Why, after all we've seen, is Congress handing Bush a blank check?

[slash196]

So we are only now fully realizing the reprehensible consequences of military tribunals, secret prisons, and indefinite detention of people without evidence or even oversight, and our response is to make it officially legal? What in the world is wrong with this government? Are they actually evil or just dumb as hell?

Midterms cannot get here quick enough. Throw those morons out on their asses.

 

[smashp]

Power hungry men attempt to take all the power they can. they will use that power to keep their power and to gain more.

You use that power to control those that enable you. And if you cant control them, you could, for example,

Release the emails of that person who resist you to the public showing him going after a 16 year old boy.

keep your power by using their thirst of power against them

 

[ajf3]

...or because even in spite of all their partisan sniping, they realize that it's necessary? War is ugly by nature... prettying it up for the media and public only prolongs it and costs more in terms of both life and money.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ajf3
...or because even in spite of all their partisan sniping, they realize that it's necessary? War is ugly by nature... prettying it up for the media and public only prolongs it and costs more in terms of both life and money.

Care to back that up with, you know, an argument? Fighting a war can indeed be ugly, but it does not follow that everything that is ugly is an effective way of fighting a war.

 

[fitzov]

A short while ago there was some commotion from McCain et al. about Bush's position. Shortly after the two parties came to an "agreement", which pretty much amounts to letting Bush have his way. (Just the GOP trying to retain as much of their base as possible through a little dog and pony show.)

 

[Darthvoy]

What bothers me the most is the tactic the republicans used. The Democrats that didn't vote for the "new law" will be regarded as terrorist codlers by the Republican competitors in the coming elections. So essentially those who voted on it didn't have any choice but to vote for it if they did not want to lower their chances of keeping their seats. The sadest part, imo, is that most people will fail to realize this and be swayed to vote based on their fear of terrorist, which exactly what the republicans want and what they need in order to stay in power in the coming elections. Yes, it was strategically genious, but not what is best for the country.

 

[DealMonkey]

Probably because there's zero support for enemy combatants. And they clearly aren't voting anytime soon in America. The only ones who care, it seems, are the ones who believe the current administration's actions have gone against the spirit and letter of the Constitution and do more harm to liberty than good for security.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: slash196
So we are only now fully realizing the reprehensible consequences of military tribunals, secret prisons, and indefinite detention of people without evidence or even oversight, and our response is to make it officially legal? What in the world is wrong with this government? Are they actually evil or just dumb as hell?

Midterms cannot get here quick enough. Throw those morons out on their asses.

What exactly are the "reprehensible consequences" please?

And please enlighten us all with you think we should do with the terrorist we have caught? Including:
Khalid Sheik Mohammed, mastermind behind 9-11 and believed to have been the No 3 al-Qaeda leader before he was captured in Pakistan in 2003;
Ramzi Binalshibh, an alleged would-be 9/11 hijacker and
Abu Zubaydah, who was believed to be a link between Osama bin Laden and many al-Qaeda cells before he was also captured in Pakistan, in March 2002.

 

[sandorski]

Let the Decider decide! duh

 

[Craig234]

What exactly are the "reprehensible consequences" please?

Monstrous, evil acts. Throughout history there have been people who do wrong, the US is now rushing to join the ranks (and has joined them already).

If you don't understand they're wrong, that's unfortunate, and common among those who do the wrongs.

And please enlighten us all with you think we should do with the terrorist we have caught? Including:
Khalid Sheik Mohammed, mastermind behind 9-11 and believed to have been the No 3 al-Qaeda leader before he was captured in Pakistan in 2003;
Ramzi Binalshibh, an alleged would-be 9/11 hijacker and
Abu Zubaydah, who was believed to be a link between Osama bin Laden and many al-Qaeda cells before he was also captured in Pakistan, in March 2002.

Try them, and put them in jail fitting any convictions for crimes. Free them, outside of any convictions. Interrogate them using techniques which are civilized: challenge them on contradictions with their religion, confront them with the horrors of their acts, etc. And that's it.

