silverwhisper's tags:
silverwhisper's most popular posts:
silverwhisper reads (735):
Who's reading silverwhisper (776):

canadian diplomat training manual lists US as nation that tortures

silverwhisper posted on Jan 21, 2008 | views: 1030 | Tags: cowards, torture, politics, Canada, padilla
courtesy of elsewhere...

short version: a training manual used for canadian diplomats includes the US as a nation in which prisoners are tortured and/or abused. long version here. the US reaction is, predictably, less than enthusiastic. long version here.

US ambassador david wilkins quoth:
we find it to be offensive for us to be on the same list with countries like iran and china. quite frankly it's absurd.

commentary: really? then stop doing it and stop equivocating about it. it's really that simple, your excellency.

the fact is that the US government deserves the label:

1. it's incontrovertible fact that the US uses waterboarding: the government has already stated that they do.
2. it's incontrovertible fact that the practice of waterboarding historically was always seen as torture by the US government. we didn't like it when the vietnamese did it to our POWs.
3. it's incontrovertible fact that prisoners--o, excuse me, i meant "unlawful combatants"--were subjected to waterboarding.

ergo: the US government can and will torture people in its custody.

the article adds that other nations on the list are israel, afghanistan, china, egypt, iran, saudi arabia, mexico and syria. obviously, the commander-in-chief spent too much time in the company of saudis: their bad habits must be rubbing off.

btw: israel?

ed

send to a friend del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • bloc said on Jan 21, 2008....
    I also like to point out that induced hypothermia is clearly torture as well.
  • beyondtheveil said on Jan 21, 2008....
    Ed- I agree we use torture, but I'd also like to point out there are levels of torture, frequency of use, and the list of those tortured.

    I would bet that Afghanistan, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Syria, and who I hear is the master of torture- Egypt, use torture frequently and torture everyone including their own people. There are also many other countries I'm sure who use torture frequently. In fact, I'm convinced there are few countries who don't in some way.

    This doesn't make us a good guy concerning torture- we use it after all. But what I've said which I consider fact also doesn't place us on the same level, or anywhere close, to many. It does, however, place us on the list.
  • silverwhisper said on Jan 21, 2008....
    bloc: has the US government historically held that view?

    beyond: o, i agree it hardly means we're heading that last--all i'm saying is that we're on it.

    ed
  • the_infernal_optimist said on Jan 21, 2008....
    I'm not surprised about our inclusion there, and I really liked your response to Ambassador Wilkins. Then again, I suppose it's almost in his job description to behave that way, at least under the current administration. I wonder if they teach a course called "How to Lie, Waffle, Misdirect, and Look Righteously Indignant When Confronted with Truth" or if it just comes naturally.

    ~Infernal
  • silverwhisper said on Jan 21, 2008....
    thank you. now, just imagine it delivered in ringing, snarky tones. :D

    and re: that course: sadly, i think some just have a knack for it, infernal.

    ed
  • bloc said on Jan 21, 2008....
    @beyond
    you are correct, but we are unfortunately sending people to those countries to be tortured for us :/

    @ed
    I'm not sure, but I've never known anyone to say that the "cold cell" or induced hypothermia aren't torture.
  • silverwhisper said on Jan 21, 2008....
    bloc: i can see that being a gray area, myself.

    ed
  • bloc said on Jan 21, 2008....
    i fail to see how unless the person is delusional. Imagine being forced to stay virtually nude in a cell that is 40 degrees. No blankets, or anything to keep you warm. Nothing to distract yourself either. And you can only sit there and be cold, very cold, with no end in site. The psycological impact is profound and is extreme suffering.


  • silverwhisper said on Jan 22, 2008....
    ah. ew.

    point conceded.

    ed
  • pete said on Jan 22, 2008....
    It's fucking Canada! Hello!...Ca-na-da, could it matter less?
  • silverwhisper said on Jan 22, 2008....
    as i was reading your comment, i was thinking about that song from the south park movie... :D

    ed
  • stopmediabias said on Jan 23, 2008....
    I think we should conquer Canada and waterboard the guy that made this training manual.
  • bloc said on Jan 23, 2008....
    "you want to see our moral high ground? Well, SUCK ON THIS!"
  • bloc said on Jan 23, 2008....
    for those that missed it, this is the "suck on this" I was making fun of.
  • pete said on Jan 23, 2008....
    stopmedia-If it was worth it we would of conquered it 100 years ago. Who wants it?
  • stopmediabias said on Jan 23, 2008....

    Pete-your right, what exactly is in Canada that is worth taking,

     we could conquer them now but the hardest part would be finding 20 minutes out of our busy schedule.

  • silverwhisper said on Jan 24, 2008....
    i see that smb is relying on usual "might makes right" argument of "if i don't like it, i must destroy it!"

    the more things change, i suppose...

    ed
  • bloc said on Jan 24, 2008....
    i always find it amusing that most of hte people with that attitude are not veterans. They want to act like tough guys while it's other people that put their lives on the line. 
  • pete said on Jan 24, 2008....
    Hey, bloc, lighten up.No need to be so miserable. I don't believe that you find anything amusing.
  • bloc said on Jan 24, 2008....
    I've been deployed before and get a little tired of chicken-hawks that espouse the glories of war from the comfort of their living room. We can joke when we stop sending soldiers on their 3rd and 4th tours in Iraq. Or you can enlist and joke about it then.
  • pete said on Jan 24, 2008....
    I can tell this will go nowhere.I am trying to reason with the defender of Padilla and also the guy who is obsessed with torture.
  • bloc said on Jan 24, 2008....
    i don't defend padilla. I defend the Constitution. I believe that all americans should have the right to due process as the founding fathers outlined. Don't you?
  • silverwhisper said on Jan 24, 2008....
    pete, are you seriously going to argue that the president is permitted to ignore the law without consequence, as occurred with padilla? that says a lot more about you than it does anything else.

    ed
  • stopmediabias said on Jan 24, 2008....

    Silver-I was joking, it's called humor

    Bloc- You are fucking coward who defends other cowards.  Jose Padilla would slit yours and wifes throat and say a prayer to the fact that he ridded the world of of a couple more infidels.  I think you need to seriously grow up.

     

  • silverwhisper said on Jan 24, 2008....
    smb: dude, i've seen you say some things that i would consider outrageous. and i would thank you to avoid the personal attacks in the future. bloc has said nothing to warrant such a response from you here.

    ed
  • bloc said on Jan 24, 2008....
    I enlisted in the U.S. army when i was 17 years old, served 4 years 1 of which was a deployment where I slept in a tent and wore a flack jacket and kevlar almost all day. If that makes me a coward then so be it. I personally would define a person that glorifies war when they know they don't have to fight in one as a coward.

    Regarding padilla, he is an american citizen that lived in America. He was surrounded by infidels every day and never once slit anyones throat. This does not mean that he is a good person or that he wasn't a terrorist. I've never defended him. What I've always claimed is that american citizens should have the right to due process. The President should never have the power to detain any american citizen without proving they are guilty of a crime in a court of law. Bush clearly violated the constitution and it's as simple as that.
  • kelly said on Jan 24, 2008....
    "Bloc- You are fucking coward who defends other cowards."

