Political Crossfire Forums

[BobbyO]

agentkgb wrote: BobbyO wrote: agentkgb wrote: BobbyO wrote: micfranklin wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Eveyone on the planet is allready covered by the bill of rights.

Just shows how little senators know about the consitution.

Terrorists, even after they murder hundreds or thousands of innocents, deserve a right to a fair trial, a lawyer and thats it. Nothing more than that.

They are afforded that right.
When, next century maybe?

today. The Millitary Commison Act
That's a "fair trial"? No.

The accused has the right to a lawyer, to se the evidence against him, to challenge witnesses against him, to bring forth witnesses in his own behalf, to introduce evidence in his own behalf, to a public trial (except when the evidence being presented is dangerous to national security, and to appeal a conviction upwards of four times to the civilian courts (US Court of Appeals). What exactly is unfair?

[agentkgb]

BobbyO wrote: agentkgb wrote: BobbyO wrote: today. The Millitary Commison Act
That's a "fair trial"? No.

The accused has the right to a lawyer, to se the evidence against him, to challenge witnesses against him, to bring forth witnesses in his own behalf, to introduce evidence in his own behalf, to a public trial (except when the evidence being presented is dangerous to national security, and to appeal a conviction upwards of four times to the civilian courts (US Court of Appeals). What exactly is unfair?
Where are you getting your facts from?
Wikipedia wrote:
The Act also contains provisions (often referred to as the "habeas provisions") removing access to the courts for any alien detained by the United States government who is determined to be an enemy combatant, or who is 'awaiting determination' regarding enemy combatant status. This allows the United States government to detain such aliens indefinitely without prosecuting them in any manner.

[BobbyO]

agentkgb wrote: BobbyO wrote: agentkgb wrote: BobbyO wrote: today. The Millitary Commison Act
That's a "fair trial"? No.

The accused has the right to a lawyer, to se the evidence against him, to challenge witnesses against him, to bring forth witnesses in his own behalf, to introduce evidence in his own behalf, to a public trial (except when the evidence being presented is dangerous to national security, and to appeal a conviction upwards of four times to the civilian courts (US Court of Appeals). What exactly is unfair?
Where are you getting your facts from?
Wikipedia wrote:
The Act also contains provisions (often referred to as the "habeas provisions") removing access to the courts for any alien detained by the United States government who is determined to be an enemy combatant, or who is 'awaiting determination' regarding enemy combatant status. This allows the United States government to detain such aliens indefinitely without prosecuting them in any manner.

Certainly not Wilkpedia, but from the Act itself. Remamber, the restriction of habeus corpus means restriction of access to the civilian courts, not restrictions from courts

[Richard Owl Mirror]

JLB wrote: Well, it appears that treason is in season now that the Democrats feel they don't have to lie about who they really are anymore.

Senator Dodd has announced his new Terrorists Bill of Rights to insure that they all get ACLU lawyers after they murder innocent people, even though they are not citizens of the US, nor are they wearing military uniforms.

At least America has two years to see the Democrats for what they really are before banishing them from power for good. :tu:
~snip~

You method of expression requires those of us who abide by the laws of this nation to take a stand on issues such as this.
Quote: after they murder innocent people,
even though they are not citizens of the US, nor are they wearing military uniforms.


Although each individual was captured or arrested under indivual circumstances, you automatically have them convicted of
the murder of innocent people.

Guantanamo Ruling on bin Laden's Driver a Blow to Bush
Quote: WASHINGTON, D.C. - The United States Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Salim Ahmed Hamdan, the short and slight Yemeni who was once Osama bin Laden's driver, must receive a trial with new, congressionally approved procedures.

Before the court's ruling, President George W. Bush wanted to try Mr. Hamdan in three feet of frog-infested water because, according to Mr. Bush, "them al-Qaida isn't covered by the Geneva Convention and them Taliban fighters, who we've vowed to smoke out in the war on terror, don't qualify as real prisoners of war because they don't wear uniforms."

Mr. Hamdan, who was captured while double parked in front of a Starbucks in Kabul in November 2001, is charged with illegal parking in a war zone, driving at excessive speed in a clearly marked land mine zone, failure to yield, failure to signal a U-turn properly, operating a motor vehicle with its lights off at night, driving with an expired license, driving with an unconcealed automatic weapon in a vehicle, and numerous parking offenses.
~snip~


By your standard this man doesn't deserve a lawyer or a trial whereby he may present a defense and face his accusers and the charges presented against him.

Apparently a majority of Supreme Court Justices think differently.