With that, the US acts morally, and robs the terrorists of the cause for recruits and actions in response to the evil acts of America.

And by doing *that* and reducing terrorism, we rob the terrorist right-wingers in American of *their* excuse for justifying their own torture and evildoing.

 

[slash196]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: slash196
So we are only now fully realizing the reprehensible consequences of military tribunals, secret prisons, and indefinite detention of people without evidence or even oversight, and our response is to make it officially legal? What in the world is wrong with this government? Are they actually evil or just dumb as hell?

Midterms cannot get here quick enough. Throw those morons out on their asses.

What exactly are the "reprehensible consequences" please?

And please enlighten us all with you think we should do with the terrorist we have caught? Including:
Khalid Sheik Mohammed, mastermind behind 9-11 and believed to have been the No 3 al-Qaeda leader before he was captured in Pakistan in 2003;
Ramzi Binalshibh, an alleged would-be 9/11 hijacker and
Abu Zubaydah, who was believed to be a link between Osama bin Laden and many al-Qaeda cells before he was also captured in Pakistan, in March 2002.

Uh, try them in a court of law with evidence and then send them to prison.

The people currently classified as "enemy combatants" and denied their basic human rights have not a shred of evidence against them, and yet they don't even have the right to challenge their imprisonment. Most of these people are probably innocent of any crime, and are being tortured for information they do not have and punished for crimes that they did not commit. The "reprehensible consequences" are the utter breakdown of respect for human rights and dignity, and the anti-American sentiments that follow those actions. If you honestly think that we are justified in locking people away in inhuman living conditions for years on end without so much as telling them why they're being imprisoned, then I suggest you try it for a little, and see how necessary it is then.

Didn't your mother ever tell you to walk a mile in another person's shoes before you judge them?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234

What exactly are the "reprehensible consequences" please?

Monstrous, evil acts. Throughout history there have been people who do wrong, the US is now rushing to join the ranks (and has joined them already).

If you don't understand they're wrong, that's unfortunate, and common among those who do the wrongs.

And please enlighten us all with you think we should do with the terrorist we have caught? Including:
Khalid Sheik Mohammed, mastermind behind 9-11 and believed to have been the No 3 al-Qaeda leader before he was captured in Pakistan in 2003;
Ramzi Binalshibh, an alleged would-be 9/11 hijacker and
Abu Zubaydah, who was believed to be a link between Osama bin Laden and many al-Qaeda cells before he was also captured in Pakistan, in March 2002.

Try them, and put them in jail fitting any convictions for crimes. Free them, outside of any convictions. Interrogate them using techniques which are civilized: challenge them on contradictions with their religion, confront them with the horrors of their acts, etc. And that's it.

With that, the US acts morally, and robs the terrorists of the cause for recruits and actions in response to the evil acts of America.

And by doing *that* and reducing terrorism, we rob the terrorist right-wingers in American of *their* excuse for justifying their own torture and evildoing.

Isn't that the entire purpose of the law that congress just passed?
The Supreme Court said that the system we had in place was not acceptable, so congress acted and is in the process of creating a system that is acceptable.

I think the complaint on the left is that the military will now be in charge of the trials, I see nothing wrong with that.
*NEWSFLASH* for you on the left, the Nazi war criminals we caught at the end of WW2 were not tried in a civilian court but at an "international military tribunal"

BTW: the first victim of these tribunals is John McCain who can pretty much kiss away any dream of being the Republican nominee in 2008.

And Craig the US acting morally or unmorally has nothing at all to do with terror recruiting. They hate us because we are not Muslims, or did the ?convert or die? statements made by the terror leaders not convince you of that fact?

 

[Jaskalas]

Military handling war criminals? There is nothing wrong with that.

Hell, in the law passed we cannot even water board them. We?ve given in to the liberal compromise to gain nothing but safer terrorists. The worst we can legally do now is make them uncomfortable where as in the opposite position heads would be rolling for the camera.

