Khadr judge fired by military

[peter_puck]

The defending lawyers do not even have the option to view the evidence against them. Hard to defend someone when you have nothing to back you up. And the evidence against them cannot even be viewed. I understand some of this is TOP SECRET, But I think people would want closure about 9/11.

What is that evidence was based on the a of Osama Bin Laden's telephone ? Bin Laden would find out and switch telephones, maybe just before launching a huge attack (yes, I know Bin Laden probably does not use a phone, but you get my point)

What if the information against him came from a CIA agent inside Al Queda ? How long would it take that person to be killed (actually, probably a dam long time as they would get as much torture in as possible before he died)

I am sure the judge can understand evidence with Johny Cochrane giving his spin on it.

Here is another example. Before taking out Sadam, the US was able to decode Iran's encrypted communication. Iran found out about this (cause Bush is a ubertwit) and now the US (as far as we know) cannot read Irans communications.

Now lets say Olga is being tried as a North Korean spy. Should we let the North Koreans know we can read their mail just to convict Olga ?

[Peter F]

What is that evidence was based on the a of Osama Bin Laden's telephone ? Bin Laden would find out and switch telephones, maybe just before launching a huge attack (yes, I know Bin Laden probably does not use a phone, but you get my point)

What if the information against him came from a CIA agent inside Al Queda ? How long would it take that person to be killed (actually, probably a dam long time as they would get as much torture in as possible before he died)

I am sure the judge can understand evidence with Johny Cochrane giving his spin on it.

Here is another example. Before taking out Sadam, the US was able to decode Iran's encrypted communication. Iran found out about this (cause Bush is a ubertwit) and now the US (as far as we know) cannot read Irans communications.

Now lets say Olga is being tried as a North Korean spy. Should we let the North Koreans know we can read their mail just to convict Olga ?

Unfortunately your supposition has no basis in reality. If Olga, the North Korean spy, is in custody (as she must be if she is on trial), how is Olga to reveal to her Masters in Ponyang that the CIA can read the mail? Hold a press confrence? Write a book? Phone Kim Il Jong?

If the sole evidence against Olga is from her mail and revealing it will blow the CIA agent's cover - then I have to wonder what is the big rush to have Olga put on trial?

If the sole evidence against Olga is her mail and she is put on trial anyways, then I suggest that there is no CIA mole at risk of being blown - because if there was Olga wouldn't be going on trial.

Thus no need to keep Olga in the dark as to the evidence against her.

You see, the whole legal system is set up to ensure innocent people get to offer a defence against the charges and to show publicly that the government is incarcerating the guilty for actual factual reasons.

In Olga's case, the government is saying "beleive us, we have rock-solid evidence that Olga is a spy...we just cant tell you what that evidence is"

That is not evidence. That is just bullshit talk and nothing more.

That is called running a Kangaroo court. The credibility of the prosecuting state will suffer - because even if they are correct and Olga is a spy, there is no reason to believe them and every reason to believe the case was a setup.

One thing the State cannot afford to lose in its struggle against terrorism is its credibility.

[CANADIEN]

Omar Khadr is a terrorist. And as far as I am concerned he can rot in an American jail. AFTER HE HAS BEEN CONVICTED IN A LEGITIMATE COURT OF LAW.

The military commission and most especially its procedures are anything but legitimate. In a legitimate court of law, an accused person is informed of the evidence against him/her, and given an opportunity to respond to it. This is not happening here.

While an argument could be made that some evidence need to be (partly) concealed on national security grounds, determining what should be concealed should be done by an independent party, not the prosecution. In the Khadr case, one has to wonder what kind of information needs to remain secret: surely, it cannot be the reports stating that he was there, or any report stating that he fired the shot that killed an American soldier, or the autopsy report. May be it's from watching too much "Law and Order", but if you have the murder weapon, and the corpse, and the accused being arrested on the spot, you probably don't need secret evidence to prove your case

Some of the "justification" provided for the military commission is so absurd that it would elicit laughter if the subject wasn't that serious. "They are terrorists, so why bother with normal procedure"? - if a (mostly) normal trial, with lawyers for the accused and divulgation of the evidence, was good enough for Herman Goering in Nuremburg, it's good enough for Omar Khadr. "It's not in the US, so it's not subject to US law"? - Must be subject to Cuban law then - that's why you have Cuban health inspectors all the time checking the officers' mess' kitchen.