    That is clearly nonsense.  These days it takes a courageous voice to say he believes in rule of law and upholding the Constitution, something the administration has no interest in doing.
  • stopmediabias said on Jan 25, 2008....
    Silver-sorry bloc has gone off the deep end.
     
    Bloc-you waisting your time trying to get out of the massive hole you have dug yourself.  We have two sides: America and these jiadists.  If you disagree with American policies that you can prove were faulty then disagree by all means.  But you give NO-ONE the benefit of the doubt, you put nothing into context to the animals we are fighting, and you stand on the side of these scumbags, AND you rip your own people apart. 
     
    You "Americans" should be verbally ripping these Canadians apart but you agree with them!  Shameful, just shameful. 
     
  • silverwhisper said on Jan 25, 2008....
    smb: no, if anyone has gone off the deep end here, it's you. i will not warn you again if you use abusive language unprovoked.



    "my country right or wrong" is a quaint, hicksville kinda notion. it doesn't play in other parts of the country particularly well.

    ed
  • bloc said on Jan 25, 2008....
    I agree with the Canandians. I'm a moral person and torture is wrong. It's really that simple. 
  • kelly said on Jan 25, 2008....
    I'd like to inject a quote from a street artist who goes by the name of Banksy.  This is specifically for smb:

    "It takes a lot of guts to stand up anonymously in a western democracy and call for things no-one else believes in--like peace and justice and freedom"

    bloc is going one step better by not being anonymous.
  • stopmediabias said on Jan 26, 2008....

    I am lost here...

    Bloc-I will admit, I am sorry about calling you a coward, that was uncalled for, you are far from coward, you might be insane, but not a coward.

    I am just blown away by the fact you guys agree with a nation that hides under the shadow of America for protection when they say we are same as Saddam, the Vietcong, the Iranians, etc etc...to me that is disgusting and as Mr. Wilkins said it is just absurd.

  • silverwhisper said on Jan 26, 2008....
    actually, the canadian manual doesn't say we're the same, smb.

    ed
  • stopmediabias said on Jan 26, 2008....

    ergo: the US government can and will torture people in its custody.

    This is what I'm talking about, can you prove the US government tortures people as a matter of policy?  No.  This is a severe charge to making on your own people when you can't prove it.

  • pete said on Jan 26, 2008....
    Assuming bloc is not planning jihad against the rest of us, I would venture to say that he is safe from an unjust arrest and any of the impolite torture sustained by mister Padilla.
    That said,the judge decided that poor Jose(Former criminal,proven member of a known terrorist cell, known conspirator of plots to kill and/or maim innocents abroad)Padilla would need to serve 17 years for his part in "nothing",as bloc would have us believe. The torture described as "no mattress, no books,no contact with family and lawyers and the noise", could also describe the conditions that he voluntarily sought out in a Pakistani training camp in order to up his status in some wholesome little Islamic study group.
    If not held for five years and set free to come and go as easily as you or I, without any tagging by the government as is the alienable right of every American, citizen Padilla could and almost certaintly would have been able to do whatever he liked to whoever he didn't like. Could you imagine the protest than,"You dumb bastards had him and let him go! Now, 5,000 people were subjected to anthrax on the subway."
    As for bloc's ridiculous statement that," He was surrounded by infidels every day and never once slit anyones throat". Everyone of those guys on 9/11 were surrounded by infidels everyday and didn't slit anyone's throat either.
    American prisons are full of innocent people who are truly in need of defense. Padilla is not innocent he is a pig and you do defend him. You have no right to deny that.
    You say that you joined the military at 17 for four years.First you were a kid and it is highly unlikely that as an adult that you would make that choice. Anyone who reads anything you write would surley agree with that. Secondly,four years is the commitment you can't leave before that. That does not make you a patriot it makes you a kid who made the wrong personal decision and no doubt regretted every minute of it.You could still be a coward under those conditions.
  • silverwhisper said on Jan 26, 2008....
    pete: you're aware that where the US government royally fucked up was in depriving padilla, as US citizen of his civil liberties, guaranteed by the consittution, right? you're arguinig "he's a terrorist, he doesn't get to have rights". you're therefore also arguing that if the president thinks you're a terrorist you can be stripped of your civil liberties. that's exceedingly dangerous--to all of us. how do you not see that?

    second: let me know when you wanna stop attacking bloc's person and instead try addressing his arguments.

    ed
  • bloc said on Jan 26, 2008....
    @pete
    you fail to understand what I am saying. This isn't about padilla, it's about the constitution. Should Presidents be able to detain american citizens without due process? No!

    Why didn't the President charge padilla with a crime as he should have? Why should we accept this behavior from a President? It's really simple, Presidents should not have the power to detain american citizens unless they can prove the citizen is guilty of something. This is one of the core principles of our nation and Bush violated it. Padilla's guilt is not relevant to this issue.

    The fact that he is guilty proves my point. That Bush should have charged him with a crime as The Constitution requires!

    Can you please tell me how you disagree with me on this?
  • stopmediabias said on Jan 26, 2008....

    Pete-You hit the nail on the head.  I completely agree with you.

    But I want to be clear here...I should not have made that statement about bloc, I think there are a lot of cowards in this country (Michael Moore, Rosy are examples) but bloc is not one of them because he is in the debate, and he believes what he says and defends what he says, I can't imagine how, but that's me.  I hold the belief that if you accuse our government of torture you are accusing all Americans of torture and I think in a time of war this terrible.  We have people losing and risking their lives overseas and we are over here accusing them of torture. 

    For me to read that Canada of all countries makes even the slightest comparison of us to people who really torture, really got under my skin hence my comment that as Silver put it was  "outrageous"  (probably the only time in history Silver was dead on.:>)

    Silver-I think bloc is a big boy who can defend himself and it was bloc who decided to bring up his military service first.  If you bring anything personal in here it is going to get scrutinized.

  • silverwhisper said on Jan 26, 2008....
    smb: thank you for the clarification re: your statement. :>

    i agree he's a big boy, but let's be honest: pete just wants to continue the "cowardice" meme, and frankly, i think that's pretty weak.

    ed
  • bloc said on Jan 26, 2008....
    "I hold the belief that if you accuse our government of torture you are accusing all Americans of torture and I think in a time of war this terrible. "

    I think this is where a lot of our disagreement begins. How would this apply to nazi germany? If a German citizen accused the German governemnt of genocide were they accusing all Germans of those crimes?

    I simply don't understand this philosophy. Governments are like people. Sometimes ours is good, sometimes it does bad things. We've all done something we regret in the past, so why should we act as if our government is always perfect and should never be criticized.

    Let's take this a step farther. I know plenty of people in the military, including my uncle who has already done 1 tour in Iraq (he's in the national guard). When I say that our government is torturing people (check my blog if you want proof), I am not saying that my uncle is a torturer. Such a statement doesn't even make sense to me.

    We do really torture, and Canada is right about that.
  • stopmediabias said on Jan 27, 2008....

    The evidence that you have in regards to the American government torturing people is no where near sufficient.  You are accusing your own people (when you accuse the government) in that when people in other countries read your posts and read garbage like the New York Slimes they don't see it as a few rogue overzealous government officials, they see it as Americans because we Americans vote our officials into office even after charges like these have been made. 

    Canada should be shut off and all Americans should give a one-fingered salute to them.  We do not torture people, you can keep saying it and it won't make it any more true.  If we actually did torture people as a matter of policy do you think you would ever even hear about waterboarding and induced hypothermia?  KSM sawed Daniels Pearls head off.  If we really tortured people KSM would have probably had every bone in his body broke.

    When John Kerry was talking about soldiers going in the dead of night and terrorizing woman and children who was he talking about?  Mark Cubans movie that portrays American soldeirs like a bunch of murdering rapists, who was he talking about?  All if this false rhetoric about our government trickles down to the brave men and woman fighting around the world.  This is why if we are going to make charges like this EVERYTHING should be taken into account and put into proper context. 

  • pete said on Jan 27, 2008....
    I did not call him a coward. I simply said that the military does not hold an argument for not being one. Especially, when it was obviously a misjudgement by a 17 year old kid. When I was 15 I used to jump from one 7 story building to a 6 story building across an alley. I was not brave, I was dumb.
    Bloc's bravery or cowardice is his to live with, I am nobody to sit in judgement of his valor or patriotic holdings.
    IF YOU ARE A TRAITOR AND TURN YOUR BACK ON THE LIBERTIES OF THIS COUNTRY THAN YOU ALSO FORFEIT YOUR RIGHTS TO THOSE VERY SAME LIBERTIES. IF YOU CEASE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU ARE AN AMERICAN THAN YOU SHOULD LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR CHOICES.
    ONCE AGAIN IF THERE IS NOTHING FOR YOU TO HIDE THAN DON'T WORRY THAT SOMEONE IS GOING TO BREAK DOWN YOUR DOOR AND HAUL YOU OFF TO TO TORTURE CAMP. IN THE CASE OF PADILLA THEY KNEW WHO THEY WERE LOOKING FOR AND DID NOT SINGLE OUT AN INNOCENT, DECENT AMERICAN CITIZEN. SO, NO HE IS NOT LIKE ME AS I SUSPECT HE IS NOT LIKE BLOC OR SILVER OR SMB AND TO COMPARE HIM TO ANY OF US IS AN INSULT TO EVERYONE TRIES TO LIVE THE DREAM.
    Don't let the fact that somebody was fortunate enough to be born here be reason enough to spoil and piss on the rest of us.
    No free passes because because you won the geographical lottery.
  • bloc said on Jan 27, 2008....
    @smb
    your points aren't logical. The fact that someone had their head sawed off (this is murder not torture) has no bearing on whether we torture or not. Think about it like this, 'Stalin didn't torture because Pearle had his head sawed off'. Your conclusion doesn't logically follow from your premise.

    "If we really tortured people KSM would have probably had every bone in his body broke."

    This doesn't make logical sense either. This is like saying that Saddam didn't really torture someone unless he broke every bone in their body. Torture isn't limited to breaking every bone in someones body. Again, the conclusion you make doesn't logically follow from your premise. Both of these are called non sequiturs.

    Ok, let's use proper context. Our government has always considered waterboarding torture. It has prosecuted people for doing it to Americans. In proper context, waterboarding is torture. Let's add some more context. There is the guy that was tortured to death in Abu Ghraib by the CIA. You even agree with me about this guy, yet no one has been held accountable. Why?

    @pete
    typing in all caps doesn't make your statements logical. This is really simple. Should the President have the power to detain american citizens without due process? Our founding fathers were very clear on what they believed about this sort of thing. You seem to be the one willing to turn your back on our liberties.
  • pete said on Jan 27, 2008....
    When do you waive your rights as a citizen? A pedophile is tracked and upon moving into a new area there is notification to anyone who might be interested. A felon has no right to vote.Are these wrong? A loosely interpreted constitution would have you believe they are.
    Bloc, you are clearly an asshole. If my friend has no ties to or is not implicated in or has not been tracked to Pakistan and is not on a watch list for any of those reasons than no the President does not have the right to hold him. But, regardless of where your mother dropped you if you forfeit your allegiance by sleeping with the enemy and declaring the U.S. your enemy, than yes the President should and could hold you as a "enemy combatant".And lets not forget that he is treated far better as an enemy combatant of the U.S. than he would of any of those countries that share his ideological beliefs.
    Answer the question as to what would you say if Padilla was released and was even remotely responsable for a terrorist act. Would you not than blame the President for having him and than letting him go,knowing what he was capable of?
    If you are half as smart as you would like people to believe than ofcourse you know that the President hardly is intouch with specific cases, and more than likely did not say, "Hold that Padiya fella, til I git some answers", You know he did not order his arrest.The F.B.I., C.I.A, Naval intelligence or you? I'm thinking they might have a bit more of an inside line than you.He was held for a reason, one that need not be explained to you or me.
    It is possible to give up your rights of citizenship. So,put aside your agenda against the President and admit that you are just trying to stir the pot with bullshit liberal rhetoric.
  • bloc said on Jan 27, 2008....
    "When do you waive your rights as a citizen? A pedophile is tracked and upon moving into a new area there is notification to anyone who might be interested. A felon has no right to vote.Are these wrong? A loosely interpreted constitution would have you believe they are."

    Both of these situations apply to people that have been convicted in a court of law. i.e. these people got due process!!!
    "He was held for a reason, one that need not be explained to you or me. "

    This is called tyranny. The Constitution makes it very clear that this illegal. This is not bullshit rhetoric. Again I ask you, should the President have the power to arrest any american citizen without proving they are guilty of anything? Or, should they be required to charge them with a crime and produce evidence supporting those charges before they can take away an american citizens freedom?

    If this is liberal rhetoric, then the founding fathers were raging liberals.
  • pete said on Jan 27, 2008....
    Oh, by the way, our founding fathers would have no doubt tarred and feathered him before they hung him for treason.
  • pete said on Jan 27, 2008....
    Answer the question as to what would you say if Padilla was released and was even remotely responsable for a terrorist act. Would you not than blame the President for having him and than letting him go,knowing what he was capable of?
  • pete said on Jan 27, 2008....
    Forgive me Mr.Whisper, I'm on a roll.
    When the often quoted and/or misquoted Constitution is brought into an argument how often is it relevent?
    Should everyone you know carry a firearm?
    Was there an internet where child porn could be million dollar industry?
    Was there transportation regulations that required you to remove articles of clothing before entering a plane?
    Was there a chance of a terrorist group detonating a dirty bomb on a subway?
    How many innocent people are killed by guns?
    How many children are exploited?
    How long do you stand on line taking your shoes off or are chosen at random to go into the "other room" for further checking?
    I hope that you can understand that while what the constitution stands for is perfect, the times that we live in are not.
  • bloc said on Jan 27, 2008....
    your question doesn't relate to the issue at hand. My assertion is that the President should have charged him with a crime as the constitution requires.

    Speaking of the constitution here is what it says.

