Senate approves torture for terrorists - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Willravel · 10-24-2006, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

I love how tough interegation tactics have been hijacked and are now considered torture. It breaks my heart that this country has become so pussified

I'm curious how you can think that waterboarding isn't torture. Have you ever been waterboarded?

ratbastid · 10-24-2006, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

I love how tough interegation tactics have been hijacked and are now considered torture. It breaks my heart that this country has become so pussified

Yeah, dude, you're so tough, you'd probably go a whole ninety seconds on a waterboard before making up some bullshit to confess to. That's twenty seconds longer than average, you big tough Amurcan, you.

NCB · 10-24-2006, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I'm curious how you can think that waterboarding isn't torture. Have you ever been waterboarded?

Waterboarding is more of a psych technique then a physical one. I have no problems with it

hiredgun · 10-24-2006, 10:35 AM

NCB: The US has considered waterboarding to be torture in the past. The rules allowing it are what's new here, not the condemnation of the tactic.

Also, I should warn you that talking about "pussification" makes you come off as pretty immature.

Edit: I was way too late.

NCB · 10-24-2006, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiredgun

NCB: The US has considered waterboarding to be torture in the past. The rules allowing it are what's new here, not the condemnation of the tactic.

What dont you like about the technique?

Quote:

Also, I should warn you that talking about "pussification" makes you come off as pretty immature..

As oppossed to post #122? I'll take my chances I reckon'

hiredgun · 10-24-2006, 10:53 AM

Well, here's a description:

Quote:

The physical effects of poorly executed waterboarding can be extreme pain and damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation and sometimes broken bones because of the restraints applied to the struggling victim. The psychological effects can be longlasting.

Dr. Allen Keller, the director of the Bellevue/N.Y.U. Program for Survivors of Torture, has treated "a number of people" who had been subjected to forms of near-asphyxiation, including waterboarding. An interview for The New Yorker states:

[Dr. Keller] argued that it was indeed torture. Some victims were still traumatized years later, he said. One patient couldn't take showers, and panicked when it rained. "The fear of being killed is a terrifying experience," he said.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding )

I don't think we should be inflicting physical or psychological trauma if we can help it. I think legalizing and routinizing it is certainly a misstep. I do think it might be possible to make a coherent case for the technique, but a priori dismissal of any dissent as "pussified" is basically meaningless.

Willravel · 10-24-2006, 10:55 AM

Wikipedia forgot about death as being a possible physical effect of waterboarding.

Paq · 10-24-2006, 11:13 AM

'accidental' death

yep...great stuff.

I'm so proud of my country lately. This combined with the suspension of habeas corpus...just nothin but good stuff lately.

pig · 11-05-2006, 10:28 AM

Just saw this elsewhere...looks like the legal battle is cranking up over the military trial courts and denial of legal council.

The first rule of Rendition Club is - you do not talk about Rendition Club. The second rule of Rendition Club - you do not talk about Rendition Club. The third rule of Rendition Club - you do not talk about Rendition Club. link.

Xell101 · 11-06-2006, 10:19 PM

When it'll work you can count on it being done regardless of legal status. That they're legislating this seems like baby steps to the tune of 'You can trust me, we're taking the legal route.' Besides, it's pretty well established torture is unreliable. Also, given what we do do, saying torture so much rather cheapens the term.

pai mei · 03-20-2007, 02:35 AM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4...36913&hl=en

Search at 1hour and 29 minutes in the movie above. You will see how the confessions of Khalid Mohammed were obtained :
"Whatever we need to do to get the truth out"
"Block his breathing with an artificial respiration machine"
Also there is the mental torture : torturing his children in front of him or just threaten him that his children will be tortured.

Willravel · 03-20-2007, 10:58 AM

Precisely correct, pai mei. And it's reasonable to deduce that, since his testimony was derived from torture, and we've already established that torture is not by any means a reliable source of information, that his testimony is meaningless.

Rekna · 03-20-2007, 01:05 PM

While I have no doubt that this man has done many evil things I also have to say I do not believe everything that he has confessed to. I think he is trying to make himself look bigger than he really was. One thing that should be considered is that if he were being tried in US civilian courts the judge would probably throw out the entire case and all of this would be inadmissible.

roachboy · 03-20-2007, 02:10 PM

you would have thought that the experience of the inquisition would have been enough on its own to dissuade folk from using torture to extract "confessions"---the meaning of which is generally "stop what you are doing to me...no, really. stop it. stop it now. here's what you want me to say..."
you would have thought that the debacle the french experienced and in some ways are still experiencing in algeria would have been enough...
you would have thought that any number of instances of this circular relation between torture and "information" gathered would have ruled out its use.
but then again, you also would have thought that basic ethics would have had the same effect.
apparently, any relation to the past as it might bear on the present, and any relation to ethics as they might limit actions are all out the fucking window when a neo-fascist regime understands that heimat to be threatened by a Contaminant....

dc_dux · 03-20-2007, 02:20 PM

On the positive side, there are bills in the new House and Senate to restore the rule of law - "No reason why we can’t fight the War on Terror and live up to our obligations under US law and the Geneva Conventions"

Both the “Restoring the Constitution Act” and the “Habeas Corpus Restoration Act” will bring credibility to the process of detaining terrorist suspects by placing it within a legal framework. This includes: restoring habeas corpus, narrowing the definition of “unlawful enemy combatant” as defined in the Military Commissions Act, prohibiting evidence obtained under coercion, and affirming the Geneva Conventions....