And the worse is "You are against the military commission, you must think Khadr is a nice guy". What a pile of m*nure. It's not about Khadr, it's about justice.

[Rue]

Bush-Chaney has tried to use an incident during Lincoln’s reign as President to suggest suspending the habeus corpus writ is acceptable under American law. This is an an absolute representation of the legal precedent that rose from that suspension.

In fact in the specific case where the writ of habeus corpus was suspended, Lt. John Merryman, of the Baltimore County Horse Guards,was imprisoned on May 25, 1861, in, Baltimore in Fort McHenry, by order of Union General Winfield Scott after the union occupied the city and began arresting suspected secessionists.

Since Baltimore was within the judicial circuit of Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney and Judiciary Act of 1789 required that the justices of the Supreme Court also serve as judges of the circuit courts which in those days. performed both trial and appellate functions, Taney presided over the case which allowed Merryman’s right to habeus corpus be suspended.

What of course Bush-Chaney deliberately ignored in his attempt to use this case as precedent to justify the current legal suspension’s suspending of the U.S. constitution was that less then two months later, Lincoln stood before Congress and in an Independence Day Speech stated and I quote;

"Soon after the first call for militia it was considered a duty to authorize the commanding general in proper cases according to his discretion, to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or in other words to arrest and detain, without resort to the ordinary processes and forms of law, such individuals as he might deem dangerous to the public safety. This authority has purposely been exercised but very sparingly. Nevertheless, the legality and propriety of what has been done under it, are questioned; and the attention of the country has been called to the proposition that one who is sworn to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed,' should not himself violate them."

Here let’s read that last sentence again for Bush-Chaney who suggests I find things to difficult to graspb and let’s all say it slowly for Bush-Chaney without any foreign accent;

“one who is sworn to take care that the laws be faithfully executed should not himself violate them.”

Someone may also want to point out to historian Bush-Chaney that Merryman was eventually released, and the above decision successfully challenged and thrown out.After the war, the Supreme Court officially restored habeas corpus in the case of Ex Parte Milligan (1866) which ruled that trials of civilians by Presidentially created military commissions are unconstitutional.

Of course Bush-Chaney’s selective memory seems to ignore that fact.

Yet another American patriot with a selective memory.

[bush_cheney2004]

Someone may also want to point out to historian Bush-Chaney that Merryman was eventually released, and the above decision successfully challenged and thrown out.After the war, the Supreme Court officially restored habeas corpus in the case of Ex Parte Milligan (1866) which ruled that trials of civilians by Presidentially created military commissions are unconstitutional.

Of course Bush-Chaney’s selective memory seems to ignore that fact.

Yet another American patriot with a selective memory.

Hey Einstein....over 13,000 Americans were detained in this way. The point of the reference was to demonstrate that President Lincoln took extraordinary measures to protect the Union, measures that violated the rights of Americans. He was able to do so because Congress was not in session.

Then you can move on to explaining the internment of 120,000 citizens and resident aliens of Japanese decent during WW2 by FDR, another one of America's greatest presidents. (Hint: that would be after 1866) It was upheld by the USSC.

I would say that puts President Bush in pretty damn good company.

Do the best that you can with Google....I understand that you don't live in America, but it's the next best thing.

[Rue]

I now wish to address another misrepresentation Bush-Chaney engaged in regards to the US Armed Forces and military law in an effort to justify using the military trubunal system as a political court.

Bish-chaney tried to misrepresent my response and suggest I was arguing the US military is not accountable to the US Constitution and civilian rule. That is not what I said. What I said is, the US military should be used for partisan political purposes or for that matter ANY political purpose.