[agentkgb]

BobbyO wrote: Certainly not Wilkpedia, but from the Act itself. Remamber, the restriction of habeus corpus means restriction of access to the civilian courts, not restrictions from courts
Quote: (e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination. (2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.
Regardless, it's not a fair trial if it's not the trial everyone else gets.

[el_hombre_de_Dios]

callous wrote: el_hombre_de_Dios wrote: callous wrote: el_hombre_de_Dios wrote: The hypocrisy:
Common sense dictates that we overcome new threats by adapting to them. The terrorists present a threat like we've never seen. We must likewise adapt our tactics to their ways or perhaps suffer greatly. A few successful terrorist attacks and we degenerate into a police state, our economy tanks and a once free populace suffers miserably because we didn't have the foresight to adapt to the new threat.

So what does liberalism do? Play politics with lives and the well being of our country to support the lunacy of not allowing the CIA or military to use coercive measures to find pocket nuclear or biological weapons smuggled into the US by these reprobates. Moreover, lets play Mr. Nice Guy and show the world how virtuous we are and give the slit your daughters throat jihadists free ACLU lawyers at taxpayers expense.

IN OTHER WORDS, THE FALSE GODS OF LIBERALISM DEMAND SACRIFICE: YOUR'S AND MY FAMILIES LIVES IF NECESSARY.

Actually, common sense dictates that we react to threats that apply to reality, not socially conservative paranoia.

So beginning from that bedrock, there actually is nothing within your statement that is useful in any way.

And you might want to look up the difference between a political spectrum and a religion, .... they are quite different.

Just trying to help. :lol:

Anti-intellectualism at its finest! Couldn't have found a better example of liberal dismissivism and empty parroted drivel if I'd done a Google search.
"..conservative paranoia." This shows just how detached some lefties are from reality. Tell that to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11, the English and Spanish train bombings...and you might have your face rearranged.

Plus for those memory challenged lefties who quaintly forget reality so they can make their own, the CIA has stopped terrorist attacks and saved lives already using Bush's policies. Or would you rather have the attacks been successful and those people be dead so you could burn candles at the alter of your inviolable sacred cows right?
:moon:

The families who lost loved ones on 9/11 are still looking for answers as to why they lost them, thanks to your president.

If you'd like to respect their memory, you'd help their loved ones figure it out, instead of supporting Bush.

And there were no terror attacks, because you can not prove there were terror attacks, other than Bush's latest lie.

Oooohh!! So you're showing us: 1) you like the "Alternative Theories Forum" and 2) you're still fuming like a sore loser over the election of 2004 (Bush isn't your president as well?) :roll: And which president are you talking about Bill Clinton? Bush's transition into power was almost completely crippled by the sore loser dems..(just in case you once again have selective memory loss). He didn't even have time to effectively grapple with any issue. Clinton had 8 years, Bush had 4 months, and with a government crippled by sore loser dems stonewalling confirmation of many of his cabinet choices.

Moreover like I said, the DNC is playing politics with human lives trying to appear as if they have the moral high ground. But like the bunch of dolts that the bleeding hearts are, they're about to throw the baby out with the bath water. The issue about our government protecting us from terrorist attacks is about common sense..something that seems in rather short supply within the DNC these days. And this 'law' being pushed by some bleeding heart leftist loony shows that the DNC has let the inmates take over and they are now running the asylum. :lol:

[homerjay_s]

BobbyO wrote: homerjay_s wrote: Ozzone wrote: BobbyO wrote: homerjay_s wrote: Ozzone wrote: Melchior wrote: Ozzone wrote: Quote: Bars information gained through coercion from being introduced as evidence in trials

I'm sorry, but this item is total bs. If it had said torture, with a clear definition of what constitutes torture, then it might have a chance, but COERCION?

God the appeasers are sickening.

It's clear they want to strip as much power away from the President, a.k.a. THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF as they can, EVEN IN WARTIME.

Whoa, slow down.

What does coercion mean to you? Because if you looked the word up in a dictionary you would find terms like "violence" and "abuse of power" in the description.

It doesn't mean the same thing as torture. I have no problem with our government using coercion on enemies of the state.

Quote: Coercion is the term used to describe the limits people have with their own rights in regards to everyone else.

Not really, but I'll say that your definition is good enough for debate purposes. I've actually looked them both up.

Torture can be perceived as coercion (because it is the act of using force or power over someone), but in the legal definition there is a big difference.

