You again presume ignorance on the people holding different views from you. You
weaken your arguments by such disrespect.
But first, the tribunals you discuss -- are they the ones that the Supreme Court
outlawed in 2006? Or the 11 planned or held military commissions since? We
still have 223 prisoners in limbo.
I've read far more than one history book. Tribunals, including the one that
convicted and hanged the Lincoln assassins lean towards expediency and away from
Not so intended and I apologize if I came across that way.
That's true, and like I said, secret tribunals are not my preferred mechanism.
(I'd prefer public military hearings followed by the death sentence for the
guilty with a publicly stated policy of feeding the remains to feral pigs
so that the convicted terrorist can spend eternity as pig excrement.)
But to listen to the Left, you'd think W had *invented* tribunals and it just
Be that as it may, they have legal standing and precedent.
Tim Daneliuk firstname.lastname@example.org
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
Sound like it applies to criminals to me.
Habeas corpus is a judicial determination of whether the original sanction
was proper. In virtually all cases, the finding is that the original
incarceration (be it for civil contempt, contagion, juveniles, etc.) WAS
proper. A habeas hearing is extremely rare because all of the instances I
named, that take place many times a day, are proper.
The president, or his designee, determines whether an individual is an
unlawful enemy combatant.
The Geneva and Hauge conventions are completely silent on the subject of
"unlawful enemy combatants." The 4th Geneva Convention defines "lawful enemy
combatant" as one who:
* Bears arms openly,
* Bears a uniform or distinctive insignia visible at a distance,
* Subjects himself to a chain of authority and command, and
* Abides by the customary rules of war.
Anyone NOT following all four of the above can be classed as an "unlawful
enemy combatant." Note that Granny Goodbar, sitting in her rocker, knitting
a cosy for her lap dog, is not following all four of the above requirements
and can, should the president so choose, be classed as an "unlawfull enemy
In addition, the 4th covers incidental combatants such as a citizens militia
hastily organized for purposes of defense, non-combatants assisting in the
war effort such as construction workers or medical personnel, and other
We have always provided some sort of hearing, as we did with our first spy,
Major John Andre.
But there is no treaty, convention, or paragraph in the customary rules of
war that demands such. As much as we deplore the conduct, German officers
summarily executing resistance fighters was well within the rules.
Per the Hague Convention, Article 30: "A spy taken in the act shall not be
punished without previous trial." The Hague Convention predates WWI.
The Geneva Conventions add additonal limitations but do not remove that one.
Your reading comprehension skills have to be better than that. Certainly it
applies to criminals. But it also applies to all people, not just criminals,
particular in the clause I quoted.
All proper? In every instance? Nonsense. I know Habeas is fairly rare, but it
is still a crucial check and balance. If some bureaucrat can start locking
people up without the chance of judicial review, well, I'll try and save you a
seat in the cell.
Same point. You trust some bureaucrat to make that determination fairly without
any transparency or review?
How about the suspension of Habeas Corpus or the expansion of the
Border Patrol's powers in the "Constitution-Free Zone"? I live more
than a thousand miles from Mexico, but I am subject to arbitrary stop
and search because I live in this zone. We don't need to go into the
issue of torture, do we? I suppose that's not a violation of human
Where this happened to US citizens, it was wrong (Hamdi). But this was
very much the exception situation. But foreign invaders do not have
Habeas rights. This is a fiction manufactured by the drooly left
because they refused to acknowledge terror attacks on our soil as
being military in their essence and wanted to treat them like
conventional legal/criminal problems.
You have always been subject to "search and seizure" when/if law
enforcement has probable cause. This is not new under W.
Not when people like you: a) Manufacture definitions of "torture" to suit
your political agenda, b) Ignore the many precedents in U.S. history
that have used forceful interrogations, and c) Insist on conferring
privileges to non-uniformed combatants that are not significantly
protected by any treaty to which the U.S. is party (to the point where
they are better protected than the U.S. citizenry).
I suppose that's not a violation of human
We are not obligated by any treat to extend "human rights" to people
who make war in plain clothes against our civilians. They fall in the
general category of spy or saboteur and even the Geneva Conventions
we've signed have almost no protections for such people. Again, the
legal/social contract that defines our nation is not available to
people who do not participate in it. You cannot come here wearing no
visible form of military clothing or markings, attack our citizens,
and then scream for habeas and other due process rights. Oh ... wait
... yes you can, just ask a liberal who will do what they always do in
such situtions: apologize and make up "rights" out of thin air ...
Again I ask. What rights did YOU lose under W?
Tim Daneliuk email@example.com
How about the right to hold up his head before the world and say with a
straight face and a clear conscience that America doesn't employ torture?
An Al Qaeda leader said the single greatest recruiting tool his organization
ever had was the Abu Ghraib photos, and that tool was handed to them with a
stars-and-stripes bow wrapped around it, just friggin' lovely.
That's just another amusing liberal meme. Like the AQ guys and their
recruits loved the US before Abu Ghraib. The argument sort of worked
before the surge, after the surge it has been shown for the pure BS it is.
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Please quote me or anyone coming within a mile of even hinting at anything
And yet I heard it just yesterday (the first part, the stars and stripes bow
is my comment) on one of the Sunday morning talking-heads show, from an
American journalist who got it straight from the terrorist's mouth. Of
course in your mind that means it's just spin from the liberal media so
there's no point in searching for a quotation you'll just reject anyway.
As for the surge, do you have any idea what it really is? Are you aware the
U.S. has armed tribal militias (the so-called Awakening) and paid them to
kick Al Qaeda out of their areas, in effect creating warlords who have
secured those areas outside of the control of the Iraqi govt.? It's been
compared with some justification to the cops paying the Bloods to fight the
Crips, especially considering that not long ago those same militias were
shooting at American troops. Hey, I'm glad it's worked as well as it has.
But it's the real basis of AQ getting beat-up in Iraq, not just more U.S.
troops being there (and being used more intelligently). Wouldn't it have
been nice if Rumsfeld hadn't cut down the invasion/occupation force to a
size he was warned was inadequate to the task from the beginning? Brilliant
decision to strip it of the MP units that were to secure military arms dumps
among other key sites huh? Wouldn't it have been nice if Bremer hadn't
fired the Iraqi army (instantly producing tens of thousands pissed-off armed
men with no income)? Maybe if the occupation hadn't been a catalog of
blunders for years or so, breaking about every rule in the book of
counter-insurgency warfare, we wouldn't have four and a half thousand graves
containing American men and women who paid for those mistakes with their
You can still do that - that hasn't changed.
What is more distressing, however, is whether you care whether anyone
believes you. For some, the moment in their lives to which they aspire is
the time when they can shout "You like me! You really LIKE me!"
I'd like to call your attention to John Cavett Marshall. General of the
Army, Army Chief of Staff, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Silver
Star, Legion of Honor, architect of the Marshall Plan.
Marshall was waterboarded and he turned out okay.
Maybe Achmed al-BoomBoom will straighten up and do right.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.