Bush-Chaney would have you believe using the military as a political tool is legal since they are accountable to the US consitution and President. Nonsense. If this was the intent of the US legal system, then Presidents would rule by military force.

Bush-Chaney is misappropriating the doctrine of civilian control of the military. That doctrine does not state civilian control entitles civilians to use the military for partisan political purposes. What that doctrine states is that the ultimate responsibility for a country's strategic decision-making remains in the hands of the civilian political leadership, rather than professional military officers, not that civilians use military officers to carry out domestic and partisan political agenda.

The doctrine is intended to assure the military is subordinate to the policies created by the civilians elected to office but not if those policies are unconstitutional, illegal or violate international law. More to the point as Buish-Chaney should have been aware if he was a soldier, in day to day operations a soldier of any rank is accountable to his commanding officer not civilians.

Military members who fail to obey the lawful orders of their superiors in the US military would violate Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which makes it a crime for a military member to WILLFULLY disobey a superior commissioned officer.

More to the point Article 91 makes it a crime to WILLFULLY disobey a superior Noncommissioned or Warrant Officer and rticle 92 makes it a crime to disobey any lawful order (the disobedience does not have to be "willful" under this article).

I will finish this in the next post.

[Rue]

In Bush Chaney's attempt to take the doctrine of civilian control over the military to justify violating the US constitution and use of military personnel and tribunals to engage in political agenda he completely ignores the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court specifically ruled 5-to-3 in the Haden case that Mr. Bush had acted outside his authority when he ordered Al Qaeda suspects to stand trial before these specially organized military commissions. That ruling said that the commission process at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, could not proceed without violating US military law and provisions of the Geneva Conventions and that "The commission lacks power to proceed," as oer the words of Justice John Paul Stevens for the court majority.

It is precisely why Bush then passed another law to deliberately disobey this decision. That is precisely what the War Commision Act is-a deliberate, blatant, violation of the US constitution by Bush acting above the law. It is precisely because the US military is controlled and accountable to the same US President and thefeore obliged to follow his orders why Bush has used the military as a political agent in his current exercise to openly ignore the US Supreme Court's decision telling him what he is doing is unconstitutional. All Bush has done is pass a law saying he can violate the US constitution, ignore the US Supreme court and use the military to engage in this exercise.

For Bush Chaney to ignore the Haden decision and the reason why the War Commision Act was created and passed is again selective. He tends to only refer to those facts which suit his political opinion and ignore the rest which is exactly what Bush has done and is exactly a tendency in the US that the constitution was created to keep control over.

The US constitution exists precisely to prevent the Bush Chaney's of the world from thinking because they agree with something politically, they don't have to follow due process of the law and they can just force it on everyone else.

Iw ould suggest Bush Chaney's attitude reflects a primal US political tendency to try use force (the gun, violence) to define order. It dates back to the vigilante mentality that founded the country and reflects the popular belief of most of its citizens have the right to own a gun and establish right through might and force.

It's also a selective process which will see people invoke the constitution when it suits their political purposes (the right to own a gun, the right to control the military to carry out a political agenda) but also ignore the constitution (suspend habeus corpus, the right to full disclosure, the right to a speedy and fair trial) when it does not suit them.

Now do you think Bush Chaney who selectively uses the constitution when it suits him, (the military must obey Bush's desires) and ignores it (oh let's just ignore the US constitution in regards to anything but owning guns shall we and that includes Supreme Court decisions and due process of law or redefining military combatants as civilians but still trying them by military officers and of course violating international law) when it does not-do you think this paragon of consistency who quotes Lincoln will also lecture us that;

there is this crazy thing in the US called the Posse Comitatus Act and know it does not have to do with lynch mobs rounded up by Sheriffs.