 

[Craig234]

John, you utterly fail to understand the muslim population. Just as we have a few Timothy McVeighs and many Profjohns who are not so violent and radical, Muslims have a few Osama bin Ladens and many who are not about killing Americans no matter what, but are much more likely to when their brother is sent to Guantanamo and has done no crime.

You are wrong in your generalizations about Muslims to say they are all like the few more radical; this is a sign of ignorance and prejudice, and it leads you to dangerous policies.

As for the court trials, I'm referring to real trials, not the sort where people are executed and not allowed to see the evidence. The Nuremburg trials have almost nothing in common with the right-wing extremist trials set up under the current government other than they were not within the normal system. But the protections of rights were high.

Do you know anything of the history? The Nuremburg trials were set up by a respected US Supreme Court justice with many protections for defendants, with a different intent. People on trial there may have been found not guilty, but there was solid reason for why they were on trial.

The current regime has done nothing like that - they are the aggressors in this war, the occupiers, who are wholesale rounding people up and imprisoning them without many rights at all. What we're doing much more resembles trials by the Germans of the populations they inhabited, than the Nuremburg trials.

 

[Craig234]

Jaskalas, question: which side has more prisoners killed - homocide - in custody: the US with terrorist/insurgent prisoners in Iraq, or the insurgents/terrorists with American prisoners?

Can you name the Muslim country or terrorist group who has done something to a Canadian citizen like the US did, who they grabbed while changing planes in NY and sent to Syria for torture - and who was innocent of any wrongdoing?

I notice the Fox news people got out of the custody of the terrorists a lot faster and healthier than the many innocent prisoners are getting out of Guantanamo. Indeed, the logic seems to be that now that these innocent people have been treated so badly for years, NOW they're a terrorist risk. because they might want revenge for the wrongs.

 

[Jaskalas]

The difference is we killed McVeigh. When their people kill Americans it is celebrated.

 

[Craig234]

Really? Pakistan - the nation hosting bin Laden and whose population strongly supports much of the terrorism - has captured several hundred Al Queda members and killed many. If the US was more just in its behavior, masses of Muslims would be more aligned with us and enemies of the terrorists.

It's the fools in the right wing who create our enemies with their blind policies, where the number of terrorists who are enemies based on the reasons you cite is small. But you just don't get the idea that your evil behavior has any blowback. You have a childlike simplicity in your view of the Muslims that's dangerous to your enemies and friends alike.

On the other hand, we, the US, have just refused to send the terrorist who blew up a civilian airliner back to Cuba or Venezuela, because the target of his terrorism was one we are pretty happy about.

But I'm wasting my breath if you are just another typical wide-eyed right-wing cult member who can do nothing but cheer your side on and the facts are irrelevant to you.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234
John, you utterly fail to understand the muslim population. Just as we have a few Timothy McVeighs and many Profjohns who are not so violent and radical, Muslims have a few Osama bin Ladens and many who are not about killing Americans no matter what, but are much more likely to when their brother is sent to Guantanamo and has done no crime.

You are wrong in your generalizations about Muslims to say they are all like the few more radical; this is a sign of ignorance and prejudice, and it leads you to dangerous policies...

Nice way to take my statement on why terrorists hate us and try to make it appear that I am anti-Muslim or something like that.

Your statement: ?With that, the US acts morally, and robs the terrorists of the cause for recruits and actions in response to the evil acts of America. "

My response: "And Craig the US acting morally or unmorally has nothing at all to do with terror recruiting. They hate us because we are not Muslims, or did the ?convert or die? statements made by the terror leaders not convince you of that fact?"

Where do I make the connection between terrorists and the Muslim population?

BTW: I have worked with MANY Muslims and have had great relationships with them, Central Fl has a large Muslim population due to immigration from Morocco and ME countries.

