Extremely Sad Day In America - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

GermanStar · #16 10-17-2006, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

I think this is what you guys are talking about, this is what the White House has to say about it:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061017.html

You can no longer place bets online in regard to whether Bush will declare Hillary Clinton an enemy combatant.

retmil46 · #17 10-18-2006, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

There is so much posturing about the new law that frankly, I don't know what the truth of it is.

Congress & president have been wrangling over treatment of prisoners and trial of suspected terrorists almost since the invasion of Afghanistan. The administration asserted that as CiC, the president, in time of war as enacted by Congress, could define who is an enemy combatant and how those persons could be treated. Nobody griped too much about it until a couple of American citizens were caught in the anti-terrorism net.

The question before the courts was this: is a presidential decree of combatant status sufficient to abrogate the natural rights of citizenship? It took several years to find its way up through the appeals system and the Supremes essentially said that a citizen retains his rights.

Concomitantly, non-citizens captured overseas and domestically were jailed and interrogated without either the full protection afforded legal aliens or citizens or legal combatants (according to the Geneva Conventions). These people were held without trial as enemy combatants but not given recognition as POW's through the Geneva Conventions (for a variety of reasons including not fighting in a uniform or under a banner, not carrying weapons openly, making war against noncombatants, concealing themselves in areas proscribed by the Conventions, and others). Bowing to international and domestic pressure, the administration, acting as CinC, established tribunals to administer military proceedings against some of the combatants. This process also was open to appeal, which was granted.

The appeals went to the Supremes who said that the process was flawed because it was enacted without going through the legal process required by law: passage through both houses of Congress.

So, this law was Congress' attempt to address both issues that the Supreme Court required.

I have not read the law and I have yet to read what I would consider an unbiased, objective analysis of the law. The one thing that I have heard that I think is extremely dangerous, if true, is that this law allows for attenuation of certain constitutional guarantees even to citizens. In all honesty, I don't give a damn what happens to some murderous bastard collected on the field of battle who is not a citizen. Waterboard the mofo, I don't care.

But I do not think that the CinC should have the power to declare a citizen unworthy of the rights of citizenship.

My opinion. Based on lots of opinion from lots of partisan jerks and no facts.

B

Agreed.

I've read in the paper that Sen Graham (R-SC) got what could be considered by many "payback" for his opposition to parts of the bill. Up until now, he had also been a military appeals judge in the Air Force Reserve. Rather strange timing, that just on the heels of his vocal opposition, it's been decided that it's illegal for him to be both a U.S. Senator and a military appeals judge, and was summarily removed from the bench.

IMHO, and I do mean opinion, after 20 years of watching firsthand some of the political BS that went on in the military, this WAS payback.

What impressed me was watching the three-stars that were head of their respective services' JAG corps, standing on their hind legs in front of a Senate committee and consistently saying "NO!" when it came to rewriting the Geneva Convention definition of torture. Sadly, I have the feeling that once the hoorah over this has died down, these three gents will get the infamous "congrats on your recent retirement" letter from Rumsfeld.

In my opinion one part of the bill is highly hypocritical. Giving CIA personnel legal immunity from prosecution for whatever methods of interrogation they use, when said methods could very well go above and beyond what was done at Abu Ghraib, and for which several enlisted military personnel are going to prison.

Austin85 · #18 10-18-2006, 12:54 AM

IMO This terrorism bill is an outrage but the sadder and more embarrassing day was when the crook got re elected by the freakin idiots that live in this country.

It's like that poster of "w" says..."Next time I bet you'll vote hippy!"

wbain5280 · #19 10-18-2006, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrierS

With the stroke W's pen, our country silently (for the most part) became witness to what may well be the saddest and most shameful day in our country's history. This is worse than an outrage. Right, left or center we share in the blame and shame.

Something has to be done about people not in uniform, acting as an army against civilians, using civilians as shields and other acts expressly forbidden under Geneva Conventions.

POW's were held during various previous wars without trial because they were combatants in uniform fighting for a country.

The aformentioned terrorists, an ununiformed army operating as a non-national entity need to be dealt with and swiftly. They want to kill us, you and me as well as other who populate this forum and the country regardless or political affiliation.

As to the previous poster's comment, I am not an idiot and I resent the implication.

Botnst · #20 10-18-2006, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MBlovr

I sure a lot of people didn't care what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany. ...

On this we'll just have to disagree.

The Jews were taken from their homes by the thousands and sent to concentration camps. Whole families were rounded-up for annihilation. The Nazis didn't want them to live unless they could be useful in work camps. Many were subjected to scientific experiments to determine the limits of the human body to different stressors and when damage was irrevocable and when death occurred.

The terror suspects are either caught in the act or tracked surreptitiously. The terror suspects are wanted alive to extract information. Families are not targeted. Experiments are not conducted.

It bothers me not one bit that these guys are made to stand-up, listen to Metallica for hours on end and not allowed to sleep. It's okay with me if they are tied to a plank and a wet towel is thrown over their faces to simulate drowning. You know? Even throwing their Quran into a toilet, extreme as that is, would be okay with me evem though that is now considered too extreme.

Yeah, just like Nazis.