Again, I have no problem limiting their rights. They are terrorists. They gave up their rights as far as I am concerned. Especially if they are foreign nationals attempting to commit acts of terrorism against Americans.

You want to limit the rights of "suspected" terrorists. This isn't about people that have already been tried and convicted of crimes.

Why are the Republicans in favor of withholding rights to alleged criminals? Aren't you the same people that wanted to treat Abramoff innocent until proven rediculously guilty?

Because they are not "alleged" criminals. They are being treated as enemy combatants.

Thank you for clearing that up for homer. He needs to understand the difference it seems.

Actually, why don't you explain the difference for us all. Help us understand why the label "enemy combatant" all of a sudden should make it okay to detain indefinitely without bringing charges or providing a trial, and to use torture as a means of "interrogation".

Please explain.

An "enemy combatant" is NOT a common criminal. As such the rights of the former are not the same as the latter. There is nothing new about this. Such distinctions have been present for centuries.

Semantics aren't a good enough reason to allow the government to bypass the Constitution, in my opinion, anyway.

Quote: As far as using "torture" cut the violins please. The Democrats REFUSED to sign on to President Bush's proposal to define exactly what techniques were allowed and what were not allowed. They preferred to keep things vague. Very irresponsible on their part. Because before one starts throwing terms around like "torture" you need to define exactly what it is.

tor‧ture  /ˈtɔrtʃər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tawr-cher] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -tured, -tur‧ing.
–noun
1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5. a cause of severe pain or anguish.
–verb (used with object)
6. to subject to torture.
7. to afflict with severe pain of body or mind: My back is torturing me.
8. to force or extort by torture: We'll torture the truth from his lips!
9. to twist, force, or bring into some unnatural position or form: trees tortured by storms.
10. to distort or pervert (language, meaning, etc.).



If you don't know the definition of torture, you shouldn't be making government policy regarding such things.

The legislation you cited was to allow the use of torture by designating specific acts of torture as being acceptable and therefore not recognized officially by our government as torture. The fact that you see it as a failure by the Democrats in defining torture speaks volumes to your overall general ignorance on the matter.

[Nathyn]

agentkgb wrote: BobbyO wrote: agentkgb wrote: BobbyO wrote: micfranklin wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Eveyone on the planet is allready covered by the bill of rights.

Just shows how little senators know about the consitution.

Terrorists, even after they murder hundreds or thousands of innocents, deserve a right to a fair trial, a lawyer and thats it. Nothing more than that.

They are afforded that right.
When, next century maybe?

today. The Millitary Commison Act
That's a "fair trial"? No.
who cares if the trail is fare?!

as long as the terrerists are caught!

:evil:

[Nathyn]

homerjay_s wrote: BobbyO wrote: homerjay_s wrote: Ozzone wrote: BobbyO wrote: homerjay_s wrote: Ozzone wrote: Melchior wrote: Ozzone wrote: Quote: Bars information gained through coercion from being introduced as evidence in trials

I'm sorry, but this item is total bs. If it had said torture, with a clear definition of what constitutes torture, then it might have a chance, but COERCION?

God the appeasers are sickening.

It's clear they want to strip as much power away from the President, a.k.a. THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF as they can, EVEN IN WARTIME.

Whoa, slow down.

What does coercion mean to you? Because if you looked the word up in a dictionary you would find terms like "violence" and "abuse of power" in the description.

It doesn't mean the same thing as torture. I have no problem with our government using coercion on enemies of the state.

Quote: Coercion is the term used to describe the limits people have with their own rights in regards to everyone else.

Not really, but I'll say that your definition is good enough for debate purposes. I've actually looked them both up.

Torture can be perceived as coercion (because it is the act of using force or power over someone), but in the legal definition there is a big difference.

Again, I have no problem limiting their rights. They are terrorists. They gave up their rights as far as I am concerned. Especially if they are foreign nationals attempting to commit acts of terrorism against Americans.

You want to limit the rights of "suspected" terrorists. This isn't about people that have already been tried and convicted of crimes.

Why are the Republicans in favor of withholding rights to alleged criminals? Aren't you the same people that wanted to treat Abramoff innocent until proven rediculously guilty?

Because they are not "alleged" criminals. They are being treated as enemy combatants.

Thank you for clearing that up for homer. He needs to understand the difference it seems.

Actually, why don't you explain the difference for us all. Help us understand why the label "enemy combatant" all of a sudden should make it okay to detain indefinitely without bringing charges or providing a trial, and to use torture as a means of "interrogation".

Please explain.