    "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    ...

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial"

    This is very clear and conclusive. Bush broke the law. All he had to do to not brea the law was charge padilla with a crime and present the evidence supporting those charges. The Bush admin argued in a court that it should have the power to detain any american citizen without due process.




  • pete said on Jan 27, 2008....
    Whether or not the question relates to the issue at hand is not the point. The point is that you avoided answering for the second time.
    "The Bush admin argued in a court that it should have the power to detain any american citizen without due process."
    Again, does "due process" trump "just cause" when national safety is paramount?
  • bloc said on Jan 27, 2008....
    what is just cause? Who determines it?

    What you are saying is that the President should have the power to detain any american citizen without due process and without producing any evidence that they are guilty of anything. This is fundamentally unconstitutional (read it above) and unamerican.

    Here's your answer. The president should have charged him with a crime. Period. This solves the problem in your question. Charge the person with a crime and present the evidence. That's how the system is supposed to work and this is solves the issue in your question.

    Now it's your turn to stop dodging and deal with the real issue. The founding fathers wrote the constitution to prevent abuses of power. Bush violated that, plain and simple. Why should we abolish the constitution now? I see no good reason. If the President has evidence that a person is a terrorist then he can charge them with that crime. Otherwise we have tyrannical powers that violate the letter and the spirit of the constitution.
  • pete said on Jan 28, 2008....
    Let me be more clear for you, the question is "what would you say if Padilla was released and was even remotely responsable for a terrorist act. Would you not than blame the President for having him and than letting him go,knowing what he was capable of? "
    This would be the third or fourth time that you do not answer a very direct and simply worded question.
  • sheltercrow said on Jan 28, 2008....

    I see the Lord of the Dark Realm is at the usual hole digging crap again.

    When the Padilla case went to court last summer, the judge, Marcia Cooke, airbrushed Padilla's torture from history, insisting that it could not be discussed at all, and... Padilla and his co-defendants were duly found guilty.

    While the conviction of Hassoun and Jayyousi was based on coded conversations in 126 phone calls intercepted by the FBI over a number of years, Padilla was included in only seven of those phone calls.

    In the end, Padilla's conviction hinged on the jury's determination that he had "joined the terrorism conspiracy in the United States before leaving the country." This was based on a single recorded conversation, in July 1997, in which he stated that he was ready to join a jihad overseas.

    His application form, which, according to a government expert, bore his fingerprints, was apparently discovered during a CIA raid on an alleged al-Qaeda safe house in Afghanistan, but although the prosecution presented an alleged al-Qaeda graduation list with his Muslim name on it during the sentencing, they had been unable to provide any evidence during the trial that he had actually attended the training camp in Afghanistan.

    17 years and four months seems to me to be an extraordinarily long sentence for little more than a thought crime, but when the issue of Padilla's three and half years of suppressed torture is raised, it's difficult not to conclude that justice has just been horribly twisted, that the President and his advisors have just got away with torturing an American citizen with impunity, and that no American citizen can be sure that what happened to Padilla will not happen to him or her.

  • sheltercrow said on Jan 28, 2008....

    Pete has joined the Lord of the Dark Realm in hypothetical nonsense. If you have no point to an arguement... than what if pigs could fly. And on and on.

  • sheltercrow said on Jan 28, 2008....

    Pete you president is a f*****g criminal.

    Bush swore to uphold the constitution which makes his incarceration of Padilla a crime. The only reason he got away with it was for the simple reason that the Supreme Court is packed with right wingers. The same right wingers that threw him the Florida election.

  • sheltercrow said on Jan 28, 2008....
    See i misspelled again. Your president is a f*****g criminal.
  • sheltercrow said on Jan 28, 2008....
    I hope I spelled f*****g right this time.
  • pete said on Jan 28, 2008....
    sheltercrow, I must admit your approach to the matter is much more articulate than the rehashing of crap that bloc favors. However, I honestly believe that him, her, you or me do not need to worry about such things happening to us. This a situation unique to this time and place. There was never a precedent set for this situation. Perhaps, now there will be a neater way of handling such situations, because no doubt this won't be the last time.
    It seems to me that this case is behind us and there plenty of scars that are going mark this President's legacy. I don't believe in the end that Padilla's life is worth the effort it took to defend him. It's over, hopefully next time it will be done by the letter of the law. Hopefully, next time there is a law that pertains to this situation.
  • pete said on Jan 28, 2008....
    You don't live here, sheltercrow?
  • sheltercrow said on Jan 28, 2008....

    Bush is you president. And yes I was born here. As a last comment...

    Remember the Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer raids, Industrial Workers of the World, Sacco and Vanzetti, red-baiting, blacklisting, House Un-American Activities Committee, Joseph McCarthy, and COINTELPRO?

    A group of twelve prominent lawyers that included future Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter published "A Report on the Illegal Practices of The United States Department of Justice," citing violations of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution and accusing Palmer of "illegal acts" and "wanton violence."

    A few of the more famous people who were blacklisted or suffered some other persecution during McCarthyism:

    Leonard Bernstein, Charlie Chaplin, Aaron Copland, W.E.B. DuBois, Lee Grant, Dashiell Hammett, Lillian Hellman, Gypsy Rose Lee, Burgess Meredith, Arthur Miller, Zero Mostel, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Linus Pauling, Edward G. Robinson, Pete Seeger, Artie Shaw, Orson Welles

  • sheltercrow said on Jan 28, 2008....
    damn that should be your president.
  • pete said on Jan 28, 2008....
    Do you live here? Not," were you born here"?
    I did not vote for Bush nor can you offer me one shred of evidence that I defended him. He is in fact your President as well. If your hatred of one man can lead you to thinking that common sense has no place, (locking up Padilla made perfect sense) than you are as much a part of the problem as him.
  • sheltercrow said on Jan 28, 2008....

    Tell me how violating his oath, the law and the constitution makes sense?

    Are you from this country?

  • sheltercrow said on Jan 28, 2008....


    Your statement that Padilla is a "proven member of a known terrorist cell and known conspirator of plots to kill and/or maim innocents abroad" is as hollow as your other assertion about common sense. You make assertions out of sheer thin air with no evidence and are just as irrelevant as your friend stopmediadias. You are, along with her, a provocateur and nothing more.


    Jose Padilla, an American citizen, was arrested in Chicago's O'Hare International Airport after returning from Pakistan in 2002. He was initially detained as a material witness in the government's investigation of the al Qaeda terrorist network, but was later declared an "enemy combatant" by the Department of Defense, meaning that he could be held in prison indefinitely without access to an attorney or to the courts. The FBI claimed that he was returning to the United States to carry out acts of terrorism.

    Donna Newman, who had represented him while he was being held as a material witness, filed a petition for habeas corpus on his behalf. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that Newman had standing to file the petition despite the fact that Padilla had been moved to a military brig in South Carolina. However, the court also found that the Department of Defense, under the President's constitutional powers as Commander in Chief and the statutory authorization provided by Congress's Authorization for Use of Military Force, had the power to detain Padilla as an enemy combatant. The district judge rejected Newman's argument that the detention was prohibited by the federal Non-Detention Act, which states that no "citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress."

