a military tribunal. Detainee rights have been expanded, not contracted. Posted by: ex-liberal on November 29, 2006 at 12:17 AM | PERMALINKLook, the chances of a "Restoration of Habeas Corpus" bill getting enacted are slim, even if all dems stick together. Getting past a Senate filibuster is hard enough, then there's the presidential veto. It doesn't surprise me AT ALL that it isn't a priority. The main chance for restoring our constitutional rule of law and our honor as a nation, is for the Supreme Court to drag the Military Commissions law behind the bench and eviscerate it with a rusty spoon. Now, with *this* Supreme Court that's perhaps not likely, and I'd expect that ShrubCo puts up a spirited (and deeply dishonest) defence. But that's where the dem control of congress can really help: we need MAJOR investigations, with public release of the results, of the detentions, the interrogations, the treatment of the detainees, who they are and how they got there. Get the evidence of ShrubCo crimes OUT there, don't let them use the "oh, it's a *secret*" defence, show that the claims of "we got GOOD information from waterboarding" are bogus. Shine a bright light on all their lies. Investigate, investigate, investigate. In other words, blow the ShrubCo defence of the military commissions act OUT OF THE WATER before it even gets to the Supreme Court. In particular, show where ShrubCo has told lies to lower courts when defending the Military Commissions act (yes, they'll lie; that's what they've done many times before). Judges *hate* being lied to, and if the ShrubCo dishonesty is laid bare, even Scalia will be fingering a rusty spoon when the Military Commissions act comes up for review. Posted by: Satan luvvs Repugs on November 29, 2006 at 12:21 AM | PERMALINK裸体图片 美女自拍 激情图片 激情小电影 性感图片 性交图片 做爱图片 成人小说 偷拍走光 美眉图片 人体写真 性虐待电影 写真集 激情电影 免费影院 日本av电影 美少女贴图 性感美女图片 美女写真 漂亮妹妹图片 同志电影 性交姿势 美女走光 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 性变态图片 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 激情论坛 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 美腿图片 三级片 成人性爱电影 写真电影 美女阴图 美女乳房 性电影 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装图片 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交电影 做爱电影 性福 人体摄影 裸女图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线 免费影片 最新大片 看免费电影 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 两性写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 美女脱衣电影 裸体美女 手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水图片 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 韩国电影 性知识 最新电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 强奸图片 色情图片 黄色小说 黄色电影 强暴电影 乱伦图片 轮奸电影 迷奸电影 夜曲 为什么相爱的人不能在一起 约定 不得不爱 触电 Posted by: 手机图片 on November 29, 2006 at 2:20 AM | PERMALINKex-lib writes: You apparently have not been reading the news. An American citizen, Jose Padilla, was picked up at an airport in Chicago and detained for two years without access to the courts. I say keep this law. The next Democrat that becomes President should designate the entire Bush cartel as enemies of the state and detain them without access to lawyers or the courts, or any of their rights, in a Naval brig until the Republicans overturn this law. The way the law is written, the President has supreme power over who is designated an enemy combatant and any rights he/she may have. ex-lib: Gregory, this site, which agrees with your politics, says: "Most [of the Gitmo prisoners] got yanked from Afghanistan..." I do believe my assertion was correct. Re-read what you wrote. Your assertion is wrong. Posted by: Andy on November 29, 2006 at 3:20 AM | PERMALINKOh, good Ford, it's too rich! "ex-liberal," having had the reiteration of his/her/its association embarrassingly exposed as either abject ignorance or outright mendacity -- and again, given "ex-liberal"'s track record in this very thread and elsewhere, we know it's the latter -- blithely and shamelessly ignores the fact that his/her/its lie has been exposed again and asserts, again, that "Detainee rights have been expanded, not contracted." Still wrong, "ex-liberal." The facts simply do not expose this position, as has been explained to you over and over again. Simply repeating your assertion in the face of the evidence to the cotnrary proves nothing but that you're a dishonest commentator. But we knew that. Posted by: Gregory on November 29, 2006 at 8:56 AM | PERMALINKcleek - in past wars, people picked up by the army in battle had no right to habeus corpus. Neither military nor civilian hearings were available. It may be a good idea to provide civil as well as military hearings to detainees, but even the military hearing process is much more than past detainees had. that's not what i asked. this is not "past wars". Posted by: cleek on November 29, 2006 at 8:59 AM | PERMALINKcleek, I will try to explain my POV another way. Wars are horrible. The normal rules don't necessarily apply. Consider these questions: Do 45 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan have a right to live in peace and freedom? Do hundreds of millions of Muslims in other countries have a right to live in peace and freedom? Most of us would say, "yes". But, providing peace and freedom for these people is a difficult, uncertain task. Bringing peace and freedom to these people will also help the west, because it's a way of dealing with the root causes of terrorism. To focus only on the fate of a few hundred prisoners at Gitmo is to ignore the enormous scope of the worldwide struggle. Posted by: ex-liberal on November 29, 2006 at 10:46 AM | PERMALINKI will try to explain my POV another way. No matter how you explain it, it's still dishonest. Wars are horrible. The normal rules don't necessarily apply. That dog won't hunt, "ex-liberal." There are "normal rules" -- rules which, as treaties ratified by the US, are binding US law. Bush has chosen to violate these rules. Pretending this is some kind of unforeseen new situation is also dishonest. providing peace and freedom for these people is a difficult, uncertain task. Objection: Assertion not in evidence. "ex-liberal" seeks to imply that the US is in fact bringing "peace and freedom" to the people of Oraq and Afrhanistan. The evidence suggests otherwise. To focus only on the fate of a few hundred prisoners at Gitmo is to ignore the enormous scope of the worldwide struggle. Shorter "ex-liberal": Okay, you've totally shot down my dishonest defenses of Bush's policies, but I still assert that the end justifies the means. Pathetic, "ex-liberal". Embarrassing. Shameful. Why do you bother? Posted by: Gregory on November 29, 2006 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINKHowever, my point was thst comparable prisoners in past wars had no habeus corpus rights at all, not even a military tribunal. Comparable prisoners in past wars had no habeas rights because they were not charged with a crime, but were held as POWs to be released once the war ended. We however are not holding them as POWs, but as criminal suspects, and therefore cannot claim the customary treatment of POWs as justification. Moreover, you are wrong that past prisoners had no right to a hearing -- while not a habeas hearing, POWs had the right to a hearing to determine whether they were in fact POWs or were inadvertently captured non-combatants. Posted by: Stefan on November 29, 2006 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINKI find it hard to believe that the dems couldn't muster 40 votes to filibuster this piece of unconstitutional crap; they didn't even try. Posted by: Brian Boru on November 30, 2006 at 1:05 AM | PERMALINKOrder Generic drugs Buy Generic drugs without prescription You could get the following medicines at cheapest prices: attract women pheromones
attract women pheromones 
November 2009
October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