An "enemy combatant" is NOT a common criminal. As such the rights of the former are not the same as the latter. There is nothing new about this. Such distinctions have been present for centuries.

Semantics aren't a good enough reason to allow the government to bypass the Constitution, in my opinion, anyway.

Quote: As far as using "torture" cut the violins please. The Democrats REFUSED to sign on to President Bush's proposal to define exactly what techniques were allowed and what were not allowed. They preferred to keep things vague. Very irresponsible on their part. Because before one starts throwing terms around like "torture" you need to define exactly what it is.

tor‧ture  /ˈtɔrtʃər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tawr-cher] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -tured, -tur‧ing.
–noun
1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
"excruciating pain" is totally sobjective

we mak soldiers get tear gased and waterborded. so why cant we teargas and waterborded randum civilains???

boxers get punchd in the fase. so why cant we punch ppl in the face.

answer that why dont u

the foundingfathes would not approve. torture isnt unconstetutionel

these arent criminals. their TERRORISTS

AUTOMATICALY GUILTY, OK?!?!

[callous]

el_hombre_de_Dios wrote: callous wrote: el_hombre_de_Dios wrote: callous wrote: el_hombre_de_Dios wrote: The hypocrisy:
Common sense dictates that we overcome new threats by adapting to them. The terrorists present a threat like we've never seen. We must likewise adapt our tactics to their ways or perhaps suffer greatly. A few successful terrorist attacks and we degenerate into a police state, our economy tanks and a once free populace suffers miserably because we didn't have the foresight to adapt to the new threat.

So what does liberalism do? Play politics with lives and the well being of our country to support the lunacy of not allowing the CIA or military to use coercive measures to find pocket nuclear or biological weapons smuggled into the US by these reprobates. Moreover, lets play Mr. Nice Guy and show the world how virtuous we are and give the slit your daughters throat jihadists free ACLU lawyers at taxpayers expense.

IN OTHER WORDS, THE FALSE GODS OF LIBERALISM DEMAND SACRIFICE: YOUR'S AND MY FAMILIES LIVES IF NECESSARY.

Actually, common sense dictates that we react to threats that apply to reality, not socially conservative paranoia.

So beginning from that bedrock, there actually is nothing within your statement that is useful in any way.

And you might want to look up the difference between a political spectrum and a religion, .... they are quite different.

Just trying to help. :lol:

Anti-intellectualism at its finest! Couldn't have found a better example of liberal dismissivism and empty parroted drivel if I'd done a Google search.
"..conservative paranoia." This shows just how detached some lefties are from reality. Tell that to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11, the English and Spanish train bombings...and you might have your face rearranged.

Plus for those memory challenged lefties who quaintly forget reality so they can make their own, the CIA has stopped terrorist attacks and saved lives already using Bush's policies. Or would you rather have the attacks been successful and those people be dead so you could burn candles at the alter of your inviolable sacred cows right?
:moon:

The families who lost loved ones on 9/11 are still looking for answers as to why they lost them, thanks to your president.

If you'd like to respect their memory, you'd help their loved ones figure it out, instead of supporting Bush.

And there were no terror attacks, because you can not prove there were terror attacks, other than Bush's latest lie.

Oooohh!! So you're showing us: 1) you like the "Alternative Theories Forum" and 2) you're still fuming like a sore loser over the election of 2004 (Bush isn't your president as well?) :roll: And which president are you talking about Bill Clinton? Bush's transition into power was almost completely crippled by the sore loser dems..(just in case you once again have selective memory loss). He didn't even have time to effectively grapple with any issue. Clinton had 8 years, Bush had 4 months, and with a government crippled by sore loser dems stonewalling confirmation of many of his cabinet choices.

Moreover like I said, the DNC is playing politics with human lives trying to appear as if they have the moral high ground. But like the bunch of dolts that the bleeding hearts are, they're about to throw the baby out with the bath water. The issue about our government protecting us from terrorist attacks is about common sense..something that seems in rather short supply within the DNC these days. And this 'law' being pushed by some bleeding heart leftist loony shows that the DNC has let the inmates take over and they are now running the asylum. :lol:

So you have nothing but your own opinion to back yourself up in answer to the victims of 9/11 who are looking for answers as to why their loved ones died.

Keep searching, and I'll keep reminding you to keep searching, until you find what you need to find.