"We had an opportunity to show the world that the United States could fight those who would do us harm and protect our core values. That we could be both strong and just."

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press...n/March_8.html

pig · 03-20-2007, 06:23 PM

yeah roach,

but that presupposes, even if its devil's advocate style for the sake of argument, that the primary function of current torture techniques is to gain information. i have to assume that the military shrinks are as competent as any, on average; therefore i have to deduce that they are not, in fact, after information. i can only surmise that they seek to humiliate and instill fear into our adversaries. perhaps develop scapegoats for the public eye whilst our military covertly operates on other premises and angles. i can not believe that the people who are actually working the various policies being enacted actually think this bullshit works. i don't like it, but i do think that its as much "hey - we're as badass and coldhearted as you fuckers are. our citizens may live nice little kotex padded lives, but our guardians are real fuckers." as anything else.

even that i could deal with on a certain level, as it would open the door for useful discussion and debate that is based in reality. the fantasy debates are just tedious.

host · 06-12-2008, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...09-28-19-09-50

While I can hear the clicking figers of typed outrage from here, we can now put to rest the whole 'does the president have the power' or 'do terrorists have rights under the constition' argument.

I of course have long advocated the use of torture for terrorists, being that you can't expect people willing to turn themselves into human bombs for the gift of magic virgins from their invisible friend in the sky to give information willingly and it will save innocent lives. Being US methods are not maiming and more along the lines of discomfort I don't shed any tears or feel we left some mythical high road in light of how our enemies treat prisoners.

This is a needed tool in the war on terror, I'm just surprised so many democrats signed on but I'm willing to be that every one of them is up for re-election this year or thinking of running for the presidency in 2008.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

one of the few things emanating from a republican that i agree with on this latest travesty the bush administration has foisted upon us:

Quote:

Specter said hearings before his Judiciary Committee showed that the military Combatant Status Review Tribunals do not have an adequate way of determining whether suspects are enemy combatants.

He charged that by striking habeas corpus rights for terrorism suspects, the bill "would take our civilized society back some 900 years" to a time before the Magna Carta was adopted. He said this was "unthinkable."

"What this entire controversy boils down to is whether Congress is going to legislate to deny a constitutional right which is explicit in the document of the Constitution itself and which has been applied to aliens by the Supreme Court of the United States," Specter said. If the bill passes without habeas corpus protections, it will be struck down by the high court, and "we'll be on this floor again rewriting the law," Specter predicted.

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2800824_2.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Has it been mentioned that two of the "heroes", John McCain and Arlen Specter, "stood up to the pretzeldent",
and then voted for this fascist abortion of the consititution, anyway....as did that "stalwart" democrat, Jay Rockefeller?

Quote:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001637.php
Court Challenge to New Detainee Law May Come In "Days"
By Justin Rood - September 29, 2006, 1:02 PM

With President Bush poised to sign the White House-backed detainee treatment bill into law, groups are promising to challenge it in court "in days."

“I don’t think there’s a snowball’s chance in ‘H’ that this will be found constitutional,” Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, told "Congressional Quarterly" (sub. req.). CCR represents a number of Guantanamo prisoners.

Strangely, some senators who voted for the bill weren't convinced of its constitutionality. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), who voted for the bill even after his amendment to preserve certain rights for detainees was defeated, called the proposal "patently unconstitutional on its face," The Washington Post <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092800824.html">reported</a>. When CQ asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who negotiated with the White House to win minor concessions on the legislation, if the bill was constitutional, he responded "I think so."

How many of our troops suffered avoidable deaths in Iraq and in Afghanistan?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092900368.html

This....this seems so....so.... "American" !:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews
Detainees Now Have Access to Federal Court

By Josh White and Del Quentin Wilber
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 13, 2008; Page A04

Defense attorneys for the 270 detainees at Guantanamo Bay said the Supreme Court decision yesterday that granted detainees habeas corpus rights was a watershed moment that will allow the men, some held for as long as 6 1/2 years, to challenge their detentions before a civilian judge.

....The court's ruling immediately gives the detainees access to a federal court in Washington, where lawyers will seek to have judges order the men released from indefinite detention. Legal experts said it is unclear how the hearings will proceed, but the government could be compelled to present highly classified evidence, and detainees could for the first time be able to publicly call witnesses, present evidence of abuse and rebut terrorism allegations.
ad_icon

The decision could force the U.S. government to show why individual detainees must be held, something U.S. officials have fought for years. As many as 130 detainees have been deemed dangerous but are unlikely to ever face criminal charges, according to prosecutors, and now government officials could have to argue for indefinite detention even if the evidence is flimsy or nonexistent.