 

[Jaskalas]

So you compare Fox News Journalists to the innocence of, say, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed? The entire mistake you?re making is thinking enemy combatants who we captured on the battlefield are somehow equivalent to an innocent person. If anything, I wish we would have just killed them in combat instead of capturing them- then you?d lose your current excuse for protecting our enemy.

Originally posted by: Craig234
Jaskalas, question: which side has more prisoners killed - homocide - in custody: the US with terrorist/insurgent prisoners in Iraq, or the insurgents/terrorists with American prisoners?

You may as well be their spokesman ? the tongue fits very well for that position. The ideology behind your question is completely irrelevant to me. They kill our soldiers with sniper fire and IEDs, such tactics tend to yield fewer prisoners. Not counting the sheer size of our military presence, and you want to count prisoners as if that somehow defines morality?! Absolutely ridiculous.

In war prisoners are held without question until their country surrenders. Jihadists without a country behind them makes the question of their release a very difficult thing to consider. Their movement to wage war against us continues, releasing them at any time likely just places them back in the battlefield killing our soldiers.

So I propose this- we send them back to their country of nationality ? if they tell us. If their country releases them instead of holding them for war crimes, we take harsh measures against that country for supporting acts of war against us.

Can you name the Muslim country or terrorist group who has done something to a Canadian citizen like the US did, who they grabbed while changing planes in NY and sent to Syria for torture - and who was innocent of any wrongdoing?

That was stupid, the people responsible should be removed from their positions if not punished.

 

[Craig234]

John, I certainly accept your clarification that you did not mean all Muslims, but you did impugn a lot more than you seem to realize.

My response: "And Craig the US acting morally or unmorally has nothing at all to do with terror recruiting. They hate us because we are not Muslims, or did the ?convert or die? statements made by the terror leaders not convince you of that fact?"

Where do I make the connection between terrorists and the Muslim population?

Where do you think the terrorists are recruiting from? The Muslim population that could go either way. Most of the recruits are *not* locked into one way. Our actions push them.

Jaskalas:

So you compare Fox News Journalists to the innocence of, say, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed

The Fox journalists are more complicit than the many innocents in Guantanamo and other places who have done nothing wrong, even more than Tokyo Rose types, by choosing to help an organization which spread propaganda in favor of the war against many innocent people.

But I'd compare them a lot more to those mostly innocent Guantamo prisoners than to Khalid.

The entire mistake you?re making is thinking enemy combatants who we captured on the battlefield are somehow equivalent to an innocent person.

The mistake you're making is being ignorant of our rounding up of thousands who did not do anything wrong and assuming they were battlefield prisoners.

I wish we would have just killed them in combat instead of capturing them- then you?d lose your current excuse for protecting our enemy.

So you're a monster. And you would rather, as your view of kill rather than take prisoner was adopted, that John McCain had been shot than eventually released, not to mention countless thousands of prisoners on all sides in wars.

You may as well be their spokesman ? the tongue fits very well for that position.

You are an impbecile to not be able to distinguish between my advocacy for human rights which can include life in prison for terrorists after a trial, and people who support their agenda.
You are not worth any discussion following that. I feel better already.

 

[ProfJohn]

Craig, where do you get this "mostly innocent Guantamo prisoners" bit from? What are you basing this on? Are there any facts or links that you can point too?

Am I suppose to believe that the military is just throwing people in to Gitmo because they feel like it and that not ONE of the thousands of people who have passed through Gitmo has come out and said that the people there are actually innocent and just victims of the government?

Did I miss the Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International or Red Cross report saying that most of the people there are innocent?

Stop making outrageous statements that you can't back up. Or at least qualify them i.e. I think the people there are mostly innocent...

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Craig234
John, you utterly fail to understand the muslim population. Just as we have a few Timothy McVeighs and many Profjohns who are not so violent and radical, Muslims have a few Osama bin Ladens and many who are not about killing Americans no matter what, but are much more likely to when their brother is sent to Guantanamo and has done no crime.