[Bill of Rights]

el_hombre_de_Dios wrote: Bush's transition into power was almost completely crippled by the sore loser dems..(just in case you once again have selective memory loss). He didn't even have time to effectively grapple with any issue. Clinton had 8 years, Bush had 4 months, and with a government crippled by sore loser dems stonewalling confirmation of many of his cabinet choices.

bush came to power with the benefit of a republican house, senate, supreme court and the majority of governors and still could not "effectively grapple" with the issues. democrats were not in position to stall the bush agenda. his agenda died from a lethal combination of ignorance and arrogance. he had every opportunity to show this country and the world the blessings of conservatism but instead he has made the world hate the very mention of that term.

el_hombre_de_Dios wrote: Moreover like I said, the DNC is playing politics with human lives trying to appear as if they have the moral high ground. But like the bunch of dolts that the bleeding hearts are, they're about to throw the baby out with the bath water. The issue about our government protecting us from terrorist attacks is about common sense..something that seems in rather short supply within the DNC these days. And this 'law' being pushed by some bleeding heart leftist loony shows that the DNC has let the inmates take over and they are now running the asylum. :lol:

giving the accused a fair hearing does not reduce our protection from terrorism. the government is free to protect us but once the executive branch makes an arrest they should be able to prove their case to the judicial branch. this check on executive power ensures us that the president is not arbitrarily prosecuting, torturing and/or executing people until they are proven guilty.

[homerjay_s]

Nathyn wrote: homerjay_s wrote: BobbyO wrote: homerjay_s wrote: Ozzone wrote: BobbyO wrote: homerjay_s wrote: Ozzone wrote: Melchior wrote: Ozzone wrote: Quote: Bars information gained through coercion from being introduced as evidence in trials

I'm sorry, but this item is total bs. If it had said torture, with a clear definition of what constitutes torture, then it might have a chance, but COERCION?

God the appeasers are sickening.

It's clear they want to strip as much power away from the President, a.k.a. THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF as they can, EVEN IN WARTIME.

Whoa, slow down.

What does coercion mean to you? Because if you looked the word up in a dictionary you would find terms like "violence" and "abuse of power" in the description.

It doesn't mean the same thing as torture. I have no problem with our government using coercion on enemies of the state.

Quote: Coercion is the term used to describe the limits people have with their own rights in regards to everyone else.

Not really, but I'll say that your definition is good enough for debate purposes. I've actually looked them both up.

Torture can be perceived as coercion (because it is the act of using force or power over someone), but in the legal definition there is a big difference.

Again, I have no problem limiting their rights. They are terrorists. They gave up their rights as far as I am concerned. Especially if they are foreign nationals attempting to commit acts of terrorism against Americans.

You want to limit the rights of "suspected" terrorists. This isn't about people that have already been tried and convicted of crimes.

Why are the Republicans in favor of withholding rights to alleged criminals? Aren't you the same people that wanted to treat Abramoff innocent until proven rediculously guilty?

Because they are not "alleged" criminals. They are being treated as enemy combatants.

Thank you for clearing that up for homer. He needs to understand the difference it seems.

Actually, why don't you explain the difference for us all. Help us understand why the label "enemy combatant" all of a sudden should make it okay to detain indefinitely without bringing charges or providing a trial, and to use torture as a means of "interrogation".

Please explain.

An "enemy combatant" is NOT a common criminal. As such the rights of the former are not the same as the latter. There is nothing new about this. Such distinctions have been present for centuries.

Semantics aren't a good enough reason to allow the government to bypass the Constitution, in my opinion, anyway.

Quote: As far as using "torture" cut the violins please. The Democrats REFUSED to sign on to President Bush's proposal to define exactly what techniques were allowed and what were not allowed. They preferred to keep things vague. Very irresponsible on their part. Because before one starts throwing terms around like "torture" you need to define exactly what it is.

tor‧ture  /ˈtɔrtʃər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tawr-cher] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -tured, -tur‧ing.
–noun
1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
"excruciating pain" is totally sobjective

we mak soldiers get tear gased and waterborded. so why cant we teargas and waterborded randum civilains???

boxers get punchd in the fase. so why cant we punch ppl in the face.

answer that why dont u

the foundingfathes would not approve. torture isnt unconstetutionel

these arent criminals. their TERRORISTS

AUTOMATICALY GUILTY, OK?!?!

I can't tell whether you're serious or being facetious.

How is one automatically guilty of anything? Doesn't it take evidence to make one guilty? Doesn't our legal system require judicial review of evidence in a court with rights afforded to the accused before determining guilt?

Mass murder is a horrible crime. Should we treat suspected mass murderers the same way, detaining them just to be sure that if they are really mass murderers that they cannot continue to murder, regardless of actually reviewing the evidence against them?

