S3930 - Detainee bill

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by headsplice

7. tw
8. headsplice

I doubt you two place anywhere in the first two million, much less 7 or 8.

Does it really give you a thrill to put words in Dubya's mouth? We could get you an actual puppet.

[headsplice]

If it makes you feel better to not laugh at my joke, Maggie, that's fine. I'm well aware that I'm not that important.
However, attacking me for saying something obviously false does nothing to justify what the folks on Capitol Hill are doing to us (including seven Dems, just to be fair). So, you're down with imprisoning American citizens without recourse to trial? Is that how I should interpret that bit of inanity?

[Spexxvet]

Isn't it odd that the supposed "less government intervention in the lives of the citizens" party is the one who wants to make the police state?

[tw]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

What part of "asymmetrical" don't you understand? Issuing such fatwas as these doesn't make someone a soldier, it only makes their violent intensions explicit.

Using an adjective changes nothing. It is still called 'war'. The Constitution does not require any adjectives. Having made a major admission - having admitted 'they' declared war - now you want to change (spin) your proclamations?

Oh, and another thing: once again I'll thank you too refrain from telling me what I've "admitted", particularly when you do so to put your own words in my mouth to construct yet another of your famous straw men.

MaggieL - I post blunt, factually, and (because I have no political allegiance) honestly. As so many here should appreciate, my principles of American justice run deep and are based in numerous layers of underlying facts. And I include those reasons in every post; no soundbyte cracks as you are now posting.

Reality is: you advocate kidnapping, secret prisons, violations of Universal Human Rights, wiretapping without judicial review, Congressional bill S3930, violation of the Geneva Convention article three, and torture. Your contempt for the rights of foreign citizens is particularly odious. Foreign citizens are denied even access to the International Red Cross or judicial review under a law that you approve. You advocate the "Spanish Inquisition" of anyone who is not an American citizen. I never expected that of you and only realized recently the depth of your "Spanish Inquisition" principles.

Meanwhile you said, intentionally, to make your point:

To make matters worse, the people in question have declared war on us. (See various fatwas, etc.) This is "asymmetrical warfare" in more ways than one. . These enemies don't *need* to be a nation to wage war, and it is to their advantage not to be.

They "declared war on us" is your statement - no matter how you deny it. If war was declared, then their people are soldiers. Your petticoat is showing.

Sophomoric are these principles: contradictory posts and advocacy of torture, international kidnapping, the "Mission Accomplished" war, secret prison, destruction of Human Rights, violations of the Geneva Convention ... and insistence that the Geneva Convention need not apply because it is not part of the US Constitution. MaggieL - if you were not advocating concepts so common in a venomous dictatorship, then I would not be calling you out like this. No emotion. Blunt, factual, honest, and American principles also question your loyalty to a mental midget president.

You still insist that war must be conducted against nations, even after the US Constitution was quoted. Right out of the Constitution; war is not limited to nations. "Unlawful enemy combatant" is just another excuse to promote kidnapping, wiretapping, secret prisons, and torture. To suspend Writ of Habeas Corpus. To deny them rights afforded by the US Constitution and international law. They declared war on us. You now deny it? Fine. Then according to Article 1 of the US Constitution, Writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be suspended as S3930 does. MaggieL endorses S3930. People still have rights under the Geneva Convention and Universal Declaration for Human Rights - no matter how a political agenda rationalizes contrarian.

To every non-American Cellar Dweller. S3930 says you can be kidnapped from your own country (extraordinary rendition), be taken for torture to Guantanamo or other secret American prisons, and neither the International Red Cross nor US Supreme Court can come to your defense. Anyone need ask why I am being so blunt?

[JayMcGee]

[quote=marichiko][i]
1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--

`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or

QUOTE]

So, does the deceptivly named defininations section define a 'lawful enemy combatant' .....

[quote=JayMcGee]

Originally Posted by marichiko

[i]
1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--

`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or

QUOTE]

So, does the deceptivly named defininations section define a 'lawful enemy combatant' .....

Yes, tw dug up the definition a few posts back:

LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- individual who is
(A) a member of a State's regular military forces and engaged in hostilities against the United States, or
(B) a member of a State's militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement engaged in hostilities which are under a command, wear a distinctive sign (uniform) that is recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly, and abide by the law of war (ie Geneva convention), (emphasis my own) or
(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities.

So, by the US government's own definition, our military are themselves "unlawful enemy combatants." But I keep forgetting, rules are for everyone except the US government.

[tw]

Originally Posted by marichiko

So, by the US government's own definition, our military are themselves "unlawful enemy combatants."

The law was written so that American citizens are exempt. The laws permit the United States government to kidnap and secret imprison any foreign citizen, deny where that victim is, keep that victim hidden from the International Red Cross and US Supreme Court, deny him Writ of Habeas Corpus, and torture him. Non-Americans - S3930 will make all this legal. In the eyes of this administration, non-Americans are a potential enemy. Therefore S3930 makes this legal should we 'feel' you might have Weapons of Mass Destruction. Americans now fear potential enemies everywhere. Amazing what will be done when god talks to a president.

[tw]

From MS_NBC on 8 Oct 2006:

Navy lawyer denied promotion
Swift led successful Supreme Court challenge of military tribunals
The Navy lawyer who led a successful Supreme Court challenge of the Bush administration’s military tribunals for detainees at Guantanamo Bay has been passed over for promotion and will have to leave the military, The Miami Herald reported Sunday.

Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, 44, will retire in March or April under the military’s “up or out” promotion system. Swift said last week he was notified he would not be promoted to commander.

He said the notification came about two weeks after the Supreme Court sided with him and against the White House in the case involving Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who was Osama bin Laden’s driver.

If we had an honest president, then this would not be big news. Cmd Swift presented a most complete and comprehensive appeal to the Supreme Court so that the President of the United States had to admit this: foreign citizens were being kidnapped, tortured, and held in secret prisons (so that even the International Red Cross could not find these people). This Supreme Court decision caused secert prisions to be emptied to Guantanamo. George Jr wants bill S3930 passed so that foreigners can be kidnapped in their own countries, held in secret American prisons (no protection from Writ of Habeas Corpus), and the Supreme Court can no longer rule against such Human Rights violations.

Clearly anyone who represents the rights of Americans and non-Americans must be punished because George Jr is god's chosen president. Even worse, non-American dwellers apparently even approve of torture by so much silence. Makes one wonder what will happen next. The Constitution must be removed from all government offices? No. Just a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

Amazing what will be done when god talks to a president.

No more amazing than when tw issues a decree as to what "reality" is, as he does on a very regular basis.

That's a really psychotic habit, you know? Confusing your own opinions and obsessions with reality...

[Pangloss62]

Isn't it funny how now, when one reads Onion headlines, he kinda has to stop a moment and question whether it's a parody or not. That's how strange "reality" has become.

Hey Maggie. Why is it that you use the "L" word as if it's self-evident what such a broad term means? "Those damn liberals!" "A liberal is a person who...doesn't agree with Maggie?"

[headsplice]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

No more amazing than when tw issues a decree as to what "reality" is, as he does on a very regular basis.

That's a really psychotic habit, you know? Confusing your own opinions and obsessions with reality...

I still haven't heard any substantive critique of the arguments presented...

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by headsplice

I still haven't heard any substantive critique of the arguments presented...

I've tried critiqueing tw. But the problem is to do so you have to have the amount of time he has to blather and indulge in baiting and, having an actual life, I don't.

He generates this stuff in such a prodigious volume that I find I must content myself with poking fun at his style once in a while. His world view is so Unabomberish that no amount of "critique" will lead to a point where actual discussion can happen.

When he starts telling everyoine what "reality" is, it's kind of like getting stuck on an elevator with three Jehova's Witnesses and Lyndon LaRouche.

[tw]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

He generates this stuff in such a prodigious volume that I find I must content myself with poking fun at his style once in a while. His world view is so Unabomberish that no amount of "critique" will lead to a point where actual discussion can happen.

Reality is so easy to write about. But when inventing a world defined by a conservative political agenda, well, it takes MaggieL a long time to spin myths.

Funny how MaggieL disparaged Lyndon LaRouche. Considering extremism in her posts, well, its like yelling at the mirror.

Political agendas create myths - don't solve problems. Stable people don't consult their political biases to define reality. Stable people need not carry concealed weapons because they so fear everyone. Stable people don't blindly proclaim Saddam had WMDs only because "I feel he has WMDs, therefore he must". Stable people first learn facts; need not spend hours trying to spin lies into something coherent.

MaggieL endorses torture, extraoridinary rendition (international kidnapping), secret prisons hidden from the International Red Cross and the Geneva man, and 'Pearl Harboring' of nations justified by theoretical (mythical) fears. It takes great effort to justify things not based in reality. It also took great effort to insist that Saddam and bin Laden were allies or to prove Saddam was a threat.

Centrists need not rationalize using extremist agendas. Inventing half truths takes time. No wonder I can define problems with many facts - and MaggieL now resorts to disparaging remarks.

Wacko conservatives will even tell us that Iraq is getting better and that the "Mission Accomplished" war was a good thing. That because a conservative agenda 'proves' that Iraq must be getting better. Meanwhile, quality of life in Iraq was better under Saddam. Iraqis even had regular electricity and other basic services. More realty that must be denied when using an extremist agenda.

With more guns in Iraq, Iraq is so much safer. First massive numbers of guns arrived. Now violence has never been worse - and will be getting worse. 'Will be getting worse' is another reality that extremists conservative spend hours spinning denials of. The conservative bible said increased violence and looting was not so. They even insist Iraq will get better - as number of weapons increase. An extremist's bible says so.

Meanwhile those who deal in reality - not in a political agenda - even cite Sze Tsu and Military Science 101 as to why such violence was inevitable. It does not take long to write about mistakes due to an extremist agenda - such as pre-emption, disbanding the military and police, and why looting happened. Lying about it takes MaggieL hours.

Reality is easy to write about. Lying just takes so damn long to invent. Justifying torture - no wonder MaggieL finds it so difficult to reply. Instead she resorts to classic Rush Limbaugh 'mocking and insulting' sound bytes. Spinning lies would take too long.

MaggieL endorses S3930 to permits torture in secret prisons and that denies victims right to appeal to the Supreme Court. Just another step in what dictators and extremists conservatives want. No wonder they carry concealed weapons. Reality is the enemy.

Again...

If you behave like the enemy, use their tactics... you are no different than the enemy.
If your laws have no meaning for others... they have no meaning.

[Kitsune]

I'd like to dredge this back up and suggest everyone give a listen (click here for episode information). The episode of This American Life includes interviews with previous detainees and is a little more than an hour long, but well worth it to get a peek into Guantanamo Bay.