emphasis added by me
cicerone imposter wrote:So you can re-read what you wrote: "I first obtained confirmation that Saddam's regime tolerated the set up and growth of al Qaeda training camps in Iraq,[/b] from December 2001 to March 2003, from credible sources: The 9/11 Commission Report and General Tommy Franks American Soldier (i.e., The Bush Administration.)"
One more time: Saddam's regime
tolerated the set up and growth of al Qaeda training camps in Iraq. That does not say or even imply that Saddam's regime
set up or
grew al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Qaeda did that by itself.
cicerone imposter wrote:icant, You gotta study the Constitution and all the Amendments to understand what is currently the laws of the land.
icant wrote: "The president of the USA is above those laws established by Congress that attempt to limit his powers delegated by the supreme law of the land, The Constitution of the USA."
You understand very little about our country's laws.
That of course is merely your opinion. The following excerpts from the Constitution apply and refute your opinion:
Quote:The Constitution of the United States of America
Effective as of March 4, 1789
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
...
Article II.
Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;
…
Article I.
Section 9.
…
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
…
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;
…
www.m-w.com
Quote:Main Entry: ha·be·as cor·pus
Pronunciation: 'hA-bE-&s-'kor-p&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin, literally, you should have the body (the opening words of the writ)
1 : any of several common-law writs issued to bring a party before a court or judge;
2 : the right of a citizen to obtain a writ of habeas corpus as a protection against illegal imprisonment.
We have no "rebellion or invasion."
That the president is "commander is chief" is not questioned.
When he accepted the presidency, he swore on the bible to protect the Constitution of the US. The Constitution protects its citizens against tyranny of the president by the checks and balances provided by congress.
There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the president to take away the citizen's Constitutional rights and protections.
The president is never given the power to take away our liberties without good cause - usually with the consent of congress. Even congress doesn't have the right to take away our liberties that impinges on our Constitutional rights.
We are a country of laws - even the president and congress must adhere to.
What you posted did not refute my opinion; they only strengthened it.
I borrowed this from a post made by kuvasz in another thread on this subject:
Justice Jackson in concurring opinion on Youngstown:
Quote:
The actual art of governing under our Constitution does not and cannot conform to judicial definitions of the power of any of its branches based on isolated clauses or even single Articles torn from context. While the Constitution diffuses power the better to secure liberty, it also contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government. It enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity. Presidential powers are not fixed but fluctuate, depending upon their disjunction or conjunction with those of Congress. We may well begin by a somewhat over-simplified grouping of practical situations in which a President may doubt, or others may challenge, his powers, and by distinguishing roughly the legal consequences of this factor of relativity.
1. When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate. 2 In these circumstances, [343 U.S. 579, 636] and in these only, may he be said (for what it may be worth) to personify the federal sovereignty. If his act is held unconstitutional under these circumstances, it usually means that the Federal Government [343 U.S. 579, 637] as an undivided whole lacks power. A seizure executed by the President pursuant to an Act of Congress would be supported by the strongest of presumptions and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation, and the burden of persuasion would rest heavily upon any who might attack it.
2. When the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain. Therefore, congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence may sometimes, at least as a practical matter, enable, if not invite, measures on independent presidential responsibility. In this area, any actual test of power is likely to depend on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables rather than on abstract theories of law.
3. When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter.Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling [343 U.S. 579, 638] the Congress from acting upon the subject. 4 Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.