How about illegal gang activity? What makes organized crime different from what would be labeled an enemy combatant? Should we not treat all suspected gang criminals the same as enemy combatants?

How about those that dissent against our government? Their actions can be damaging to what the government deems to be in the interest of national security....they must be enemy combatants...we should allow our government to lock these people up indefinitely so they don't interfere with the government's agenda?

Everyone that supports this garbage loves to throw the word terrorist around, but this really pertains to suspected terrorists. It is not okay, in my opinion, for the US government to make wide sweeping arrests of people based on ethnicity and religion, and to treat them as guilty without even giving them the opportunity to declare and prove their innocence.

[BobbyO]

Quote: Semantics aren't a good enough reason to allow the government to bypass the Constitution, in my opinion, anyway.

How does following through on the geneva Convention bypass the Constitution?


Quote: tor‧ture  /ˈtɔrtʃər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tawr-cher] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -tured, -tur‧ing.
–noun
1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5. a cause of severe pain or anguish.
–verb (used with object)
6. to subject to torture.
7. to afflict with severe pain of body or mind: My back is torturing me.
8. to force or extort by torture: We'll torture the truth from his lips!
9. to twist, force, or bring into some unnatural position or form: trees tortured by storms.
10. to distort or pervert (language, meaning, etc.).



If you don't know the definition of torture, you shouldn't be making government policy regarding such things.

The legislation you cited was to allow the use of torture by designating specific acts of torture as being acceptable and therefore not recognized officially by our government as torture. The fact that you see it as a failure by the Democrats in defining torture speaks volumes to your overall general ignorance on the matter. [/quote]

The proposal was to define exactly what torture consisted of. Its not unreasonable to define exactly what is allowed to be done. You are worried about the law being violated, yet you are unwilling, in this instance, to specify exactly what is the law.

[BobbyO]

Quote: I can't tell whether you're serious or being facetious.

How is one automatically guilty of anything? Doesn't it take evidence to make one guilty? Doesn't our legal system require judicial review of evidence in a court with rights afforded to the accused before determining guilt?

The MCA allows for this.

Quote: Mass murder is a horrible crime. Should we treat suspected mass murderers the same way, detaining them just to be sure that if they are really mass murderers that they cannot continue to murder, regardless of actually reviewing the evidence against them?

How about illegal gang activity? What makes organized crime different from what would be labeled an enemy combatant? Should we not treat all suspected gang criminals the same as enemy combatants?

fair enough. The Bloods are no different than al queda.
But your objection goes further than an objection to a distinction being made between the two. Your objection is that it is a violation of the Constitution for such a distinction to be made. That is false.

Quote: How about those that dissent against our government? Their actions can be damaging to what the government deems to be in the interest of national security....they must be enemy combatants...we should allow our government to lock these people up indefinitely so they don't interfere with the government's agenda?

if someone is gathering intelligence for a strike, or raising money for its support, then yes, a legitimate case can be made that such a person is an enemy combatant. Surely you would not lump such people with those who simply wish to change government policy?

Quote: Everyone that supports this garbage loves to throw the word terrorist around, but this really pertains to suspected terrorists. It is not okay, in my opinion, for the US government to make wide sweeping arrests of people based on ethnicity and religion, and to treat them as guilty without even giving them the opportunity to declare and prove their innocence.

What wide sweeping arrests?

[homerjay_s]

BobbyO wrote: Quote: Semantics aren't a good enough reason to allow the government to bypass the Constitution, in my opinion, anyway.

How does following through on the geneva Convention bypass the Constitution?

Following through on the geneva conventions means detaining people without regard for habeus corpus, using torture tactics for the purpose of coercing a detainee to confess or give information, and not charging people that are detained nor allowing them the right to a trial to determine their guilt or innocence? Please explain how Geneva accounts for that.


Quote: Quote: tor‧ture  /ˈtɔrtʃər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tawr-cher] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -tured, -tur‧ing.
–noun
1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5. a cause of severe pain or anguish.
–verb (used with object)
6. to subject to torture.
7. to afflict with severe pain of body or mind: My back is torturing me.
8. to force or extort by torture: We'll torture the truth from his lips!
9. to twist, force, or bring into some unnatural position or form: trees tortured by storms.
10. to distort or pervert (language, meaning, etc.).



If you don't know the definition of torture, you shouldn't be making government policy regarding such things.