    On appeal, a divided Second Circuit Court of Appeals panel reversed the district court's "enemy combatant" ruling. The panel found that the Authorization for Use of Military force did not meet the requirement of the Non-Detention Act and that the President could not, therefore, declare American citizens captured outside a combat zone as enemy combatants.

    Rumsfeld v. Padilla



    Anglo-American law is a human achievement 800 years in the making. Over centuries law was transformed from a weapon in the hands of government into a shield of the people from unaccountable power. The Padilla Jury’s verdict turned law back into a weapon.

    The jury, of course, had no idea of what was at stake. It was a patriotic jury that appeared in court with one row of jurors dressed in red, one in white, and one in blue (Peter Whoriskey, Washington Post, August 17, 2007). It was a jury primed to be psychologically and emotionally manipulated by federal prosecutors desperate for a conviction for which there was little, if any, supporting evidence. For the jury, patriotism required that they strike a blow for America against terrorism. No member of this jury was going to return home to accusations of letting off a person who has been portrayed as a terrorist in the US media for five years.

    The "evidence" against Padilla consists of three items: (1) seven intercepted telephone conversations, (2) a 10-year old non-relevant video of Osama bin Laden, and (3) an alleged application to a mujahideen (not terrorist) training camp with Padilla’s fingerprints. We will examine each in turn.

    The International Herald Tribune and Associated Press reported in detail on the telephone intercepts (June 19, 2007): "Accused al-Qaida operative Jose Padilla was never overheard using purported code words for violent jihad in intercepted telephone conversations and spoke often about his difficulties in learning Arabic while studying in Egypt, the lead FBI case agent testified Tuesday. The questioning of FBI Agent James T. Kavanaugh by Padilla attorney Michael Caruso focused on seven intercepted telephone calls on which Padilla’s voice is heard mostly talking about his marriage and his studies but never about Islamic extremism. . . . Caruso asked Kavanaugh if Padilla ever was heard using what prosecutors say were code words for violent jihad . . . ‘No, he does not,’ Kavanaugh replied. . . . Caruso asked Kavanaugh if Padilla was ever overheard discussing jihad training. ‘No jihad training that I’ve seen,’ Kavanaugh said. . . . ‘He’s not referring to anything here but studying Arabic, correct? Study means study, right?’ Caruso asked. ‘That’s what they’re talking about,’ Kavanaugh testified."

    Despite the FBI’s testimony that the intercepted telephone messages contained no incriminating evidence, the "patriotic" jury accepted the federal prosecutor’s unsupported accusation that there were hidden code words in the message indicating that Padilla was a terrorist. After all, who but a terrorist would want to learn Arabic?

    The video of bin Laden had no relevance whatsoever to the charges in the case. The video is 10-years old and makes no reference to any of the defendants. Moreover, none of the defendants were accused of ever being in contact with bin Laden. The only purpose of the video was to arouse in jurors fear, anger, and disturbing memories associated with September 11, 2001. The fact that the judge let prosecutors sway a fearful and vengeful patriotic jury with emotion and passion rather than evidence is obviously grounds for appeal.

    Whoriskey reports that in their closing arguments prosecutors mentioned al-Qaeda more than 100 times and urged jurors to think of al-Qaeda and groups alleged to be affiliated with it as an international murder conspiracy. Padilla "trained to kill," Assistant US Attorney Brian Frazier misinformed the jury in his closing statement.

    Who Padilla wished to kill was never identified, but according to the prosecutors he had been wanting to kill persons unknown since 1998. Padilla was convicted for harboring alleged intentions, not for committing any acts. Indeed, no harmful acts are charged to Padilla. The incompetent jury fell for the prosecutors’ wild tale of a murder conspiracy many years old that had no results.

    As Andrew Cohen put it, Padilla and the two co-defendants were convicted on the charge of "terrorist-wannabes" on the basis of "evidence that federal authorities did not believe amounted to a crime when it was gathered back before 2001." Cohen concludes: "it’s further proof that if you can convince an American jury that a man in the dock had anything to do with al-Qaeda, you can pretty much bank on a conviction no matter how tenuous the evidence" (WashingtonPost.com, August 16, 2007).

    The training camp application form is as suspect as any evidence can be. Moreover, the prosecution had no evidence that Padilla actually attended such a camp. Padilla was held illegally for 3.5 years and tortured. At any time during his illegal detention and torture, Padilla could have been handed a form, thus tainting it with his fingerprints.

    Amy Goodman, the forensic psychiatrist Dr. Angela Hegarty, the Christian Science Monitor and others have described how US interrogators abused Padilla and destroyed his mind. To expect a person as badly tortured and abused as Padilla to retain the wits not to touch a piece of paper handed to him, or forced into his hands, is unreasonable.

    When Padilla was arrested five years ago in 2002, the US government charged that he was about to set off a radioactive "dirty bomb" in a US city that would kill tens or even hundreds of thousands of Americans. The story was a total lie, a fabrication designed to keep the fear level high after 9/11 in order to keep support for the Bush regime’s wars and domestic police state. None of the charges on which Padilla was illegally held, during those years before the US Supreme Court intervened and ordered the Bush regime to release Padilla or bring him to trial, were part of the charges on which Padilla was tried.

    There is little doubt that Padilla’s conviction, and probably also the convictions of the two co-defendants, is a terrible injustice. But the damage done goes far beyond the damage to the defendants. What the red, white, and blue "Padilla Jury" has done is to overthrow the US Constitution and give us the rule of men.

    The US Constitution and Anglo-American legal tradition prevent indictments, much less convictions, based on a prosecutor’s theory that a person wanted to commit a crime in the past or might want to in the future. Padilla has harmed no one. There is no evidence that he made an agreement with any party to harm anyone whether for money or ideology or any reason. The FBI testified that the telephone calls were innocuous. The bin Laden video was evidence of nothing pertaining to the defendants. The piece of paper, alleged to be a personnel form recovered from an al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan is nothing but a piece of paper and an assertion.

    The Padilla case was the way the Bush Justice (sic) Department implemented its strategy for taking away the legal principles that protect American citizens. Padilla is an American citizen. He was denied habeas corpus and his rights to an attorney and due process. He was tortured in an attempt to coerce him into self-incrimination. In treating Padilla in these ways, the US Department of Justice (sic) violated both the US Constitution and federal law. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Justice (sic) Department committed far more crimes than did Padilla.

    by Paul Craig Roberts

  • pete said on Jan 28, 2008....
    "I support the government's contention that these defendants were engaged in conspiracy to murder, maim and kidnap." These are words of the judge that found him guilty and sentenced him. Perhaps, I'm not alone. Hollow maybe, but not empty. If you really feel that you and he are equals than maybe you should worry. Maybe I shouldn't antagonize you, because maybe you share his same philosophy.
    Do you have thoughts that you might want to share or is it all about pasting other people's professional opinions to the point of other peoples drowsiness. You started off good, anyway.
  • sheltercrow said on Jan 28, 2008....
    This is all rather disingenuous of you Pete. You came here seeking citizenship and end up trying to recreate the repressive caste mentality from you home country. You must be quite familiar with torture.
  • stopmediabias said on Jan 28, 2008....