#21 10-18-2006, 07:54 AM

LIke OMG dude I found this link on the interweb and it proves that Bush is conspring with congress.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2006-491

John Doe · #22 10-18-2006, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by retmil46

IMHO, and I do mean opinion, after 20 years of watching firsthand some of the political BS that went on in the military, this WAS payback.

.

Eh, this has been going on with the states for a few years, so it may or may not be a coincidence. In my state, a supreme court judge got removed as a commanding officer with budgetary responsibilities for having an exec/judicial conflict. I know of other sister states that filed amicus briefs in the case. Lindsey Graham is a good guy, btw.

John Doe · #23 10-18-2006, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrierS

With the stroke W's pen, our country silently (for the most part) became witness to what may well be the saddest and most shameful day in our country's history. This is worse than an outrage. Right, left or center we share in the blame and shame.

Boo--hoo. Yeah, this is far worse than unemployment, lack of affordable healthcare, domestic violence, crack, homelessness, oil wars, school shootings, child abuse and possible nude pictures of Hillary Clinton surfacing.

Sounds like a comment a Kennedy would have the liesure to make.

pj67coll · #24 10-18-2006, 11:25 AM

About damm time. Maybe someone in this country is finally starting to get a clue that were engaged in a war. Although I still think it'll take a nuke in Chicago to wake up the populace at large.

As to the morons who think terrorists rights are more important than my safety. I say only that I hope you will be a ground zero when it goes off.

- Peter.

riethoven · #25 10-18-2006, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

About damm time. Maybe someone in this country is finally starting to get a clue that were engaged in a war. Although I still think it'll take a nuke in Chicago to wake up the populace at large.

As to the morons who think terrorists rights are more important than my safety. I say only that I hope you will be a ground zero when it goes off.

- Peter.

Did you forget? We are the good guys. It doesn't matter what the Nazis did or what the terrorists did. We don't torture. We are supposed to follow the Geneva Convention.

This is just another way to highlight the "War on Terror" that features the largest military might on the earth against a small group of ill-equiped thugs. Yeah, they did 9-11 and a few other things, but they have no resources to really do any damage on our shores. We continue to overreact at the hands of the current administration and the US taxpayers are paying for it. Just wait for the day when the fed says that Social Security is canceled because they used the money to pay for things that they had no business spending it on. . . like going to Iraq.

retmil46 · #26 10-18-2006, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Doe

Eh, this has been going on with the states for a few years, so it may or may not be a coincidence. In my state, a supreme court judge got removed as a commanding officer with budgetary responsibilities for having an exec/judicial conflict. I know of other sister states that filed amicus briefs in the case. Lindsey Graham is a good guy, btw.

As I said, it's the timing that seems rather odd. Graham has been in the Senate for quite some time now, and just now they're getting around to deciding it's illegal for him to hold both positions?

Agreed, Graham does seem a cut above the usual politician, has a brain and uses it on occasion. Doesn't always blindly follow the party line, too many of that stripe on both sides. Fact that he is at least military reserve earns him a couple points in my book.

IMHO, it should be a requirement that anyone who runs for any type of national office, such that they would have a vote or some type of say in taking this country to war, has performed a tour of duty in the military. At least then they would have some small inkling of what they'd be getting the country, and our military personnel especially, into.

Botnst · #27 10-18-2006, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riethoven

Did you forget? We are the good guys. It doesn't matter what the Nazis did or what the terrorists did. We don't torture. We are supposed to follow the Geneva Convention.

This is just another way to highlight the "War on Terror" that features the largest military might on the earth against a small group of ill-equiped thugs. Yeah, they did 9-11 and a few other things, but they have no resources to really do any damage on our shores. We continue to overreact at the hands of the current administration and the US taxpayers are paying for it. Just wait for the day when the fed says that Social Security is canceled because they used the money to pay for things that they had no business spending it on. . . like going to Iraq.

What do the Geneva Conventions say about treatment of ununiformed combatants who are not signatories of the Conventions?

OMEGAMAN · #28 10-18-2006, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

About damm time. Maybe someone in this country is finally starting to get a clue that were engaged in a war. Although I still think it'll take a nuke in Chicago to wake up the populace at large.

As to the morons who think terrorists rights are more important than my safety. I say only that I hope you will be a ground zero when it goes off.

- Peter.

probably will if it hit's chicago

riethoven · #29 10-18-2006, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

What do the Geneva Conventions say about treatment of ununiformed combatants who are not signatories of the Conventions?

Don't know. Not an authority on the Geneva Conventions. I only know what is right. Torture is not right, and it is proven to not be effective. Even the military says we should not torture.

GermanStar · #30 10-18-2006, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I have not read the law and I have yet to read what I would consider an unbiased, objective analysis of the law. The one thing that I have heard that I think is extremely dangerous, if true, is that this law allows for attenuation of certain constitutional guarantees even to citizens. In all honesty, I don't give a damn what happens to some murderous bastard collected on the field of battle who is not a citizen. Waterboard the mofo, I don't care.

But I do not think that the CinC should have the power to declare a citizen unworthy of the rights of citizenship.

My opinion. Based on lots of opinion from lots of partisan jerks and no facts.

B

This isn't the first time lawmakers have gone down this path, and I doubt it will be the last: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran_Internal_Security_Act.