"We're going to see a high number of people the government is going to have to release," said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has represented Guantanamo Bay detainees since 2002....

My country, 'tis of thee,
Sweet land of liberty,
Of thee I sing;
Land where my fathers died,
Land of the pilgrims' pride,
From every mountainside
Let freedom ring!

SCOTUS Majority Opinion, Issued June 12, 2008:

Quote:

The Framers' inherent distrust of government power was the driving force behind the constitutional plan that allocated powers among three independent branches. This design serves not only to make Government accountable but also to secure individual liberty. . . .

Where a person is detained by executive order rather than, say, after being tried and convicted in a court, the need for collateral review is most pressing. . . . The habeas court must have sufficient authority to conduct a meaningful review of both the cause of detention and the Executive's power to detain. . . .

Security depends upon a sophisticated intelligence apparatus and the ability of our Armed Forces to act and interdict. There are further considerations, however. Security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom's first principles. Chief among these are freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to separation of powers. . . .

The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system, they are reconciled within the framework of law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, part of that law.

roachboy · 06-13-2008, 03:49 AM

finally.
something good happened to put a term on this "kafkaesque nightmare" (i know i just saw this phrase somewhere...) that the bush people had put into motion, the war on due process which they called the "war on terror"

Quote:

Supreme court ruling on right to trial puts Guantánamo future in doubt

· Prisoners can take cases to civilian courts, justices say
· Historic decision is blow to Bush policy

* Ewen MacAskill in Washington
* The Guardian,
* Friday June 13 2008

The future of the infamous Guantánamo detention centre was thrown into doubt yesterday after the US supreme court delivered the most serious blow yet to President George Bush's policy of holding prisoners indefinitely without trial.

The justices, in a historic ruling, said the 270 prisoners, held for more than six years for alleged links with al-Qaida and the Taliban, have a constitutional right to take their cases to civilian courts on the US mainland.

Lawyers for the prisoners yesterday hailed the ruling as a vindication of their battle to have Guantánamo, in Cuba, closed.

Travelling in Rome, Bush said he did not agree with the ruling. "We'll abide by the court's decision. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it," he said.

The nine-member supreme court normally has a rightwing bent but Justice Anthony Kennedy, a maverick conservative who holds the balance of power, joined his more liberal colleagues to provide a 5-4 majority.

"The laws and constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times," Kennedy said.

At present the prisoners are classed as enemy combatants and face trial in military commissions set up by the Bush administration.

Their lawyers are expected to lodge habeas corpus petitions with federal courts as a matter of urgency, demanding their release.

Scores of cases related to the prisoners have been on hold in the federal courts pending the ruling. Federal judges, thrown into consternation by the ruling, met yesterday to decide how to proceed.

It is the third time that the supreme court has ruled against Bush on Guantánamo. On the previous two occasions, the administration and the Republican-controlled Congress changed the law to strip the detainees of their right to habeas corpus.

Bush cannot go to Congress this time because it is now controlled by the Democrats, who favour closing the camp.

The definitive nature of the ruling will make it harder for the Bush administration to manoeuvre round.

One option, though it would create an outcry, would be to close the camp and transfer the prisoners to another country, such as Afghanistan.

In the split decision, Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, sided with the dissenters. He described the existing set-up at Guantánamo as "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants".

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also dissented. Scalia said the nation is "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens joined Kennedy to form the majority.

Souter wrote a separate opinion in which he emphasised the length of the detentions.

"A second fact insufficiently appreciated by the dissents is the length of the disputed imprisonments, some of the prisoners represented here today having been locked up for six years," he said.

Reflecting the chaos created by the ruling, a lawyer for Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's one-time driver, said he will seek dismissal of the charges against Hamdan. A military judge had already delayed the military trial's start at Guantánamo to await the supreme court ruling.

Navy Commander Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman, said he had no immediate information whether a hearing at Guantánamo for Omar Khadr, a Canadian charged with killing a US special forces soldier in Afghanistan, would go forward next week as planned.

Vince Warren, executive director of the New York-based Centre for Constitutional Rights, which represents more detainees than any other group of lawyers, said he hoped the Bush administration would not react by transferring the detainees to "a black hole" in another country, such as Bagram airbase in Afghanistan.

Clive Stafford Smith, director of the London-based Reprieve, which represents 35 prisoners, said the ruling was "catastrophic" for Bush's "secret prisons policy". He added: "But the prisoners still have a long way to go."

Amnesty International wrote to the prime minister, Gordon Brown, yesterday urging him to raise with Bush on his visit to London next week the issue of three prisoners with British links.

The three prisoners are: Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian formerly resident in London; Shaker Aamer, a Saudi national formerly resident in London; and Ahmed Belbacha, an Algerian who lived in Bournemouth.

Both the presidential candidates, the Democrat Barack Obama and the Republican John McCain, have said they would close Guantánamo on taking over the White House.

