Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 60

Thread: War Crimes?

  1. #1
    Full Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    854

    Default War Crimes?

    Naomi Wolf brings a different point of view to bear.
    I had a sense of déjà vu when I saw the photos that emerged in 2004 from Abu Ghraib prison. Even as the Bush administration was spinning the notion that the torture of prisoners was the work of "a few bad apples" low in the military hierarchy, I knew that we were seeing evidence of a systemic policy set at the top. It's not that I am a genius. It's simply that, having worked at a rape crisis center and been trained in the basics of sex crime, I have learned that all sex predators go about things in certain recognizable ways.

    We now know that the torture of prisoners was the result of a policy set in the White House by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Rice -- who actually chaired the torture meetings. The Pentagon has also acknowledged that it had authorized sexualized abuse of detainees as part of interrogation practices to be performed by female operatives. And documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union have Rumsfeld, in his own words, checking in on the sexualized humiliation of prisoners.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    p, co
    Posts
    362

    Default

    I can't wait till the state patrol starts calling speeding an act of terrorism.

  3. #3
    Forum Royalty large's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pueblo, Colorado
    Posts
    14,078

    Default

    Probably the people who have been convicted of the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal were guilty of something, stupidity, if nothing else, and there might have been CIA and other Intelligence people involved that were never outed, but in the big picture, if the American Lawyers of the ACLU were put in there with them, that would've been fine with me too . . 99% of the iraqi prisoners didn't know they were being "Mistreated" until they were told so by the American Press . . And the ACLU . .

    There were no women or children killed, no beheadings and as far as we know, nobody drowned or was eaten by German Sheperds . . No matter what a liberal judge says, a combatant in prison is either a POW or a terrorist . . The POW has rights granted by the Geneva Conference, while the Terrorist is less than a criminal. And if he's not standing on continental soil, he has no constitutional rights . . It ain't in the constitution, so that decision is Bogus . .

    Y'know what has been learned? since then, a lot more of those insurgents (or terrorists) would surrender, given the chance, something they aren't often granted! . . I have that firsthand . .

    Polly, another echo, have you no shame? (or imagination?)
    "A man with a firearm is a citizen... a man without one is a subject"

  4. #4
    Full Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    854

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by large View Post
    There were no women or children killed, no beheadings and as far as we know, nobody drowned or was eaten by German Sheperds . .
    Being tortured to death count?


    Quote Originally Posted by large View Post
    No matter what a liberal judge says, a combatant in prison is either a POW or a terrorist . . The POW has rights granted by the Geneva Conference, while the Terrorist is less than a criminal. And if he's not standing on continental soil, he has no constitutional rights . . It ain't in the constitution, so that decision is Bogus . .
    If "that decision" refers to BOUMEDIENE ET AL. v. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL, then you are incorrect. A Supreme Court decision is about as free of bogons as it gets. The salient text from the syllabus:
    2. [Detainees] have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus.
    They are not barred from seeking the writ or invoking the Suspension Clause’s protections because they have been designated as en-
    emy combatants or because of their presence at Guantanamo.
    The Supremes' decisions may not be popular, but they are the law of the land. And those prisoners at Gitmo do have access to habeas writs under the Constitution.

  5. #5
    Forum Royalty large's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pueblo, Colorado
    Posts
    14,078

    Default

    Don't think so, polly . . It was bogus and in time, will be either overturned or Congress will create law that gets around it . . Kinda like the wiretap law . . It wasn't right either, until the Democrats were given control of congress and the responsibility of securing the country . . even your Saviour says so . .

    And what, if anything, does your photo have to do with this? I believe very little that I see on the internet unless there's accompanying proof that the photo or video is authentic . . coming from you, NOTHING can be considered "Authentic" . . just picked off the internet, probably googled uTube. Pretty much like the deal about French Possessions and slavery . . Nobody home when you answered the door . .