This law was enacted in 1878 to prohibit the use of the U.S. army in civilian law enforcement, unless otherwise instructed by the president, thereby excluding the military from the civilian sphere. It came about after President Ulysses S. Grant sent a posse comitatus to the polls in the election of 1876, presented by Southern Democratic members of the House who sought to limit the use of federal troops during Reconstruction.

Its precisely why ever since the US military is not used as a domestic police force. That is the point. By redefining Kadr not as a soldier but a civilian, the US military is now being asked to be a police force against civilians not enemy combatants something they were not and never intended to be used for.

If we follow Bush Chaney's reasoning we do not need to seperate civilian and military courts. We just make one big court and have one armed force.

What Bush has done and has been very open in doing is stating he implemented the Patriot Act and War Commissions Act to violate the US constitution and create a new parallel enforcement agency that is not accountable to the Supreme Court of the USA, not accountable to congress, and not even accountable to the JAG office and military law, but the political partisan agenda of George Bush.

Some of us call that fascism. I know Benito Mussolini would approve. That is precisely the model of government he created.

Edited June 9, 2008 by Rue

[bush_cheney2004]

If we follow Bush Chaney's reasoning we do not need to seperate civilian and military courts. We just make one big court and have one armed force.

What Bush has done and has been very open in doing is stating he implemented the Patriot Act and War Commissions Act to violate the US constitution and create a new parallel enforcement agency that is not accountable to the Supreme Court of the USA, not accountable to congress, and not even accountable to the JAG office and military law, but the political partisan agenda of George Bush.

Some of us call that fascism. I know Benito Mussolini would approve. That is precisely the model of government he created.

No it wasn't, because if he had, he would still be around..you know...with super powers.

No vitriol for FDR?

Who is Bush Chaney?

Hell, Khadr isn't an American citizen last I checked!

[bush_cheney2004]

Iw ould suggest Bush Chaney's attitude reflects a primal US political tendency to try use force (the gun, violence) to define order. It dates back to the vigilante mentality that founded the country and reflects the popular belief of most of its citizens have the right to own a gun and establish right through might and force.

You're damn right it does....we booted your throne in the Royal Ass a long time ago 'bro. There is something about the right to bear arms in the US Constitution IIRC, and if you don't like it....tough noogies.

How do you like us now?

Edited June 9, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Topaz]

You're damn right it does....we booted your throne in the Royal Ass a long time ago 'bro. There is something about the right to bear arms in the US Constitution IIRC, and if you don't like it....tough noogies.

How do you like us now?

The world knows that if you're a US citizen you have the right to bear arms to kill anyone you want and to protect yourself from all those terrorists inside the US from killing you. Someone said you live in Canada now??? I wonder how welcomed Bush will be in Europe this time around?

[GostHacked]

You're damn right it does....we booted your throne in the Royal Ass a long time ago 'bro. There is something about the right to bear arms in the US Constitution IIRC, and if you don't like it....tough noogies.

How do you like us now?

Actually we don't.

And your well crafted responses are reasons enough to show what is wrong with America. Musolini would have died already due to old age. But we know what happened to him.

Rue points out the Posse Comitatus Act ... now with a few Executive Orders, Bush has circumvented the constitution and made his own rules. Now you see military personell roaming the streets of your average american city... but for what?? OH YES, urban training. Not only that, you have military personell from other countries training with those american soldiers in american streets. Essentially you can have a soldier from France dictating the localized area.

And with circumventing the constitution, you are violating it. Plain and simple. It is not my constitution at all, for I am just a Canuckian. But I know that the constitution has been compromised. And that should say something to you. BC accepts that the constitution is just a peice of paper with no merrit.

Or else you might find BC fighting the current idiotic status quo that comes out of the White House. Apologetic for sure. "This has the way it has always been, why change it." The thing is, it has already changed. But you failed to notice those changes. Funny how people outside the country can see it. But like other say, sometimes you don't even know what is going on in your own house.

Meh, expect more braniac one liners from BC. That is all he is capable of.