Into which of these classifications does this executive seizure of the steel industry fit? It is eliminated from the first by admission, for it is conceded that no congressional authorization exists for this seizure. That takes away also the support of the many precedents and declarations which were made in relation, and must be confined, to this category. 5 [343 U.S. 579, 639]
Can it then be defended under flexible tests available to the second category? It seems clearly eliminated from that class because Congress has not left seizure of private property an open field but has covered it by three statutory policies inconsistent with this seizure. In cases where the purpose is to supply needs of the Government itself, two courses are provided: one, seizure of a plant which fails to comply with obligatory orders placed by the Government; 6 another, condemnation of facilities, including temporary use under the power of eminent domain. 7 The third is applicable where it is the general economy of the country that is to be protected rather than exclusive governmental interests. 8 None of these were invoked. In choosing a different and inconsistent way of his own, the President cannot claim that it is necessitated or invited by failure of Congress to legislate upon the occasions, grounds and methods for seizure of industrial properties. [343 U.S. 579, 640]
This leaves the current seizure to be justified only by the severe tests under the third grouping, where it can be supported only by any remainder of executive power after subtraction of such powers as Congress may have over the subject. In short, we can sustain the President only by holding that seizure of such strike-bound industries is within his domain and beyond control by Congress. Thus, this Court's first review of such seizures occurs under circumstances which leave presidential power most vulnerable to attack and in the least favorable of possible constitutional postures.
I did not suppose, and I am not persuaded, that history leaves it open to question, at least in the courts, that the executive branch, like the Federal Government as a whole, possesses only delegated powers. The purpose of the Constitution was not only to grant power, but to keep it from getting out of hand. However, because the President does not enjoy unmentioned powers does not mean that the mentioned ones should be narrowed by a niggardly construction. Some clauses could be made almost unworkable, as well as immutable, by refusal to indulge some latitude of interpretation for changing times. I have heretofore, and do now, give to the enumerated powers the scope and elasticity afforded by what seem to be reasonable, practical implications instead of the rigidity dictated by a doctrinaire textualism.
Since congress established the laws of FISA, the president was required to follow the laws established. The president does not have the power to override existing laws. Again, I repeat, we are a country of laws.
December 30, 2005
U.S. to Intensify Army Oversight of Iraqi Police
By DEXTER FILKINS
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Dec. 29 - American commanders are planning to increase significantly the number of soldiers advising Iraqi police commando units, in part to curtail abuse that the units are suspected of inflicting on Sunni Arabs, a senior commander in Iraq said Thursday.
Under the plan, which the officer said he expected would be formally approved in a few weeks, the number of advisers working with the Iraqi units would be greatly expanded. The advisers themselves would be under the command of American officers.
American advisers now accompany commando units as part of the vast effort to train and equip security forces to take over the fight against the insurgency and to maintain order.
But the number of advisers is relatively small: currently, groups of about 40 American soldiers each are attached to seven of the nine special Iraqi police brigades.
Under the new plan, which would be put in force in and around Baghdad, all the Iraqi units would get American advisers, and the advisers' total number would be increased by several hundred, said the commander, who spoke to reporters in Baghdad only on condition of anonymity.
In one case, he said, an entire American battalion, typically with more than 500 soldiers, will be attached to a particular Iraqi brigade.
The increase is seen as a way to exert firmer control over the commando units, which are suspected of carrying out widespread atrocities against civilians in Sunni Arab neighborhoods. Human rights groups here say the units may be guilty of murdering and torturing hundreds, and possibly thousands, of Sunni Arab men of military age.
The conduct of the commandos has become a source of intense friction between the Shiite-led Iraqi government and American officials, who say the reports of the atrocities are jeopardizing the campaign to persuade Sunnis to stop supporting the insurgency.
The plan to increase the number of American advisers is a significant departure from the overall American strategy of giving the Iraqis the lead role in fighting the insurgency. Indeed, the allegations of atrocities arose only after Americans began to give the Iraqi units more freedom to act on their own.
Even as he talked about the increase in advisers, the officer confirmed details of a shift to fewer American troops covering more Iraqi ground.
The Fourth Infantry Division, which is now preparing to deploy in Baghdad and central Iraq, is being given a substantially larger piece of Iraqi territory than the unit it is replacing, and with fewer troops. The Americans are hoping that Iraqi units can pick up the slack; Iraqi forces operating more or less independently now are in charge of securing 60 percent of the capital.