    I think the main issue here is how do we charge someone like Padilla?  Two captured known and wanted jiadists told us that Padilla was sent back to the United States to carry out attacks.  There is no way to do it because you can't bring in someone like Kalid Sheik Mohammed to testify.  President Bush didn't violate the constitution because he declared Padilla an enemy combatant.

    You guys are alluding to the fact that the President has some motive for holding Padilla without charge, but the problem is the only motive is to protect the American people.  If there is some other reason I'd like to here it.  Or if you guys have some other idea on how we should have handled Padilla I'd like to here it.  Padilla is one of two Americans to be classified this way, don't you think if President Bush wanted to just throw anybody he wanted in jail there would be far more examples?

    This opens a can of worms that we should work out instead of crying civil liberties violations which didn't happen because if it did President Bush would have been impeached long ago.  What do we do with American radical Muslims that we know are a great danger to the American people and we can't charge because we would expose sensitive national security information, and the fact you can't put foreign terrorists on the stand in an American court to testify against American terrorists.   

  • sheltercrow said on Jan 28, 2008....

    I don't believe it serves anyones interest to detain, torture and convict someone on a thought crime. We would all be guilty according to who was in power.

    Bush did violate the constitutional bounds of his presidential authority. He gets away with it because the other two branches of government didn't exercise their authority.

    You may have misgivings about presidential authority when there is a democrat in the office. Once that threshold has been crossed all the future holders have that power.

    Padilla would have gotten into trouble without this mess. He is just an easy target that serves a political purpose. That is the trouble that is confronting us. Politics alone should never define a persons criminal status.

    To say you would like to fight terror with terror makes you the next terrorist on that list.

    As americans we tough it out and do the right thing through the criminal courts. Any other method will not do. We either stay the course and let the criminal justice system decide or we become like the junta controlled society as pete suggests. 

  • bloc said on Jan 29, 2008....
    @smb
    So the president can declare anyone an enemy combatant and hold them without any due process and presenting any evidence against them? Do you really think this is a good idea?

    You say it opens a can of worms and you are right. It's clearly illegal and unconstitutional. My solution is to charge american citizens with crimes and present evidence against them. I'm sure there are ways to handle sensitive information, but ignore the constitution isn't one of them that I'm willing to accept.
  • pete said on Jan 29, 2008....
    I'm am actually a 5th generation New Yorker on my fathers side April 1756 actually.
    and 2nd generation on my mother's. I would imagine that you don't know anyone who goes back that far. The torture that i sustain is the pussification of my city and on a greater scale my country by liberal crybabies who beleive in the "idea" of the ideal world. Cowards who will risk all by trying not to risk anything. You are untouched by any of the real issues that could benefit from your vigor. The truth is that nobody would have given a shit if they slit his throat on the plane instead of arresting him
    the story dies in a week. There couldn't be a reasonable person who argues that Padilla should be held in the same regard as someone who doesn't put put himself in a positon of a person of interest in a terror plot. Again, there was no precedent for this situation. He was not an innocent bystander.
  • bloc said on Jan 29, 2008....
    then charge him and product evidence that he is actually a terrorist. The idea that the President should have the power to detain an american citizen (or slit their throats as you would have it) without ever showing any evidence that the person is guilty of anything is opposed to the basic principles of our constitution.

    If you want to throw away the constitution at least be honest about it. If the constitution is ideal liberal crap then say so directly.
  • stopmediabias said on Jan 29, 2008....

    Bloc-All Presidents have this power and if you define this a violation of constitution then many other Presidents in the past have violated the costitution. 

    Lets cut the partisan crap, this is a problem.  We cannot drag Al Qaeda members out of gitmo to tesify against Americans who are planning attacks.  But if several Al Qaeda members who have given us good intelligence in the past tell us they know of an American who was sent to blow something up then we have a problem.  You cannot charge the American because the only evidence you have is the word of terrorists.  This is why we have the "enemy combatant" status.  So lets repeat: material witness then enemy combatant equals no violation of the constitution.  Do you think the President doesn't have access to lawyers?

    Shelter- Thoughtcrime?  Did you forget to take your Lithium?  And wasn't Padilla found guilty?  And isn't he a worldclass trader and scumbag who got what he deserved?

    As Pete has alluded to we are overlooking the fact that nobody but Padilla got him tossed in jail.

    "To say you would like to fight terror with terror makes you the next terrorist on that list."

    Shelter are you really serious here?  Fight terror with terror?  Maybe we should offer the terrorists some milk and cookies and just ask them nicely to stop slaugthering our men woman and children.

    Pete-Pussification is an understatement.  Look at the Purple pens fiasco where a teacher proposed getting rid of red ink because it was too traumatic saying Purple made it easier for students who get a lot of bad marks.  These people are nuts.  I'll bet Shelters pens are purple :>

  • sheltercrow said on Jan 29, 2008....

    1609 was when the first of my clan came here. I have you beat hands down. The rest of that rant is spineless maggot drivel on the par of stopmediabias. Drivel from a second generation old world maggot.

    You two can amuse each other pushing you red meat psych-shit till the liberals come home and it won't make any difference. When pushed to make a contribution that would matter you two will be in the back row with rest of the loosers.

    As americans we tough it out and do the right thing through the criminal courts. Any other method will not do. We either stay the course and let the criminal justice system decide or we become like the junta controlled society as [second generation] pete suggests. 

    You and second generation Pete are wholly ignorant of the ramifications of these acts of state terror. It's time to replace your rubber bones with real food.

  • sheltercrow said on Jan 29, 2008....

    For StopMentalAbortion and Second Generation Pete.

    When Mitchell and the other members of the C.I.A. team arrived in Thailand for the interrogation of Zubaydah, "they immediately put a stop to the efforts at rapport building (which would also yield the name of José Padilla, an American citizen and supposed al-Qaeda operative now on trial in Miami for conspiring to murder and maim people in a foreign country)". The team would now "unleash what they called the "sere school" techniques";  methods that "had already been approved by White House lawyers"

    "While it was the F.B.I.'s rapport-building that had prompted Zubaydah to talk, the C.I.A. would go on to claim credit for breaking Zubaydah, and celebrate Mitchell as a psychological wizard who held the key to getting hardened terrorists to talk."

  • sheltercrow said on Jan 29, 2008....
    You two misinformed chest thumping throw backs are a shameful pair of drivel hounds. Shit eating and crap spewing mindless zombies.
  • bloc said on Jan 29, 2008....
    @smb
    Why can't we charge them based on the testimony of other terrorists? We do this all the time with normal criminals.

    This is a clear violation of the constitution. What you are saying is that no american has the right to due process. If the government does not have to produce any evidence of wrong doing then there is no due process right.
  • stopmediabias said on Jan 30, 2008....

    This is a clear violation of the constitution

    This is a clear violation of the constitution

    This is a clear violation of the constitution

    Look at that, I said it three times and it's still not true.  And even if it was even remotely true it's certainly not a "clear" violation.  Padilla is not a normal criminal. 