The legislation you cited was to allow the use of torture by designating specific acts of torture as being acceptable and therefore not recognized officially by our government as torture. The fact that you see it as a failure by the Democrats in defining torture speaks volumes to your overall general ignorance on the matter.

The proposal was to define exactly what torture consisted of. Its not unreasonable to define exactly what is allowed to be done. You are worried about the law being violated, yet you are unwilling, in this instance, to specify exactly what is the law.

The proposal was to define what forms of torture the state would allow...while also protecting those carrying out said torture and also carrying out said illegal detentions from legal consequences. Your premise that this was to define the law is fallacious.

The bottom line is that our laws are all encompassing, and should not be re-written to allow the executive branch to bypass constitutional checks on it's power. In this case, this legislation bypasses judicial checks on the executive branch.

[BobbyO]

Quote: Following through on the geneva conventions means detaining people without regard for habeus corpus, using torture tactics for the purpose of coercing a detainee to confess or give information, and not charging people that are detained nor allowing them the right to a trial to determine their guilt or innocence? Please explain how Geneva accounts for that.

Homer, the GC governs how captured combatants are treated. They are NOT subject to the laws of the country in which they are being incarcerated.


Quote: The proposal was to define what forms of torture the state would allow...while also protecting those carrying out said torture and also carrying out said illegal detentions from legal consequences. Your premise that this was to define the law is fallacious.

The bottom line is that our laws are all encompassing, and should not be re-written to allow the executive branch to bypass constitutional checks on it's power. In this case, this legislation bypasses judicial checks on the executive branch. [/quote]

Homer, the proposal was to define what acts would be illegal and considered torture. The GC allows for countries to make these determinations. The idea was to avoid the captured from setting the agenda, from driving the engine so to speak.
Is a female interrogating an Islamic fundmentalist a form of torture? it could very well be so considered (could cause such a person considerable anguish to see a female without a veil or burqa).

No law has been rewritten. The MCA allows for appeals into the civilian courts (the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, I believe). No end run around the judiciary.

[homerjay_s]

BobbyO wrote: Quote: Following through on the geneva conventions means detaining people without regard for habeus corpus, using torture tactics for the purpose of coercing a detainee to confess or give information, and not charging people that are detained nor allowing them the right to a trial to determine their guilt or innocence? Please explain how Geneva accounts for that.

Homer, the GC governs how captured combatants are treated. They are NOT subject to the laws of the country in which they are being incarcerated.



Quote: The proposal was to define what forms of torture the state would allow...while also protecting those carrying out said torture and also carrying out said illegal detentions from legal consequences. Your premise that this was to define the law is fallacious.

The bottom line is that our laws are all encompassing, and should not be re-written to allow the executive branch to bypass constitutional checks on it's power. In this case, this legislation bypasses judicial checks on the executive branch. [/quote]

Quote: Homer, the proposal was to define what acts would be illegal and considered torture. The GC allows for countries to make these determinations. The idea was to avoid the captured from setting the agenda, from driving the engine so to speak.
Is a female interrogating an Islamic fundmentalist a form of torture? it could very well be so considered (could cause such a person considerable anguish to see a female without a veil or burqa).

No law has been rewritten. The MCA allows for appeals into the civilian courts (the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, I believe). No end run around the judiciary.

Is forcing water into a persons lungs to the point of potentially causing brain damage, making them think they are being drowned, causing damage to the lungs, and effectively bring someone to the point of apparent death and then resuscitating them in order to coerce a confession or the dispensation of information, torture? I would say it is. Making a law that defines this type of activity as legal is tantamount to the state sanctioning the use of torture.

[BobbyO]

Quote: [quote="homerjay_s"][quote="BobbyO"] Quote: Following through on the
Is forcing water into a persons lungs to the point of potentially causing brain damage, making them think they are being drowned, causing damage to the lungs, and effectively bring someone to the point of apparent death and then resuscitating them in order to coerce a confession or the dispensation of information, torture? I would say it is. Making a law that defines this type of activity as legal is tantamount to the state sanctioning the use of torture.

The proposal banned this technique.
See, define it. Nothing wrong with that.

[Pierre Elliott Trudeau]

Sounds like a very good bill to me.

He's assuming that those captured are innocent before proven guilty seeing as NOT ALL DETAINEE's are guilty. They've never been put to trial so how can you assume that they're ALL guilty? How many have been released so far? Thousands... why? Because they were arrested and captured for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This bill shows leadership in getting the terrorists the jail sentences they deserve while ensuring those wrongfully accused are released.