McCain reiterated that pledge yesterday: "I was in favour of closing Guantánamo Bay and I am still in favour of that," he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...amo.georgebush

this ruling made me happier than the celtics did last night.
it is an indication of the extent to which the climate of hysteria the right relied upon to rationalize its policies has crumbled.
the fact of it is a reminder of how dangerous such hysteria really is.

mixedmedia · 06-13-2008, 04:08 AM

ratbastid · 06-13-2008, 04:41 AM

Amazing. Even Bush's personally-installed puppet court is giving him a low approval rating.

Cynthetiq · 06-13-2008, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

finally.
something good happened to put a term on this "kafkaesque nightmare" (i know i just saw this phrase somewhere...) that the bush people had put into motion, the war on due process which they called the "war on terror"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...amo.georgebush

this ruling made me happier than the celtics did last night.
it is an indication of the extent to which the climate of hysteria the right relied upon to rationalize its policies has crumbled.
the fact of it is a reminder of how dangerous such hysteria really is.

I think this is a good reason why checks and balances exist. It also paves the way for future changes as precedents get set.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Amazing. Even Bush's personally-installed puppet court is giving him a low approval rating.

what's his personally installed puppet court?

The_Jazz · 06-13-2008, 05:11 AM

Yeah, Bush hasn't even nominated a quorum. He's put 2 judges on SCOTUS, Roberts and Alito.

ratbastid · 06-13-2008, 05:55 AM

Criminy. I meant it as a sort of ironic joke. It may not have been funny, I admit, but y'all need to lighten up.

Cynthetiq · 06-13-2008, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Criminy. I meant it as a sort of ironic joke. It may not have been funny, I admit, but y'all need to lighten up.

damn that Alanis Morrisette... I haven't the foggiest idea of what people mean when they say Ironic anymore

roachboy · 06-13-2008, 05:58 AM

well, i stand by the claim that the problem was the climate of hysteria generated by the idiot response to 9/11/2001 and maintained for political purposes through 2005 at the least. you can still see the traces of the division between those who think within that frame and those who dont in the distance separating scalia's minority opinion from the majority opinion.

to take this a step further: i see nothing automatic in the american system of checks--i see this decision as a reflection of the dissolution of the environment they worked to maintain. collective hysteria remains a huge and frightening possibility, a permanent problem. and the contemporary ideological apparatus--which we call "the media"--makes such hysteria a constant possibility.

ratbastid · 06-13-2008, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

damn that Alanis Morrisette... I haven't the foggiest idea of what people mean when they say Ironic anymore

And that grabbed your attention so completely that you missed the part about lightening up...

Cynthetiq · 06-13-2008, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

And that grabbed your attention so completely that you missed the part about lightening up...

I did

it's what made me think of the song

dksuddeth · 06-13-2008, 08:05 AM

having read only part of scalia and roberts dissent, i'm hugely dissapointed that somebody who calls themselves strict constructionists and originalists feel that safety overrides freedom. totally disgusted with the 4 dissenters right now.

host · 06-13-2008, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

well, i stand by the claim that the problem was the climate of hysteria generated by the idiot response to 9/11/2001 and maintained for political purposes through 2005 at the least. you can still see the traces of the division between those who think within that frame and those who dont in the distance separating scalia's minority opinion from the majority opinion.

to take this a step further: i see nothing automatic in the american system of checks--i see this decision as a reflection of the dissolution of the environment they worked to maintain. collective hysteria remains a huge and frightening possibility, a permanent problem. and the contemporary ideological apparatus--which we call "the media"--makes such hysteria a constant possibility.

rb....it is interesting that in the UK, "conservatives", actually are...conservative, and they recognize that the tactics of those who claim to be "conservatives" in the US are actually those of scare mongering, power grabbing propagandists:

Former British PM, John Major, is objecting to a revision in law that would extend imprisonment without charges or a hearing before a magistrate from the current 28 days max., to 42 days. In the US, prisoners have been held for as long as 6-1/2 years, under these same circumstances...no hearing, no charges, and four SCOTUS justices appointed by "conservative" US presidents, and the current president himself, view it as just and AMERICAN...
it's not....it is a failure of the president to honor his oath to "uphold and defend the Consitution", and of these four judges, as well.....

Quote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle4075503.ece
June 6, 2008
42-day detention: the threat to our liberty
The Government's plan is simply part of an assault on our ancient rights
John Major

The Government's legislation to permit 42 days pre-charge detention brings to the fore the wider question of civil liberties. In their response to the security threat ministers have dragged us ever closer to a society in which ancient rights are seriously damaged. I doubt this is the Government's intention, but it is the effect. It began with Iraq.

The invasion of Iraq was justified by overegging the threat of Saddam Hussein's non-existent weapons of mass destruction - perhaps that error was genuine.

But the case for war was embellished by linking the Iraqi regime to the 9/11 attacks on New York - for which there is not one shred of evidence. As we moved towards war, that misinformation was compounded by the implication that Saddam's Iraq was a clear and present danger to the United Kingdom, which plainly it was not.