    Foreign enemy terrorists captured on the battlefield cannot be used as witnesses in civilian courts, this is beyond silly. 

     If we had gone your way bloc what would have been the result? 

    Shelter- You get tired so easily, when you come unhinged the insults are rather funny. 

  • stopmediabias said on Jan 30, 2008....
    And Shelter...Don't you ever worry about thoughtcrimes, this is something you could never be charged with.
  • sheltercrow said on Jan 30, 2008....
    When reading this ignominious candy striper dingbat spew fest it is tough not to get annoyed. The sheer empty headed nonsense coupled with the school yard yah yah that is expressed is an unimaginable cruelty to our fellow casters and myself. You torture us with this meandering rhetoric of meaningless shit stain.
  • bloc said on Jan 30, 2008....
    I've quoted the constitution. What you are saying is that teh President can arrest any american citizen without showing any evidence. How is this not clearly unconstitutional?


  • sheltercrow said on Jan 30, 2008....

    Bloc: SMB isn't being serious she's just being a contrarian. There is no point in debating. I think she gets pleasure out of just plain disagreeing no matter the subject. So lets agree with her and have some fun.

  • stopmediabias said on Jan 30, 2008....

    Shelter-ROFL!!!!!!!

    Bloc-He can show evidence and he can have the evidence in hand, he just cannot use the evidence in a court of law.  President Bush has done this a whopping two times.  If we can trust him to dispatch an armored tank division on a foreign country in the time of crisis we can trust him to make the judgement call to declare this man an enemy combatant.  Maybe this isn't right, maybe he should have just not arrested Padilla and followed him around until he gets close to doing something and stop him before he does it.  There are many avenues we could take and this is why our government needs to have this debate and hash this out.

    Shelter-   "SMB isn't being serious she's just being a contrarian. There is no point in debating. I think she gets pleasure out of just plain disagreeing no matter the subject. So lets agree with her and have some fun."

    If you've read any of the debates I'm in you'll discover that I do admit when I'm wrong, which is rare by the way. 

    I notice you refered to me as a "she" which I find kind of interesting, it explains a lot.  Do have some type of brash latent fantasy towards people who piss you off?  Is it some type of wierd sexual neo-masochistic thing?  Do you type with just one hand?  If your into wierd stuff like that maybe you should go over to the Daily Koz, you'd fit right in. 

     

  • sheltercrow said on Jan 30, 2008....
    Yes I do remember, now that you mention it, that there was a male surname attached to one of your posts. Allow me to apologize for having expressed a gender bias.

    With a whopping 35% approval rating I don't believe "we" trust him much as you assert. Those 935 lies he has told has come back like Marley's ghost.

    Since I have rarely found you right my friend I am waiting for those admissions.

    "[weird] sexual neo-masochistic thing"... hum... I will have to give that some thought. To be honest I pictured you a female Adolf Alien.

    All the rest of your writing is agenda driven and pointless. Your just a somewhat articulate extreme right wing nut job.
  • stopmediabias said on Jan 30, 2008....
    And the Democratic congress is what 11%?  And you cannot prove he has told one lie.  But wait, if we were to think back to your buddy Bill Clinton....did he ever lie, that anyone can prove?
  • sheltercrow said on Jan 30, 2008....

    I have all the material here The Wandering Stiletto. Key False Statements. I know you have read it. But plow foward with your agenda.

    There is even more here Raggedy Proletariat Peasants. Reaganomics and Bushonomics. 935 false statements. But like I say plow ahead.

  • silverwhisper said on Jan 31, 2008....
    there's way too many comments for me to address anything said substantively but there's one thing i do have the time to say.

    sheltercrow, kindly refrain from personal attacks if you wish to continue participating in the discussion here. i haven't been around much the past few days but as far as i can tell, that began w/ your comment.

    ed
  • Kickingbird said on Jan 31, 2008....

    No it started here when pete called Bloc an asshole. I was offended.

    Bloc, you are clearly an asshole...

    You can block me any time you like but get you facts straight.

  • silverwhisper said on Jan 31, 2008....
    ah, i missed that.

    pete, same warning.

    ed
  • bloc said on Jan 31, 2008....
    "If we can trust him to dispatch an armored tank division on a foreign country in the time of crisis we can trust him to make the judgement call to declare this man an enemy combatant."

    What you are saying is that everyone President should have the power to arrest any american citizen without due process and without showing any evidence that they are guilty of anything. This is clearly Unconstitutional and opposed to the spirit of our nations founding. I just want you to be honest about that and be upfront about your views on the constitution.

    "Maybe this isn't right, maybe he should have just not arrested Padilla and followed him around until he gets close to doing something and stop him before he does it."

    This is a false choice. Maybe he should have arrested padilla and charged him with a crime!
  • stopmediabias said on Jan 31, 2008....

    "What you are saying is that everyone President should have the power to arrest any american citizen without due process and without showing any evidence that they are guilty of anything."

    Haven't we've been over this in other areas.  The POTUS has inherent powers that supercede the Constitution.  Historically it is used very rarely.  This is why I mentioned he has only done this twice.  Think about it for a second, the President cannot go to war without authorization from Congress.  At the same time if he sees a threat to national security, pretty but much just with the wave of his hand he can cause a lot of mayhem to whatever is responsible for that threat.

    Bill Clinton searched the home of the spy Aldrich Ames without a warrant.  He had the right to do this because the information Aldrich Ames was selling was sensitive material that could have posed a threat to national security. 

    How do we charge people with a crime when we don't have enough evidence to hold them, but we know they are threat to national security?   

     

  • stopmediabias said on Jan 31, 2008....
    And Silver, this is uncensored blogging, personal attacks should be welcomed, they add a certain flavor to the discussion :>
  • bloc said on Jan 31, 2008....
    Let's be clear. You are saying the laws of our country do not apply to the President. Our Constitution is the highest law in the land, and it clearly says that every american has a right to due process. You are saying that they don't.

    "How do we charge people with a crime when we don't have enough evidence to hold them, but we know they are threat to national security? "

    If you don't have the evidence then you don't know.

    The founding fathers were very clear on the issue of due process. They had seen kings imprisoning opponents or people they felt were threats to their power and making up false claims against the person to justify the imprisonment. They made it very clear that their intention was that the President never have this power over american citizens and the language in The Constitution makes that clear. If you want to abolish the spirit and the laws that our nation was founded on then be honest about it. Don't beat around the bush as you have been doing.

  • silverwhisper said on Jan 31, 2008....
    smb: unprovoked personal attacks in such a discussion merely serve to lower the level of discourse, and are often indicative of an inability to continue attacking the argument. i wouldn't go to your blog page and start slinging insults and i appreciate that you've extended to me the same courtesy.

    ed
  • sheltercrow said on Jan 31, 2008....
    Ed you make a good point. The... [snip]... does drive me insane. I apologize if I have offended any here on your post.
     
    Peace love and baseball bats.
     
    L.
  • silverwhisper said on Jan 31, 2008....
    thank you, sheltercrow, i appreciate it.

    ed
  • stopmediabias said on Feb 01, 2008....