[bush_cheney2004]

The world knows that if you're a US citizen you have the right to bear arms to kill anyone you want and to protect yourself from all those terrorists inside the US from killing you. Someone said you live in Canada now???

Lots of guns in Canada too....and a fancy boondoggle registry for 'em. Down here, we don't just register them...we use 'em!

I wonder how welcomed Bush will be in Europe this time around?

Doesn't matter....less than a year to go. He's a rock star in Albania!

[CANADIEN]

Actually we don't.

And your well crafted responses are reasons enough to show what is wrong with America. Musolini would have died already due to old age. But we know what happened to him.

Rue points out the Posse Comitatus Act ... now with a few Executive Orders, Bush has circumvented the constitution and made his own rules. Now you see military personell roaming the streets of your average american city... but for what?? OH YES, urban training. Not only that, you have military personell from other countries training with those american soldiers in american streets. Essentially you can have a soldier from France dictating the localized area.

And with circumventing the constitution, you are violating it. Plain and simple. It is not my constitution at all, for I am just a Canuckian. But I know that the constitution has been compromised. And that should say something to you. BC accepts that the constitution is just a peice of paper with no merrit.

Or else you might find BC fighting the current idiotic status quo that comes out of the White House. Apologetic for sure. "This has the way it has always been, why change it." The thing is, it has already changed. But you failed to notice those changes. Funny how people outside the country can see it. But like other say, sometimes you don't even know what is going on in your own house.

Meh, expect more braniac one liners from BC. That is all he is capable of.

"It has been done before, so it's OK to do even worse". I wonder if that would apply to terrorist acts, genocides, murders, rapes, etc. Not I think it should, obviously, but then, neither you or I try to push that line.

[GostHacked]

"It has been done before, so it's OK to do even worse". I wonder if that would apply to terrorist acts, genocides, murders, rapes, etc. Not I think it should, obviously, but then, neither you or I try to push that line.

Well it seems obvious that the answer to violence is ... more violence. One should come to the conclusion that I do not support the current US aggression, and do not support terrorism, genocide, ect ect ect. Simply I think those acts are wrong and abhorent. I really hate the fact we are told to live in fear all the time. Hell no one even wants to talk to their neighbours anymore because we are all told to live in fear. Fear of anything, not just the boogyman that is terrorism.

Talk is cheap, but there are huge profits in talking to your neighbours.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well it seems obvious that the answer to violence is ... more violence. One should come to the conclusion that I do not support the current US aggression, and do not support terrorism, genocide, ect ect ect. Simply I think those acts are wrong and abhorent....

Interesting....did you specifically mean to exclude "current aggression" compared to any prior military adventures (aggression or otherwise) by the USA (or Canada)?

What kind of aggression do you support (if not a pacifist)?

[Leafless]

What have we here?

The U.S. military defence lawyer for Omar Khadr was under fire yesterday after highlighting that the Pentagon had allowed Guantanamo Bay interrogators to destroy their interrogation notes.

"One defence counsel in particular has habitually flouted the Rules of Court in leaking his pleadings directly to the press, at times grossly distorting -- and in the case of Judge Brownback's departure, fabricating -- information."

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...f3-057ee78df069

Seems the defense is content using MSM as part of the litigation process.

[GostHacked]

Interesting....did you specifically mean to exclude "current aggression" compared to any prior military adventures (aggression or otherwise) by the USA (or Canada)?

What kind of aggression do you support (if not a pacifist)?

Actually, I included it. Or did you miss that little bit.

Also

I have not really thought that one out yet. That is a work in progress. Guess I will learn me some history.

[bush_cheney2004]

Actually, I included it. Or did you miss that little bit.

Also

I have not really thought that one out yet. That is a work in progress. Guess I will learn me some history.

OK....that's swell...but in the meantime while you're thinking about it, violent (and non-violent) aggression will just have to do.

Edited June 10, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[myata]

I thought we had already sorted this out (maybe, even a few times?). I.e, the difference between an agression, and a lawful international police/protection/peacekeeping action? Have there been any new developments since? Or you just keep throwing the same deadweight argument over and again, in the hope that it'll one day learn to fly?