These actions damaged our reputation overseas. And, at home - on the back of the threat of terror and two serious incidents in London - they foreshadowed a political climate in which civil liberties are slowly being sacrificed. ...

....The Government has introduced measures to protect against terrorism. These go beyond anything contemplated when Britain faced far more regular -- and no less violent -- assaults from the IRA. The justification of these has sometimes come close to scaremongering. . . .

The Government has been saying, in a catchy, misleading piece of spin: "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." This is a demagogue's trick. We do have something to fear -- the total loss of privacy to an intrusive state with authoritarian tendencies. .....

Quote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7450627.stm

In his resignation statement, he said he feared 42 days was just the beginning and next "we'll next see 56 days, 70 days, 90 days".

But, he added: "In truth, 42 days is just one -- perhaps the most salient example -- of the insidious, surreptitious and relentless erosion of fundamental British freedoms."

He listed the growth of the "database state," government "snooping" ID cards, the erosion of jury trials and other issues.

"This cannot go on. It must be stopped and for that reason today I feel it is incumbent on me to make a stand," said Mr Davis....

....and those who claim to be conservative in the US, display all of the worst tendencies, motives, and ridiculous cluelessness of their "poster boy", Lindsey Graham. Maybe it's just a matter of constantly responding that they are talking and acting "UN-American", when they show such disdain for the courts and the Constitution...now, it's one, two, three...what are we fighting for?

I thought that it was for freedom from arbitrary imprisonment by executive whim?

Quote:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/40899.html

* Posted on Thursday, June 12, 2008

Graham: Amend Constitution to overturn court's ruling
By James Rosen | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — A dejected Sen. Lindsey Graham blasted the Supreme Court's ruling Thursday on Guantanamo Bay detainees, calling it "dangerous and irresponsible."

The South Carolina Republican, who's also a military lawyer and a colonel in the Air Force Reserve, helped craft the Military Commissions Act and had confidently predicted that it would pass high court muster.

The Supreme Court repudiated Graham in a 5-4 decision, ruling that the 270 alleged terrorists being held at the U.S. military prison in Cuba have a constitutional right to challenge their detentions in federal courts.

"The court's ruling makes clear the legal rights given to al Qaida members today should exceed those provided to the Nazis during World War II," Graham said. "Our nation is at war. It's truly unfortunate the Supreme Court did not recognize and appreciate that fact."

The high court's decision was its third ruling in four years against the special powers that President Bush has claimed the executive branch has to detain and try suspected terrorists since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

With Graham in the lead, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act in September 2006 after an earlier Supreme Court ruling that the Bush administration couldn't set up a new system for prosecuting alleged terrorists without congressional approval.

The fresh Supreme Court decision is a major blow for Graham politically, eviscerating a law that he recently cited as one of the three achievements of his first Senate term that he was most proud of.

"To the extent that Lindsey Graham wanted to get the federal courts out of the process (of prosecuting detainees) altogether, this ruling is an absolute loss for him, and it's one that Congress can't go back around," said Thomas Crocker, a University of South Carolina law professor.

Graham said he'd explore the possibility of drafting a constitutional amendment "to blunt the effect of this decision."

Any constitutional amendment would be unlikely to move in Congress during the waning months of a lame-duck presidency, however, and at the height of a campaign for the White House.

Graham's talk of a constitutional amendment indicated how little room the Supreme Court has left him, Sen. John McCain — the presumptive Republican presidential nominee — and Bush in their long-standing effort to create a separate trial system outside the federal courts for alleged terrorists.

Graham said that the law gave terrorism suspects at Guantanamo adequate protections, including the power to ask tribunals to review their detainments and to challenge convictions before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

With the Supreme Court now giving detainees full access to the federal courts, Graham warned that "some of the most liberal district courts in the country will have an opportunity to determine who is a threat to the United States."

"Federal judges will now be in charge of the day-to-day military prisons and the interrogation of prisoners," Graham said. "This will empower activist lawyers and interest groups to intervene in basic military matters for the first time in history."

Crocker of USC, though, said Graham was exaggerating the effects of the ruling.

"The court does not claim it has the power to make military decisions, but it does claim the power granted it under the Constitution to hear certain claims properly brought under the writ of habeas corpus," Crocker said.....

aceventura3 · 06-13-2008, 10:39 AM

The Supreme Court ruling on BOUMEDIENE v. BUSH basically nullifies legislation passed by Congress and signed by Bush in October 2006 for Guantánamo detainees. There were 11 Democratic Senators and about 32 Democratic members of the House who voted in favor of the legislation. The legislation gave detainees access to be heard through modification to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Take note, you may not hear this from the experts, but that all this has accomplished is that in the future captured military terrorist combatants will not be housed in a manner where they will gain access to American courts, they will be turned over to our allies. They will be subject to treatment and the laws of those countries. If Democrats want to create new legislation that will give unreasonable rights to captured military combatants we may end up attempting to execute a war in an impossible set of circumstances.