    Bloc-this is a waste of time, your just repeating the same things over and over.  The Constitution is the highest law of the land but it is not absolute, there are exceptions. 

    " If you want to abolish the spirit and the laws that our nation was founded on then be honest about it. Don't beat around the bush as you have been doing. "

    This is so out of touch with reality I can't argue with it.  If you follow even close to your rational then every President in history should have been impeached for violating the constitution.  Our President declares two people enemy combatants and suddenly we are going to "abolish the spirit of the laws...."

    I keep harping on Clinton but do you think he "abolishing the spirit of our laws.." when he slaughtered all those people in Waco?  And this had nothing to do with someone trying to kill thousands of our citizens.

    If President Bush wanted to "abolish the spirit of our laws" do you think we would have traders like the New York Times?


     

  • silverwhisper said on Feb 01, 2008....
    smb quoth:
    the constitution is the highest law of the land but it is not absolute, there are exceptions.

    in legal terms, no there are not, short of the amendments.

    ed
  • pete said on Feb 01, 2008....
    kickingbird- thanks for your input. You really are contributing member this conversation. Asshole offends you? Than you would be damn near suicidal if you knew what you came across looking like in that rather pansy attempt at attention grabbing.
  • kelly said on Feb 01, 2008....
    smb:  Ah, Republican tactic #1.  "When did you stop beating your wife?"

    smb, bloc is not a defender of Clinton.  Neither am I.  I don't  really expect those words to stick with you, however, so I'll be happy to repeat them the next time you get it wrong.

    What happened at Waco was BS.

    Additionally, Bush has made the claim that he may incarcerate any American at any time without due process.
  • Kickingcrow said on Feb 01, 2008....

    Second Generation Pete: "pansy attempt at attention grabbing". Do you really think so? Do you think Kickingbird was "just trying to stir the pot with bullshit liberal rhetoric."?

    You come out of that stinking cab you drive and insulted a friend for no reason I can discern.

  • stopmediabias said on Feb 01, 2008....
    Kelly-I think playing the sounds of rabbits being tortured to a bunch of innocent overzealous people, including small children to persuade them to surrender comes way closer to "abolishing the spirit of our laws" than detaining a suspected terrorist does.  And Bloc is always gloating about Clinton.
  • Kickingbird said on Feb 01, 2008....
    StopMentalBiology: The CIA is and has used SERE torture methods for some time. The CIA said the AG authorized it in a confidential memo concerning torture methods.
  • Kickingbird said on Feb 01, 2008....
    Second Generation Pete: My only intension was to draw attention to the obvious fact that you should be picked up, detained and tortured for the inside information you seem to have.
  • silverwhisper said on Feb 01, 2008....
    smb: where in the world did bloc ever "gloat" about clinton?!

    ed
  • stopmediabias said on Feb 02, 2008....
    Kicking-We've had this argument before and all these accusations mean nothing if you can't prove the United States government under President Bush tortures people as a matter of policy.  Granted there are evil people that get among good people and do bad things, but it is not policy.
     
    Silver-Everyone knows people who are Liberal love Bill Clinton.  I don't know what it is. 
  • silverwhisper said on Feb 02, 2008....
    you've obviously never really talked with bloc about clinton, smb. that's all i'm gonna say. :>

    ed
  • bloc said on Feb 02, 2008....
    smb proves time and again that he is delusional. Anyone that's read my for as long as he has knows that I never voted for Clinton and didn't like Clinton much. The only thing I've ever said that could be taken as support for clinton is saying that Bush is so much worse.

    However, this is an attempt to avoid the obvious. Our founding fathers wanted to ensure that Presidents did not have the power of kings. That all americans has basic rights, like the right to due process. Bush has tried to abolish this right.

    Your idea of proof is very funny as  well smb. You can't prove to me that Saddam's government tortured people as a matter of policy either. At least not by the delusional standards you use when defending Bush.
  • stopmediabias said on Feb 02, 2008....

    swing-an-a-miss

    this debate is becoming hilarious...

    I think we are fucked....We have a President who tortures people with finger sodomy, gives handouts to rich people, and has tried to abolish the right to due process.  Next he'll be smoking government siezed weed using tax dollars as rolling papers and using the Constitution to wipe his oil-soaked feet until his black illegal alien house-made comes in and does it for him.

    That's it!  I'm switching sides! 

  • sheltercrow said on Feb 02, 2008....
    StopMentalBiology:

    Your idiocy has become tedious. You know your wrong but can't admit it and repeat yourself over and over again like a spoiled child. Most people won't respond to you, not because they think your right, but because you bore them all too much.

    You don't win a debate you drive people away.

    I show they do you say they don't. The same old song and dance. Why don't you prove what you say? thought it was because you were lazy I think it's because you really are stupid.
  • bloc said on Feb 02, 2008....
    smb, please tell me how due process isn't abolished if the President can detain any american without proving they are guilty of anything?
    Please don't dodge or try to scare people with talk of terrorists. How is due process not abolished under the scenario you want?
  • stopmediabias said on Feb 03, 2008....

    Bloc- In this particular case and the case of Aldrich Ames due process is not at all relevant because National Security supercedes due process. 

    The President cannot detain just anyone he wants.  The exception is when their is a threat to national security.  So yes technically if you want to frame the argument to make the President look like an evil dictator you can say he abolishes due process, but it is specific to issues of public safety, rare, and he is limited in this ability. 

  • bloc said on Feb 03, 2008....
    How is he limited if he doesn't have to produce any evidence of any kind? He can claim that anything is related to national security if he doesn't have to show that it actually is with evidence!

    As I asked before, how is due processed not abolished under this scenario?

    Let me take that a step further. We are at war with terror yet we all know that terrorism will always exist so when will these war time powers go away if ever? The war on terror is not a real war yet it is being used as a way to take war time powers possibly forever! And it gets worse than that. The Bush Admin has claimed that the entire world is the battelfield. I.e. they are abolishing the rights of all americans since america is now falsely labeled a battlefield and any american citizen can be labeled a combatant (which oddly isn't the same as a prisoner of war, they are trying to have their cake and eat it to).

    This is the abolishment of the constitution if it is allowed to stand. How can it be anything else?
  • sheltercrow said on Feb 03, 2008....

    sam
    Do you know how may times this administration has used the excuse of National Security to hide it's illegal activities? This is Nixon all over again.

    New presidential directive gives Bush dictatorial power

    By Larry Chin

    Online Journal Associate Editor

    The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, signed on May 9, 2007, declares that in the event of a “catastrophic event,” George W. Bush can become what is best described as a dictator, "The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government."

    This directive, completely unnoticed by the media, and given no scrutiny by Congress, literally gives the White House unprecedented dictatorial power over the government and the country, bypassing the US Congress and obliterating the separation of powers. The directive also placed the secretary of Homeland Security in charge of domestic “security.”

    The full text is below. A critical analysis on the directive can be found here.

    This is another step towards official martial law (see “US government fans homeland security fears”), which suggests that a new "catastrophic event" 9/11-type pretext could be in the pipeline.