ican711nm wrote:Bush is not weakening the Constitution by his permitting wiretaps of foreign calls between foreigners and between USA residents and foreigners "in time of war or public danger." Bush is not weakening the Constitution by permitting water-boarding (or equivalent) captured mass murderers of non-murderers to learn "in time of war or public danger" the mass murdering plans of their uncaptured associates.
What in the 5th Amendment and Article I.Section 9., 1st paragraph, is it you cannot accept to be part of the Constitution?
By the above statement, are you saying that those waterboarded were found guilty of the crimes you listed? By the above, are you honest enough to admit we ignore the international treaties we sign?
I don't know if anyone has been following it, but the first Military commission of a Gitmo prisoner is going on right now, and it's super shady. The case is built completely on information coerced out of a man with a 4th grade education and who was deliberately not told that his statements could be used against him. This is super shady business, and it will shame our country.
Of course, decades after all the prisoners will have died, the government will issue an apologies and cut a check for $7000.00 to the families. That money should buy a bicycle by that time.
Hamden, was never read any rights because the Bush administration insists that the constitution does not apply there (on US soil), a claim that the Supreme court has rejected, but the White house proceeds as if it was merely a suggestion. Limited media access. A jury of 6 all American officers. The list goes on.
So why prosecute Hamden, who was Osama Bin Laden's driver, while releasing OBL's chief of security in 2004? Because if you can prosecute Hitler's gardener, virtually nobody is off limits.
BTW, it's noteworthy that the White House has said that even if found innocent, Hamden could be held indefinitely. Take a moment to wrap your mind around that. This means that you can serve a life sentence before and/or after you are found innocent, and guess who is in charge, we are. We are using the same authority there that Bush claims does not apply there to put this man on trial. We have a Judge saying "This is not America." Well where does this judge think he is? What laws/rules are they operating by? Who oversees this? Where is the justice in any of this? This is both cruel and unusual punishment, and worse is that it's being done before someone is even found to be guilty.
ican, I can admit when Bush does something right, can you admit when he does something illegal or wrong? Can you really defend this? Do you really think the president has this power despite the Supreme court telling him 3 times he does not?
Maybe the judge was right...
This is not America
K
O