[bush_cheney2004]

I thought we had already sorted this out (maybe, even a few times?). I.e, the difference between an agression, and a lawful international police/protection/peacekeeping action? Have there been any new developments since? Or you just keep throwing the same deadweight argument over and again, in the hope that it'll one day learn to fly?

Care to name a few so we can demonstrate that your purposely narrow and skewed definition won't exonerate past actions?

Let's start with my favorite....Operation Allied Force in 1999 (Kosovo)

[GostHacked]

Care to name a few so we can demonstrate that your purposely narrow and skewed definition won't exonerate past actions?

Let's start with my favorite....Operation Allied Force in 1999 (Kosovo)

Watch out for the sniper fire !!!!

[myata]

Care to name a few so we can demonstrate that your purposely narrow and skewed definition won't exonerate past actions?

I probably would, if suffered from paranoid "deja vu" syndrome"; why else would anyone waste their time repeating what's already been said several times over (hint: searching the archives of this site may be helpful). Also, I undertake to invest into this one (only) more time, if you care to start a new thread on this topic.

[bush_cheney2004]

Looks like Khadr's legal team may get their wish courtesy of the US Supreme Court. By a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that detainees may challenge their circumstance in US civilian courts.

That will only take a few more years!

[Rue]

Oh look Bush-Chaney says..

"Hey Einstein....over 13,000 Americans were detained in this way.

Then you can move on to explaining the internment of 120,000 citizens and resident aliens of Japanese decent during WW2 by FDR, another one of America's greatest presidents. (Hint: that would be after 1866) It was upheld by the USSC."

Brilliant. You use an action engaged in by Lincoln's government that was later declared unconstitutional, and the internment of Japanese in World War Two as your basis of argument for why the current War Commissions Act is acceptable.

In so doing you demonstrate that;

i- you do not know the difference between making a moral argument and a legal one and try fuse them into one and the same, i.e., if you feel its morally acceptable, then it legally must be as well;

ii-that morality and legality are defined by whether other people engaged in the same acts.

Bush-C let us save for another day why all known doctrines of moral or legal equivalency are not based on partisan political opinions. That seems lost on you.

But hey, you feel so confident in your brilliance you call moi Einstein? Well I am Jewish and I do need a haircut.

Lol you want to throw physicists around? Here let's engage in some fractal theory shall we?

Guess what. Projecting and unilaterally imposing your moral opinion onto people as to what you feel is order, doesn't make that chaos necessarily orderly but it is self-serving and subjective and yes if you see the Virgin Mary's face in that brown stain on your pants, of course it must be true....

Here's a hint for you...law and morality may not simply be defined based on your political beliefs. They might as I am trying to suggest to you, actually be based on fundamental principles that are neutral to partisan political considerations or in this case your subjective opinions as to what is legal or moral.

And no, the US Supreme Court has learly rejected the kind self-serving politically partisan justification you try engage in over and over again.

Now let us once again expose your fallacious reasoning.

You make reference to the fact and infer that the US Supreme Court stated the internment of the Japanese during World War Two was morally and legally acceptable and again I say with utmost sincerity-oh bullshit.

In fact the two legal cases that dealt with this matter, Hirabayashi v. United States (1943), and Korematsu v. United States (1944) dealt with the issue of whether their fifth amendment rights were violated by the U.S. government because of their ancestry. In this legal context and only this legal conext in both cases, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the U.S. government.

The arguments I have raised to indicate why the legal process regarding Khadr is flawed have nothing to do with his being arrested because of his being a Muslim or an Arab and that is the only legal context in which the cases you quote would be relevant. All the arguments I have raised do not and have never dealt with 5th Amendment concerns and for you to try misrepresent these legal cases out of context shows you either have no clue how to read legal cases and understand the issues they are questioning or you are misrepresenting the context of those cases hoping no one will notice you are quoting them out of context to the limited and specific argument they relate to.