I agree with Scalia's dissenting opinion, this is not good for America.

roachboy · 06-13-2008, 11:04 AM

the "war on terror" is only a war in a metaphorical sense, dont you think?

dc_dux · 06-13-2008, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Take note, you may not hear this from the experts, but that all this has accomplished is that in the future captured military terrorist combatants will not be housed in a manner where they will gain access to American courts, they will be turned over to our allies. They will be subject to treatment and the laws of those countries. If Democrats want to create new legislation that will give unreasonable rights to captured military combatants we may end up attempting to execute a war in an impossible set of circumstances.

Shouldn't it be ALLEGED "terrorist combatant" SUSPECTS....or have you forgotten innocent until proven guilty.

Turning over such alleged suspects to "allies" with harsher laws of prisoner treatment than ours...or extraordinary rendition....is ILLEGAL under US treaty obligations. (There is circumstantial evidence that Bush has already done this...making him, if those allegations are ever proven correct, a war criminal).

The Democrats dont need to create new legislation...on this issue, they have the Constitution on their side.

host · 06-13-2008, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The Supreme Court ruling on BOUMEDIENE v. BUSH basically nullifies legislation passed by Congress and signed by Bush in October 2006 for Guantánamo detainees. There were 11 Democratic Senators and about 32 Democratic members of the House who voted in favor of the legislation. The legislation gave detainees access to be heard through modification to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Take note, you may not hear this from the experts, but that all this has accomplished is that in the future captured military terrorist combatants will not be housed in a manner where they will gain access to American courts, they will be turned over to our allies. They will be subject to treatment and the laws of those countries. If Democrats want to create new legislation that will give unreasonable rights to captured military combatants we may end up attempting to execute a war in an impossible set of circumstances.

I agree with Scalia's dissenting opinion, this is not good for America.

ace....we were told that the executive needed the authority to determine, without evidentiary hearings, who the "bad people" are, because we woiuld be in too much danger if we allowed the designated bad people, the same rights every citizen and non-citizen in any US jurisdiction, are afforded.

But now that it has been determined that the executive cannot wield such authority, constitutionally, are you saying that "our security" was not the driving reason for transferring that authority to the executive?

...and now, you're saying..."we'll show you!!"...If the president cannot have that authority, US LEO and military will transfer that determination to another sovereign entity, after they disregard the law and instructed SOP, when they detain someone....is that your warning to us, ace?

ace....I don't understand what you are talking about. Who is to determine this "special" class of "detainees" who do not have the same rights as anyone else taken into custody by sworn American LEO or military? The president, and certainly no LEO or member of the military have that authority, according to the Constitution. Only a presumably impartial judge can make such a determination....isn't any other arrangement or advocacy, anti-constitutional, i.e, UN-American?

Other than those unalienable rights....the right to have a timely hearing of the charges and to present a defense, before an impartial judge, being one of them....what would be the reason to Fight....fight for what, ace....what are you advocating fighting your "war on terror", for, since it is not to preserve unalienable rights....what is it that you are advocating the preservation of....an executive with dictatorial power...the power of arbitrary and unjudicated imprisonment? Is that even an American, or an Anglo-Saxon concept, ace?

roachboy · 06-13-2008, 12:47 PM

the rationale for scalia's dissent is basically the same as that behind the bush people's "war on terror"--a state of exception which "requires" the suspension of usual processes and legalities in favor of a dictatorial-style executive. a state of exception need not be a war--it can be and usually is a sense of political crisis--but crisis can be generated from any number of sectors for any number of ends. it seems to me that first there is a real question of what a "war on terror" means and in what way it can possibly be understood as a war in anything remotely like a conventional sense. if you accept that it is a state of "crisis" covered over by metaphors of war, then the logic of scalia's dissent collapses, because it moved in the opposite direction, assuming that the "war on terror" is somehow understandable as a way in a conventional sense.

this is another way of making the point i was making earlier: what has changed really is the sense of "crisis" or hysteria--which in this case came to the same thing--the political implosion of the bush administration has taken down the hold of its gloss on a "crisis"/hysteria as "war"--it no longer has purchase--and i think that loosening of an ambient sense of "crisis" opened the space for this ruling.

mixedmedia · 06-13-2008, 01:13 PM

I think it's really difficult to maintain a climate of mindless fear-based hysteria, while also promoting a climate of mindless security-based consumerism.

Duh.

roachboy · 06-13-2008, 01:26 PM

orwell had this one sorted, you see:

Quote:

Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.

the circuits of commodity fetishism and the fulfillment of every desire thereby could only be opposed by a lunatic, and so every form of opposition is lunacy and so every act of collective violence a defense and so no-one has to think in terms of responsibility, just reacting, in order to preserve the way of life.

mixedmedia · 06-13-2008, 01:29 PM

well, we're not dealing with Orwell, lol...