Many of the Iraqi commando units are thought to be filled by gunmen drawn from the military wings of Shiite political parties, including the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or Sciri, which forms part of the Shiite coalition that is expected to lead the next government. The Mahdi Army, a militia run by the rebel cleric Moktada al-Sadr, is also believed to have hundreds of gunmen working in the Iraqi police and commando units.
As a result, the units, which are ostensibly under the control of the Interior Ministry, are thought to be all but indistinguishable from Sciri's militia, known as the Badr Brigade, and from the Mahdi Army.
American officials say it is unclear whom the units are taking orders from, the ministry or militia commanders. The minister of the interior, Bayan Jabr, is a senior member of the Badr Brigade.
Mr. Jabr is fighting the American plan to place more advisers in the Iraqi commando units, according to the senior American commander. "We'd know exactly what they are doing, and we'd have some more control," the commander said.
A spokesman for the American headquarters in charge of training in Iraq, Lt. Col. Fred Wellman, confirmed that preparations for an increase in advisers were under way.
A similar plan is already in place with the Iraqi Army, whose soldiers have a reputation among Iraqis as being more humane than the commandos.
The police commando units and public order brigades, which together contain about 15,000 troops, are considered to be some of the most effective Iraqi fighters against the insurgency.
In contrast to conditions in the new Iraqi Army, American supervision of the commandos has been lax; some units, which include former members of the Iraqi Army, came together and began fighting the insurgency on their own, without formal American or Iraqi approval.
"The commandos and the public order brigades sort of grew like Topsy, very quickly, without much control, and without much training, but with lots of influence from the Ministry of the Interior and the Sciri-Badr organization," the American commander said. "The exact roles and responsibilities of those units is not clear to us."
Indeed, the commander painted a troubling picture of security in Baghdad, where some armed militias appear to act with the backing of the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Defense.
"It is not easy to identify that some operation tonight was legitimately directed by somebody in the security organization of M.O.I. or M.O.D.," the commander said, "or whether it was some people in stolen uniforms, or somebody's posse or militia or projection cell who decided to attack someone's opposite number in some other tribe or neighborhood."
A police commando unit was thought to be responsible for running the secret underground prison raided by Americans in November. Nearly 170 Iraqis were found inside, some bearing signs of torture.
With that, the Americans vowed to clamp down on human rights abuses by the police and military and have since raided two more prisons, one in Baghdad and the other in Tal Afar. Inmates in both of those prisons showed signs of abuse, American officials said.
American commanders here say that such practices, while abhorrent in their own right, tend to provoke consequences almost precisely the opposite of what is desired. Rounding up young Sunni Arab men and killing them will only spur the growth of the insurgency, they say.
"You are making new enemies here," the American commander said. "You've got to be more moderate. You must follow the rule of law."
The commander also gave a snapshot of progress against the insurgency in and around Baghdad, and of the shifting role of American and Iraqi forces.
American soldiers in and around Baghdad are still being attacked an average of 28 times a day, and as many as 18 soldiers a month are being killed. Still, the number of suicide and car bombings has fallen sharply, from about 20 a week in April and May, to about 6 now.
The Third Infantry Division, whose 30,000 troops are deployed over 1,600 square miles around Baghdad, will soon be replaced by about 25,000 soldiers from the Fourth Infantry Division, who will take over a much larger area. The Fourth Infantry, which is returning for its second tour in Iraq, will be responsible for the territory between Taji, north of Baghdad, all south to the Saudi border - a huge area including Baghdad, Najaf and Karbala.
Iraqi forces will be counted on to give more support to the Americans. Twelve Iraqi battalions are now responsible for their own territory inside Baghdad. As the Iraqi battalions take over in Baghdad, the commander said, the American units will be able to move to areas outside Baghdad.
This article identifies only one of many problems. It doesn't address the problems of the Kurds up in the north of Iraq that will fight the Iraq army to win independence.
Cicerone,
Great posts, I had to bookmark the page ... This looks like something Tico should read, not that he'd give any ground. I always love it when I hear these jokers try to put a positive spin on this Iraq horseshit!
Anon
Monitors to study Iraq poll claim
A team of international monitors has said it is ready to visit Iraq to review complaints that parliamentary elections held this month were unfair.
The monitors' offer has been welcomed by leading Sunni Arab and secular Shia parties, who have alleged that the vote was marred by fraud and intimidation.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the UN also welcomed the proposal.
Early results suggest governing Shia parties have won the biggest share of the vote, followed by Kurdish groups.
The United Iraqi Alliance, the religious Shia bloc that heads the current government, held talks on Thursday with Kurdish leaders about forming a possible coalition.
The final result for the 15 December vote is not expected until early January.
It is not yet known if a review of the vote by the international monitors will delay the announcement of a result.
Cicerone Imposter apparently does not know that:
"IRAQ VOTE LEGIT, U. N, OFFICIAL SAYS"
A senior U.N. Official said Wednesday that Iraq's parliamentary elections were credible and should stand, angering SUnni Arabs who have taken to the streets demanding a new vote...The United Nations official, Craig Jenness, said at a news conference organized by the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq that his U. N.led international election assistance team found the elections to be fair. "THE UNITED NATIONS IS OF THE VIEW THAT THESE ELECTIONS WERE TRANSPARENT AND CREDIBLE' SAID JENNESS, A CANADIAN ELECTORAL EXPERT>"
source of above- Chicago Sun Tines 12.29/2005 P. 26
I am sure that NO ONE can argue with that report--NOT ONLY IS THE MAN FROM THE UNITED NATIONS, HE IS ALSO C A N A D I A N>
How can he be wrong. It is certain that he is not an American dupe!!!
Morkat obviously doesn't know that news read in Chicago on Wednesday is three days old news and that today is Friday in Iraq and in other parts of the world:
Quote:The offer has also been welcomed in Washington by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
She praised Iraq's electoral authorities for inviting the international monitors.
"The electoral commission has once again demonstrated its commitment to fair and credible elections that meet international standards," she said.
Complaints
A UN spokesman echoed her comments, saying it was essential that a "team of assessors, which was not involved in the conduct of the elections, offers an independent evaluation of these complaints".
An official for the Iraqi election commission told the Associated Press news agency: "We are highly confident that we did our job properly and we have nothing to hide."
Source
Or does Morkat say the US Secretary of State is lying?
"IRAQ VOTE LEGIT, U. N, OFFICIAL SAYS"
A senior U.N. Official said Wednesday that Iraq's parliamentary elections were credible and should stand, angering Sunni Arabs who have taken to the streets demanding a new vote...The United Nations official, Craig Jenness, said at a news conference organized by the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq that his U. N.led international election assistance team found the elections to be fair. "THE UNITED NATIONS IS OF THE VIEW THAT THESE ELECTIONS WERE TRANSPARENT AND CREDIBLE' SAID JENNESS, A CANADIAN ELECTORAL EXPERT"
source of above- Chicago Sun Times 12.29/2005 P. 26
I am sure that NO ONE can argue with that report--NOT ONLY IS THE MAN FROM THE UNITED NATIONS, HE IS ALSO C A N A D I A N>
How can he be wrong. It is certain that he is not an American dupe!!!
I stand by my quote
Hey check it out
And happier new year to Iraq
http://www.iraqigovernment.org/index_en.htm
klik me
SACRAMENTO CITY COUNCIL CALLS FOR WITHDRAWAL OF
AMERICAN TROOPS FROM IRAQ
Gelisgesti, priceless,
Quote:"The White House should follow this sound advice: Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is," Tretheway continued. "That's not the statement of a Democratic Senator or prominent Iraq war opponent. It was said in April 1999, in reference to President Clinton's military intervention in Kosovo, by a Republican governor named George W. Bush."
mortkat, your repeated quote does not negate ci and walter's quote since their's came after yours.
Gelisgesti wrote:klik me
SACRAMENTO CITY COUNCIL CALLS FOR WITHDRAWAL OF
AMERICAN TROOPS FROM IRAQ
That's pretty amazing knowing how conservative Sacto is!
Anon
AV, I'm not sure where you learned about the conservatism of Sac'to, but I can tell you every time we visit there, it seems like it hasn't changed since my childhood - and we're talking over 50 years ago.
UN concern at Guantanamo feeding
There are credible allegations that Guantanamo hunger strikers are being force-fed in a cruel manner, the UN special rapporteur on torture has said.
Manfred Nowak's comments came after it emerged that the number of detainees refusing food at the prison camp had more than doubled since 25 December.
Some 84 inmates are now refusing food, according to the US military.
But a Pentagon official said there was no evidence that they had been treated in an inappropriate way.
'Bleeding'
Mr Nowak has not been to Guantanamo, and turned down an invitation to the camp because the US refused to give him unrestricted access to the detainees.
If these allegations are true then this definitely amounts to an additional cruel treatment
Manfred Nowak
UN special rapporteur on torture
He told the BBC that he had received reports that some hunger strikers had had thick pipes inserted through the nose and forced down into the stomach.
This was allegedly done roughly, sometimes by prison guards rather than doctors. As a result, some prisoners had reported bleeding and vomiting he said.
"If these allegations are true then this definitely amounts to an additional cruel treatment," Mr Nowak said.
The allegations were rejected by Pentagon spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Brian Maker.
"To suppose that these people are being left bleeding - I know of no instance of that, there's been no reports of that, there's been no credible evidence produced by any investigation of that fact," he told the BBC.
All those receiving what he called "internal nutrition" were being monitored by trained medical personnel, Lt Col Maker said.
Concern
The US military defines a hunger strike as missing nine consecutive meals.
Lawyers for some of the detainees have said the hunger strikers are protesting against their continued detention without trial and against the conditions in which they are being held, he adds.
About 500 prisoners remain at Guantanamo, many of them captured in Afghanistan. Some have been held for nearly four years without charge.
Human rights campaigners have expressed growing concern about the treatment of inmates at Guantanamo.
The Bush administration has denied allegations of abuse at Guantanamo, insisting it does not torture prisoners.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4569626.stm
Published: 2005/12/30 15:04:48 GMT
More "progress" in Iraq:
December 30, 2005
Fuel Crisis Deepens in Iraq With Lines Forming at Pumps
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Dec. 30 - A fuel crisis in Iraq deepened today as the oil minister was suspended for objecting to steep government-imposed gasoline and cooking fuel price increases. Drivers caused quarter-mile lines at gasoline stations in Baghdad, spurred by fears of more price increases, electricity failures that have forced them to siphon gas for use in power generators, and talk of refinery shutdowns in Bayji and Baghdad.
The oil minister, Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum, had been outspoken in opposition to the decision to triple prices for the most common type of gasoline while increasing diesel prices ninefold. He said that while some increases are needed, a change of that magnitude would put far too heavy a burden on most Iraqis.
But upon returning from vacation outside of Iraq this week, Mr. Bahr al-Uloum found a note waiting for him in which Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari ordered him to give up his post for the next 30 days, according to an Oil Ministry spokesman.
"When he came back, he was astonished to find that the prime minister issued a letter ordering Dr. Ibrahim to stay 30 more days on holiday because of his disagreement and his threats to resign from office," the spokesman, Asim Jihad, said in an interviewtoday.