Of course I do note Bush that your selective memory kicked in again and you failed to mention that in 1988, the U.S. Congress passed legislation which awarded formal payments of $20,000 each to the surviving internees, (60,000 in al)l and also in that same year formal apologies were also issued by the government of Canada to Japanese Canadian survivors, who were each repaid the sum of $21,000 Canadian dollars, precisely because of the moral injustice these government actions caused.

Once again you demonstrate why the US government felt the very thing you claim is legally acceptable was immoral. Great way to establish your moral case. As for quoting cases dealing with a legal issue we are not talking about is a brilliant way to establish the legal precedent for your legal argument.

He's a hint, you want to quote a legal case? Try at least have it address the legal issues we are discussing and not some issue that is not being questioned or contested.

here's anothe hint Bush. Trying to quivalates a nation in a declared state of war with one that is not and assume they both are in the same legal relationship with their citizens or non citizens is absolutely and unequiviocally wrong. But hey I guess in your world if a tomato is red and an apple is red, that seems good enough to you right?

Do you really need for me to explain to you why interning people of the same ethnic group as a country the detaining state has declared war against is not the same legal situation as one which is dealing with people who are being detained because they could be suspected of being of the same nationality as a country the U.S. is not in a declared state of conventional war with?

Is that difficult for you to see the difference?

Of course that requires yout o first understand the difference between conventional war and the international laws that pertain to conventional war, and other legal situations where the U.S. is not in a declared state of war and also it would require you to understand the difference between a civilian and a military combatant as well.

At this point you seem to be fixated on the colour red and unable to get past that fact.

I appreciate in uyour simplel world as long as you claim to be fighting terrorism, any legal distinctions magically disappear in favour of your subjective political ones.

So why stop at Guantanamo Bay? We shall set up internment camps all over the USA and anyone we suspect of being a possible supporter of terrorists off they go. So let's see now, let's start with anyone with the name Abdul and Mohammed, Omar or Hussein (oops Obama's gonna get caught up in this drag net) and then move on to anyone with a swarthy complexion.

As long as Bush Chaney feels its politically acceptable then no problem, it is. No habeus corpus. We just round them up and off they go. Of course Bush Chaney's criteria for when one is interned is going to be if they are " suspected of engaging in terror" which of course will never be abused. Bush won't use it to round up anyone that disagrees with him politically. No not him.

Of course how will er know this? We just will take his word for it because you see Bush Chaney is not accountable to us, he doesn't have to provide you the grounds for why he has detained you we just assume he is someone above imposing his political partisan views on us and ignorning basic democractic principles such as freedom of assembly or expression and full disclosure of evidence used against us. Oh hell he would never abuse such a process. You have nothing to worry about if you write a post calling him a facist. He would never arrest you for that. How do I know? Well I don't. I have no way of knowing because in his world we are not allowed to know-but we are to assume what he says and does is o.k. and is beyond question or doubt.

Yah right.

Brilliant.

Sheer genius.

Me Einstein. You Benito Mussolini?

Edited June 12, 2008 by Rue

[Rue]

Just so Bush Chaney is clear the 5th amendment is used by someone on the stand. They invoke it to not have to say anything to incriminate themselves.

The actual constitutional issues in dispute with Gunatanamo Bay and the kadr case are the 6th amendment, (right to a speedy and public trial, right to sufficient disclosuyre and notice of the grounds of accusation, right to confront the accuser), the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment and treatment) and 14th amendment (due process and right to equal protection).

But hey why addressthe actual legal issues in dispute right Bush?

More to the point, the US Supreme Court has already ruled what is going on in G-Bay is unconstitutional. That is precisely why, Bush passed another law that allows him to ignore that decision.

Once again Bush does not adress the actual legal issues or the fact that his argument misses the point for the fourth tiem and that is-using political partisan legislation to ignore the US Supreme Court and the constitution, is bullshit.