LoganSnake · 06-13-2008, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Will we hire terrorists to blow up buildings and make our soldiers into suicide bombers next? Maybe we should.

The discussion is well underway, but I wanted to chime in on this comment.

Yes, we should. Although not at the expense of our soldier's lives. Gabriel from Swordfish said it best and I agree with him.

Quote:

Stanley: War? Who are we at war with?
Gabriel: Anyone who impinges on America's freedom. Terrorist states, Stanley. Someone must bring their war to them. They bomb a church, we bomb 10. They hijack a plane, we take out an airport. They execute American tourist, we tactically nuke an entire city. Our job is to make terrorism so horrific that is becomes unthinkable to attack Americans.

You advocate turning the other cheek. A pacifist. I say you retaliate and you retaliate ten times harder than they hit. It's not stooping down. I don't believe that there is such thing as benevolence in war. If your enemies are ruthless, you need to be even more ruthless than they are.

And on topic - good. Torture might get info out of the terrorists that hey wouldn't divulge otherwise.

P.S. This particular war I don't agree with, but the methodology should be applied.

mixedmedia · 06-13-2008, 01:58 PM

You think they're not thinking the same thing?

Where does it end?

Or is it just the principle of the thing?

LoganSnake · 06-13-2008, 02:00 PM

It ends when the other side thinks about whether it is worth losing more of their population.

10-24-2006, 11:13 AM	#128 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	'accidental' death yep...great stuff. I'm so proud of my country lately. This combined with the suspension of habeas corpus...just nothin but good stuff lately. __________________ Live. Chris

11-05-2006, 10:28 AM	#129 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	Just saw this elsewhere...looks like the legal battle is cranking up over the military trial courts and denial of legal council. The first rule of Rendition Club is - you do not talk about Rendition Club. The second rule of Rendition Club - you do not talk about Rendition Club. The third rule of Rendition Club - you do not talk about Rendition Club. link. __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

03-20-2007, 02:35 AM	#131 (permalink)
pai mei Insane	http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4...36913&hl=en Search at 1hour and 29 minutes in the movie above. You will see how the confessions of Khalid Mohammed were obtained : "Whatever we need to do to get the truth out" "Block his breathing with an artificial respiration machine" Also there is the mental torture : torturing his children in front of him or just threaten him that his children will be tortured. Last edited by pai mei; 03-20-2007 at 02:39 AM..

03-20-2007, 02:10 PM	#134 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	you would have thought that the experience of the inquisition would have been enough on its own to dissuade folk from using torture to extract "confessions"---the meaning of which is generally "stop what you are doing to me...no, really. stop it. stop it now. here's what you want me to say..." you would have thought that the debacle the french experienced and in some ways are still experiencing in algeria would have been enough... you would have thought that any number of instances of this circular relation between torture and "information" gathered would have ruled out its use. but then again, you also would have thought that basic ethics would have had the same effect. apparently, any relation to the past as it might bear on the present, and any relation to ethics as they might limit actions are all out the fucking window when a neo-fascist regime understands that heimat to be threatened by a Contaminant.... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-20-2007, 02:20 PM	#135 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	On the positive side, there are bills in the new House and Senate to restore the rule of law - "No reason why we can’t fight the War on Terror and live up to our obligations under US law and the Geneva Conventions" Both the “Restoring the Constitution Act” and the “Habeas Corpus Restoration Act” will bring credibility to the process of detaining terrorist suspects by placing it within a legal framework. This includes: restoring habeas corpus, narrowing the definition of “unlawful enemy combatant” as defined in the Military Commissions Act, prohibiting evidence obtained under coercion, and affirming the Geneva Conventions.... "We had an opportunity to show the world that the United States could fight those who would do us harm and protect our core values. That we could be both strong and just." http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press...n/March_8.html __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

10-24-2006, 10:35 AM	#124 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	NCB: The US has considered waterboarding to be torture in the past. The rules allowing it are what's new here, not the condemnation of the tactic. Also, I should warn you that talking about "pussification" makes you come off as pretty immature. Edit: I was way too late.

10-24-2006, 10:55 AM	#127 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Wikipedia forgot about death as being a possible physical effect of waterboarding.

11-06-2006, 10:19 PM	#130 (permalink)
Xell101 Junkie	When it'll work you can count on it being done regardless of legal status. That they're legislating this seems like baby steps to the tune of 'You can trust me, we're taking the legal route.' Besides, it's pretty well established torture is unreliable. Also, given what we do do, saying torture so much rather cheapens the term.

03-20-2007, 10:58 AM	#132 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Precisely correct, pai mei. And it's reasonable to deduce that, since his testimony was derived from torture, and we've already established that torture is not by any means a reliable source of information, that his testimony is meaningless.

03-20-2007, 01:05 PM	#133 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	While I have no doubt that this man has done many evil things I also have to say I do not believe everything that he has confessed to. I think he is trying to make himself look bigger than he really was. One thing that should be considered is that if he were being tried in US civilian courts the judge would probably throw out the entire case and all of this would be inadmissible.