The ministry shut down a major refinery in Bayji, north of the capital, after insurgents threatened to kill tanker drivers who truck gasoline and other refined products from the refinery to markets across Iraq, the ministry spokesman said. The pipeline that feeds the Dora refinery in Baghdad was also damaged by terrorists, curbing production there, he said. He said he did not know when the facilities will be back operating at full capacity.
Drivers interviewed today said they were rushing to fill up their cars after hearing rumors of another looming gas-price increase. The Oil Ministry spokesman denied that any additional increase was imminent. But the drivers also said that lately, the available of electricity had been so intermittent and spotty - even by Baghdad standards - that they had been forced to hoard gasoline and siphon it out of their tanks for use in electricity generators at their homes.
The long lines began four days ago, said Capt. Akeel Rashid, commander of a special security force guarding a large filling station in Karrada, a prosperous eastern Baghdad district. Normally the wait is 20 minutes; now it is two hours or more, Captain Rashid said.
Many drivers come to the station twice, he said: Once to fill up with gasoline that they then siphon from their tanks at home, and a second time to obtain more gas for driving.
Iraq is caught in an enormous paradox: Though it sits atop massive oil reserves, its refineries - the giant industrial facilities that break down crude oil into gasoline, diesel and other fuels - remain in poor shape, riven by constant insurgent attacks and dilapidated from years of under-investment during Saddam Hussein's regime.
The refineries can produce only a portion of the gasoline demand here, forcing Iraq to turn to imports. Yet at the same time, Iraqi drivers are used to very cheap gasoline - roughly six cents a gallon during Mr. Hussein's regime - that was heavily subsidized by the Iraqi central government.
Earlier this month, the government raised the price of gas to around 40 cents per gallon - and around 70 cents per gallon for special imported high-octane gas. Diesel fuel and canisters of liquefied cooking gas also saw large increases, enraging drivers and homeowners in a country where many people make less than $100 per month.
The increases were part of a deal Iraqi leaders struck with the International Monetary Fund to eventually wipe out most of the massive debts Saddam Hussein accumulated. As much as 80 percent of $120 billion in debts could eventually be canceled, among other aid provided by the I.M.F.
But for regular Iraqis, that comes at a very steep price. The deal with the I.M.F. calls for Iraq to eventually increase fuel prices to levels in line with the rest of the Middle East, where the I.M.F. says the average retail price of gasoline is about 87 cents.
Though that is still well below the true cost of gas, it means Iraqis already furious over price increases this month potentially face another doubling of prices, or more, in the next year or two.
Also this afternoon, at least five Iraqi civilians were killed and 23 wounded when a bomb hidden in a parked car detonated near a bus station frequented by Shiite commuters, the Iraqi police said.
icant wrote:
INVASIONS AND ATTACKS BY AL QAEDA ON AMERICANS
Before we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, al Qaeda and its affiliated middle-eastern malignancies perpetrated the following mass murders of Americans:
1. 12/1992 -- murdered 241 Americans at US Marine Corps Headquarters in Beirut, Lebanon;
2. 02/1993 -- murdered 6 Americans at WTC in NYC;
3. 11/1995 -- murdered 5 Americans and 2 other civilians at Saudi National Guard Facility in Riyadh;
4. 06/1996 -- murdered 19 Americans at Khobar Towers in Dhahran;
5. 08/1998 -- murdered 12 Americans + 201 other civilians at American Embassy in Nairobi AND murdered 11 other civilians at American Embassy in Dar es Salaam;
6. 12/2000 -- murdered 17 Americans at Destroyer Cole in Aden;
7. 09/2001 -- murdered 1,500 Americans + 1,500 other civilians at the WTC in NYC, at the Pentagon in D.C., and at a field in Pennsylvania;
We must be doing something very wrong, because we've lost more since our war against terrorism in Iraq than we lost before their "invasion." Your list totals 1,800, and we've lost over 2,000 of our military plus about 15,000 injured.
As for you other arguments, you still don't know about the limits of our government against our Constitutional and Bill of Rights.