[Gdawg007]

JLB wrote: Well, it appears that treason is in season now that the Democrats feel they don't have to lie about who they really are anymore.

Senator Dodd has announced his new Terrorists Bill of Rights to insure that they all get ACLU lawyers after they murder innocent people, even though they are not citizens of the US, nor are they wearing military uniforms.

At least America has two years to see the Democrats for what they really are before banishing them from power for good. :tu:



From his own web site:




Senator Chris Dodd (D) Al Qaeda

http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3661

November 16, 2006

Washington- Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), an outspoken opponent of the Military Commission Act of 2006, today introduced legislation which would amend existing law in order to have an effective process for bringing terrorists to justice. This is currently not the case under the Military Commission Act, which will be the subject of endless legal challenges. As important, the bill would also seek to ensure that U.S. servicemen and women are afforded the maximum protection of a strong international legal framework guaranteed by respect for such provisions as the Geneva Conventions and other international standards, and to restore America’s moral authority as the leader in the world in advancing the rule of law.

“I take a backseat to no one when it comes to protecting this country from terrorists,” Sen. Dodd said. “But there is a right way to do this and a wrong way to do this. It’s clear the people who perpetrated these horrendous crimes against our country and our people have no moral compass and deserve to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But in taking away their legal rights, the rights first codified in our country’s Constitution, we’re taking away our own moral compass, as well.”



The Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act:



Restores Habeas Corpus protections to detainees

Narrows the definition of unlawful enemy combatant to individuals who directly participate in hostilities against the United States who are not lawful combatants

Bars information gained through coercion from being introduced as evidence in trials

Empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable

Authorizes the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review decisions by the Military commissions

Limits the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and makes that authority subject to congressional and judicial oversight

Provides for expedited judicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionally of its provisions

“We in Congress have our own obligation, to work in a bipartisan way to repair the damage that has been done, to protect our international reputation, to preserve our domestic traditions, and to provide a successful mechanism to improve and enhance the tools required by the global war on terror,” Dodd said.



"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged."
---- Abraham Lincoln

Many of this thing the bill proposes are common sense.

Quote: Restores Habeas Corpus protections to detainees

This one you could make a case either way for. Frankly, I'd rather these people didn't rot in a military prison for years for many reasons, not least of all, the cost of detention. However, I realize that being forced to release someone who's going to return to the enemy ranks to fight against also isn't an option.

Quote: Narrows the definition of unlawful enemy combatant to individuals who directly participate in hostilities against the United States who are not lawful combatants

This one if perfectly acceptable and what I would already expect us to be doing. We should NOT be labeling ANYONE else an enemy combatant. By putting it into law, we ensure it's never abused. Unless you would like to retain the option to abuse the definition...

Quote: Bars information gained through coercion from being introduced as evidence in trials

A definition of coercion is needed. Obviously, these are not simple criminals and certain methods of extracting information will be used. Such information, however, is likely to be for intelligence purposes only. Using it as evidence against them just seems wrong to me. If they were caught firing on US troops, and there's a shred of physical evidence to support the claim, then there's enough evidence without using anything they've said to try and most likely convict them.

Quote: Empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable

So if a judge feels that HEARSAY evidence, that is a statement without any evidence to back it up, is unreliable, they SHOULDN'T throw it out? How can ANYONE disagree with this part of the law at all? Simply declaring someone an enemy combatant isn't enough to convict them in ANY court, at least, it shouldn't be.

Quote: Authorizes the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review decisions by the Military commissions

This one is also debatable. You don't want the court system slowing this process down since all it will do is detain the individuals longer without trial. On the other hand, having an appeals process may prove helpful especially if new information comes to light, for example.

Quote: Limits the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and makes that authority subject to congressional and judicial oversight

The president's role in interpreting treaties is undefined. Whether or not the president requires congressional consent in order to interpret the meaning of such treates needs to be written into law in a more general manner (don't write a law that specifies JUST the Geneva Conventions) or it needs to be taken to the Supreme Court.

Quote: Provides for expedited judicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionally of its provisions

The only reason to oppose this is if one thinks the Act is unconstitutional.

Frankly, NOTHING in this bill is granting terrorists any rights. Sadly, this bill would provide only the minimum protections afforded the WORST of our criminals in this country. Even Tim McVeigh was afforded more rights than these and he killed quite a few people. The fact that we would seek to remove our own principles from the process of trying those who fought illegally against our soldiers, while at the same time offer MORE rights to those who rape and kill ten or more children makes no sense to me. At least, not from a legal standpoint.