03-20-2007, 06:23 PM	#136 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	yeah roach, but that presupposes, even if its devil's advocate style for the sake of argument, that the primary function of current torture techniques is to gain information. i have to assume that the military shrinks are as competent as any, on average; therefore i have to deduce that they are not, in fact, after information. i can only surmise that they seek to humiliate and instill fear into our adversaries. perhaps develop scapegoats for the public eye whilst our military covertly operates on other premises and angles. i can not believe that the people who are actually working the various policies being enacted actually think this bullshit works. i don't like it, but i do think that its as much "hey - we're as badass and coldhearted as you fuckers are. our citizens may live nice little kotex padded lives, but our guardians are real fuckers." as anything else. even that i could deal with on a certain level, as it would open the door for useful discussion and debate that is based in reality. the fantasy debates are just tedious. __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

06-13-2008, 04:08 AM	#139 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	__________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

06-13-2008, 04:41 AM	#140 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Amazing. Even Bush's personally-installed puppet court is giving him a low approval rating.

06-13-2008, 05:11 AM	#142 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Yeah, Bush hasn't even nominated a quorum. He's put 2 judges on SCOTUS, Roberts and Alito. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

06-13-2008, 05:55 AM	#143 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Criminy. I meant it as a sort of ironic joke. It may not have been funny, I admit, but y'all need to lighten up.

06-13-2008, 05:58 AM	#145 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well, i stand by the claim that the problem was the climate of hysteria generated by the idiot response to 9/11/2001 and maintained for political purposes through 2005 at the least. you can still see the traces of the division between those who think within that frame and those who dont in the distance separating scalia's minority opinion from the majority opinion. to take this a step further: i see nothing automatic in the american system of checks--i see this decision as a reflection of the dissolution of the environment they worked to maintain. collective hysteria remains a huge and frightening possibility, a permanent problem. and the contemporary ideological apparatus--which we call "the media"--makes such hysteria a constant possibility. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 06-13-2008 at 06:00 AM..

06-13-2008, 08:05 AM	#148 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	having read only part of scalia and roberts dissent, i'm hugely dissapointed that somebody who calls themselves strict constructionists and originalists feel that safety overrides freedom. totally disgusted with the 4 dissenters right now. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

06-13-2008, 10:39 AM	#150 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	The Supreme Court ruling on BOUMEDIENE v. BUSH basically nullifies legislation passed by Congress and signed by Bush in October 2006 for Guantánamo detainees. There were 11 Democratic Senators and about 32 Democratic members of the House who voted in favor of the legislation. The legislation gave detainees access to be heard through modification to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Take note, you may not hear this from the experts, but that all this has accomplished is that in the future captured military terrorist combatants will not be housed in a manner where they will gain access to American courts, they will be turned over to our allies. They will be subject to treatment and the laws of those countries. If Democrats want to create new legislation that will give unreasonable rights to captured military combatants we may end up attempting to execute a war in an impossible set of circumstances. I agree with Scalia's dissenting opinion, this is not good for America. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

06-13-2008, 11:04 AM	#151 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the "war on terror" is only a war in a metaphorical sense, dont you think? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-13-2008, 12:47 PM	#154 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the rationale for scalia's dissent is basically the same as that behind the bush people's "war on terror"--a state of exception which "requires" the suspension of usual processes and legalities in favor of a dictatorial-style executive. a state of exception need not be a war--it can be and usually is a sense of political crisis--but crisis can be generated from any number of sectors for any number of ends. it seems to me that first there is a real question of what a "war on terror" means and in what way it can possibly be understood as a war in anything remotely like a conventional sense. if you accept that it is a state of "crisis" covered over by metaphors of war, then the logic of scalia's dissent collapses, because it moved in the opposite direction, assuming that the "war on terror" is somehow understandable as a way in a conventional sense. this is another way of making the point i was making earlier: what has changed really is the sense of "crisis" or hysteria--which in this case came to the same thing--the political implosion of the bush administration has taken down the hold of its gloss on a "crisis"/hysteria as "war"--it no longer has purchase--and i think that loosening of an ambient sense of "crisis" opened the space for this ruling. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-13-2008, 01:13 PM	#155 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	I think it's really difficult to maintain a climate of mindless fear-based hysteria, while also promoting a climate of mindless security-based consumerism. Duh. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce Last edited by mixedmedia; 06-13-2008 at 01:14 PM.. Reason: clarification

06-13-2008, 01:29 PM	#157 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	well, we're not dealing with Orwell, lol... __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

06-13-2008, 01:58 PM	#159 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	You think they're not thinking the same thing? Where does it end? Or is it just the principle of the thing? __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

06-13-2008, 02:00 PM	#160 (permalink)
LoganSnake We work alone Location: Cake Town	It ends when the other side thinks about whether it is worth losing more of their population. __________________ Maturity is knowing you were an idiot in the past. Wisdom is knowing that you'll be an idiot in the future. Common sense is knowing that you should try not to be an idiot now. - J. Jacques