You are wrong in your generalizations about Muslims to say they are all like the few more radical; this is a sign of ignorance and prejudice, and it leads you to dangerous policies.

Just for the record, Radical Islam is about 25% of the Muslim population. That isn't a majority but it sure as hell is a significant number of radicals who are looking to destroy us.

And I dare say there is no comparison to the U.S. Or do you believe 25% of this country is equally radical?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Craig234
But I'm wasting my breath if you are just another typical wide-eyed right-wing cult member who can do nothing but cheer your side on and the facts are irrelevant to you.

Your so called fact is that killing our killers is "evil", and that others are merely responding to stop our evil acts. My attitude is anyone wanting an American dead can die first. This of course leads to extremely different views on what to do about these situations.

But you just don't get the idea that your evil behavior has any blowback. You have a childlike simplicity in your view of the Muslims

The blowback. I find it natural and acceptable that when you destroy a hornet?s nest that you will stir up the hornets. The debate then should be if you find that acceptable or if you would surrender until we are further attacked. For both of us, we?ve made our choice clear.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Craig234
John, you utterly fail to understand the muslim population. Just as we have a few Timothy McVeighs and many Profjohns who are not so violent and radical, Muslims have a few Osama bin Ladens and many who are not about killing Americans no matter what, but are much more likely to when their brother is sent to Guantanamo and has done no crime.

You are wrong in your generalizations about Muslims to say they are all like the few more radical; this is a sign of ignorance and prejudice, and it leads you to dangerous policies.

Just for the record, Radical Islam is about 25% of the Muslim population. That isn't a majority but it sure as hell is a significant number of radicals who are looking to destroy us.

And I dare say there is no comparison to the U.S. Or do you believe 25% of this country is equally radical?

Normally when people say "just for the record", what follows isn't some BS they just pulled out of their ass on the spot.

 

[Craig234]

Craig, where do you get this "mostly innocent Guantamo prisoners" bit from? What are you basing this on? Are there any facts or links that you can point too?

I was about to say, good question, until I read the rest of your post where you decided the answer for yourself (wrongly) and began the insulting comments.

I've read numerous pieces on the prisoners there which conclude that most are innocent.

Here's one:

Link to article

At National Journal, Corine Hegland was planning a profile of the white-shoe lawyers who have been representing many of the Guantanamo detainees. Hegland says she conducted interviews with about ten of the attorneys, and that at the end of the sessions each attorney would mention the same thing: ??You know, my client wasn?t caught on the battlefield and he isn?t tied to al Qaeda.? I was taking the train back from New York one night, and it hit me over the head, ?Holy crap, what happens if the attorneys are telling me the truth???

Finding the answer wasn?t easy. After a Supreme Court ruling in 2004 giving Guantanamo prisoners access to federal courts, lawyers for the detainees filed petitions challenging their clients? imprisonment. In about 130 of the cases -- there are about 400 prisoners -- a judge ordered the Pentagon to hand over its evidence...

After two months of sifting the information, Hegland had her answer. ?The data was really clear,? she says. ?It was mind-boggling.? It showed that most of the detainees hadn?t been caught ?on the battlefield? but rather mostly in Pakistan; fewer than half were accused of fighting against the U.S., and there was scant evidence to confirm that they were even combatants. In other words, most of the detainees probably were entirely innocent.

Just a few days after Hegland published a three-part series on her findings in early February, a law professor at Seton Hall University, Mark Denbeaux, and his son, Joshua Denbeaux, who together have represented Guantanamo detainees, published a study that also used the Defense Department?s own data, though a somewhat different set. After stripping out the prisoners? names, along with the supporting memos and transcripts, the Pentagon had publicly released the summary of evidence against every Guantanamo prisoner. Using that larger but less detailed data set, the Denbeaux?s findings echoed Hegland?s: Only 8 percent of detainees at Guantanamo were labeled by the Defense Department as ?al Qaeda fighters,? they found, and just 11 percent had been captured ?on the battlefield? by coalition forces.