    And as far as I'm concerned they should have not only turned the detainees loose, they should've taken them back to their countries of Origin and either let that country deal with 'em, or turn 'em loose in Iraq and let them become pretty much what those who were released became . . TARGETS . .

    Detention in Gitmo was a favor to those Idiots, as long as they were in a cage, they were alive . . soon as they got out, they went back to where somebody shot them . . Most of them are dead now . . How's that for "Constitutional Protection", Bunkie?
    "A man with a firearm is a citizen... a man without one is a subject"

  6. #6
    Full Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    854

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by large View Post
    Don't think so, polly . . It was bogus and in time, will be either overturned or Congress will create law that gets around it . .
    Civics 101 - it's called the Supreme Court because there isn't another one above it. Hence, the decision is final, cannot be "overturned". Congress can try to enact law to circumvent the decision, but access to habeas corpus, having been re-affirmed, is now enshrined as a precendent lower courts must observe. Therefore, a law denying habeas corpus, even to "enemy combatants" not on the continental USA, would be, prima facie, unconstitutional.

  7. #7
    Full Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    994

    Default

    @Dean, 'Civics 101 - it's called the Supreme Court because there isn't nother one above it. Hence, the decision is final, cannot be "overturned."

    Dean, with all due respect, you should get out of the freshman cirriculum. Public Admin 512: "SCOTUS has overturned itself on ~130 occasions"

  8. #8
    Full Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    854

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by west4567 View Post

    Dean, with all due respect, you should get out of the freshman cirriculum. Public Admin 512: "SCOTUS has overturned itself on ~130 occasions"
    Of course - but only on cases that SCOTUS itself decided to act on. The Supremes have passed on many more cases than it has accepted. Ruling on BOUMEDIENE, the third reversal of Bush policies, is a significant act on its own.

    My point is that a reversal of the BOUMEDIENE decision is unlikely, pretty much unimaginable. Anyone in a post-Bush administration is unlikely to argue for indefinite, unsupported detention, and, to make the sharper point, the Court has re-affirmed habeas corpus in a fundamental manner, emphasizing (in about 80 pages) the writ's history dating back to the Magna Carta. That's pretty deep precedent, and, as the decision emphasizes, it is the citizen's right delineated in the body of the Constitution itself, predating the Bill of Rights. The Founders, from the get-go, wanted to be sure the government couldn't make people (and that applies to non-citizens) disappear without a public explanation.

    When you argue against habeas corpus, you are definitely talking uphill. To my mind, it is the right that most fundamentally defends the individual citizen against the excesses of government powers.

  9. #9
    Full Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    854

    Default

    You see, sometimes it takes a while, but evil does surface. I do sincerely hope readers 60 years hence don't look back at us now and wonder, "What were they thinking?"

    Nazi hunters say they have strong evidence that the most wanted member of Hitler's regime - known as Dr Death - is hiding in southern Chile.

    The Simon Wiesenthal Centre believes Aribert Heim is in Patagonia, where his daughter is known to live.

    The centre has sent representatives to the region to pursue the search.

    Heim is said to have documented the victims he tortured and killed at Mauthausen concentration camp in Austria during World War II.

    He is accused of killing Jews using exceptionally cruel methods. According to Holocaust survivors, he performed operations and amputations without anaesthetic to see how much pain his victims could endure.

    Injecting victims straight into the heart with petrol, water or poison were said to have been his favoured method at Mauthausen.

  10. #10
    Forum Royalty large's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pueblo, Colorado
    Posts
    14,078

    Default

    I said: "It was bogus and in time, will be either overturned or Congress will create law that gets around it."

    Dean, with all due respect, you should get out of the freshman cirriculum. Public Admin 512: "SCOTUS has overturned itself on ~130 occasions"
    I think my statement stands for itself, with no correction needed.

    and . . "Habaeus Corpus" can be skirted, it has been several times in the past by Presidents putting National Security ahead of constitutional Law . .
    "A man with a firearm is a citizen... a man without one is a subject"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •