Bush Advisor : President Has Legal Power to Torture Children

However, DI does routinely make that inference, and that is the origin of this argument.

You seem unable to separate your hatred of corporate America from the historical record. Your statement that this is a corporate fascist state is an absurdity. I understand why you allege as much, but the things of which you complain are of very recent origin, and certainly did not apply in 1939. There is no doubt that arms merchants profit from wars, and that politicians benefit from their largesse. But you have no sense of proportion. No arms merchant ever "lied us into a war." The Abwehr of Admiral Canaris was a comic opera buffoonery compared to English secret service operations, and it was the English who schooled Wild Bill Donovan and the OSS.

Your links to "reformed-theology" are truly incredible. The authors there are not quite as stridently hysterical as D.I.'s Third World Traveler, but indulge innuendo, and unsupported tendentious statements just as freely. They have very little to go on, but they have an abundance of sinister inferences to make, which you are apparently happy to swallow whole.

As i pointed out before, you have no notion of historiography and evidence. It is sufficient, apparently, for you to be told what you wish to hear.

I think I'm going to point to the above post next time someone accuses you of only 'attacking Republicans,' Set, lol

Cycloptichorn

It that happens, Cyclo, point 'em to this, from the previous page:

What's absurd is to deny the Corporate Fascist State. As GM goes so goes America they say. GM went with Hitler big time. Yes they went with Roosevelt too. Playing all sides off each other. Your attack on my links is incredible. Blame the messanger is a childish game. Both books linked are meticupously researched and kinda large books. You certainly haven't taken time to read them yet you attack the messenger. Sounds to me like you dont wanna know the truth. And what applied in 1939 was what applied through much of the 30s, Mengele's experiments funded by the master race, eugenics pushers at the Rockefeller Foundation. Funders of other experimental pograms. The Puerto Rican Cancer experiments. The Tuskeegee Sypholis experiments. And the building of Auschwitz by IG Farben, whose majority stock holder was Standard Oil of New Jersey. They were very much hands on in the operation. Providing patents for synthetic fuel and rubber to Hitler and Farben and denying them to America. The US government was forced to sue for those patents and in Senate hearings Harry Truman called the actions of Standard Oil treason. An agreement was presented as evidence that showed IG Farben and Standard Oil agreeing to maintain their partnership even if the two countries were at war. Standard Oil provided fuel to Hitler throughout the war. George Herbert Walker and Prescott Bush Sr. had three businesses seized by the US government over a year into the war. Seiezed under the Trading with the Enemy Act, the enemy being Hitler. George Herbert Walker Bush carried on the family habit of arming madmen with Saddam and bin Laden. And he and many in his son's administration made big bucks off the deal and still do. Dumbya Bush lied us into war against a man armed and funded by his father and Rummy, Cheney and others now leading this war. This pre-emptive, unjust, unneeded war as Jimmy Carter called is Hitleresque. The torture programs are only a carrying on of the way the Bushies have always done business through generations.

The 1930s: Nazis Parading on Main Street Part 1: The Plot Against Roosevelt

One cannot hope to gain an understanding of fascism in America without first looking at its roots in the 1930s. For most readers, the 1930s evoke images of the Great Depression and Dust Bowl. However, this wrenching decade of world economic turmoil involved far more serious events. From the beginning of the decade, events were conspiring to unleash on an unsuspecting world the horrors of the Second World War and the unfathomable inhumanity of the Holocaust. The Second World War would go on to shape the geopolitical scene for the remainder of the century. Claims arising from the Holocaust would still be front-page headlines as the world entered the 21st century.

The 30's were a decade in which Nazis openly paraded, unopposed, in the streets of America and were supported by many. Much of the details of 1930's fascism are still shrouded in secrecy. It has been over a half-century since the end of the war, yet news is still surfacing of corporate America's dealings with the Nazis. As of yet, no one has exposed, in a comprehensive manner, the connections between the 1930's fascists and today's American right wing. Many of the events of the decade have been quietly swept under the rug, such as the plot against Roosevelt. The press downplayed the assassination attempt at the time and even today, most people are still unaware of it.
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/1930s.html

Which means that there is no good reason to believe that there is such a connection.



If this refers to the Miami shooting, keep in mind that Anton Cermak got shot. It is very likely that the assassin did not miss, that Cermak was the target. Google Anton Cermak and Frank Nitti sometime.

Jesus, you swallow the most tendentious crap writing whole . . . that's hilarious . . .

If you are ever laying out good money for books containing lunacy of this sort, then i'd suggest these boys have their audience well-judged, and probably make a good living.

U.S. Seeks to Avoid Detainee Ruling

By Dan Eggen and Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, January 13, 2006; A07

The Bush administration took the unusual step yesterday of asking the Supreme Court to call off a landmark confrontation over the legality of military trials for terrorism suspects, arguing that a law enacted last month eliminates the court's ability to consider the issue.

In a 23-page brief, U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement said the justices should throw out an appeal by Yemeni national Salim Hamdan, an alleged driver and bodyguard for Osama bin Laden, because a new statute governing the treatment of U.S. detainees "removes the court's jurisdiction to hear this action."

The brief represents the latest escalation in the showdown between the Bush administration and critics of the government over the legal rights of military detainees captured overseas. Hamdan's case is one of several high-stakes legal battles working their way through the courts, and the Supreme Court's November decision to consider his appeal was a blow to the government.

Hamdan is among approximately 500 inmates held at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; nine are scheduled to be tried by "military commissions" created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Hamdan's lawyers and many civil liberties groups have decried the commissions as unconstitutional and unfairly stacked against defendants.

Separately, the administration is trying to eliminate habeas corpus lawsuits filed on behalf of nearly every detainee, saying they have clogged federal courts with frivolous actions. The Supreme Court gave Guantanamo Bay detainees access to federal courts in a 2004 ruling.

The Detainee Treatment Act, principally written by Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and signed into law Dec. 30, is intended to prevent detainees from having access to U.S. courts except in specific circumstances. It outlines a limited system for legal challenges by inmates, allowing them only to appeal the determination that they are enemy combatants to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and then, potentially, to the Supreme Court. It also allows anyone convicted in a military commission to appeal that decision.

The two lawmakers and their colleagues have disagreed sharply in recent days over whether the legislation is meant to apply to cases such as Hamdan's that were filed before Bush signed the legislation into law.

Clement's brief argues that the statute must be given "immediate effect" -- meaning that previous legal challenges should be dismissed, and that Hamdan and other inmates should proceed under the new rules.

"Congress made clear that the federal courts no longer have jurisdiction over actions filed on behalf of Guantanamo detainees," Clement wrote.

Levin, in a statement issued yesterday, said that "the Justice Department is in error. Far from deciding that the relevant statutory language applies to pending cases, Congress specifically considered and rejected language that would have stripped the courts of jurisdiction in cases that they had before them."

Neal Katyal, a Georgetown University law professor who represents Hamdan, declined to comment on the government's filing.

Burt Neuborne, a New York University law professor who wrote a friend-of-the-court brief in the Hamdan case, said the government's brief ignores the fact that if Hamdan's case is dismissed, he and other detainees will have no avenue to challenge the legality of Bush's power to detain enemy combatants and create military trials.

"The government's basic argument is: You can't hear it now, but you can hear it later," Neuborne said. "What they don't say is that the other route doesn't let Hamdan raise the question of the president's authority in these cases. . . . They're not telling the Supreme Court the real consequences of their motion."

Justice Department officials believe cases filed on behalf of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay should now be pulled from all U.S. courts. They filed notice within days of the law's passage asking for the dismissal of cases in the U.S. District Court and the appeals court in the District of Columbia. The cases range from legal challenges of the military commissions process to complaints about treatment at the facility in Cuba.

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton denied yesterday all motions in 15 pending detainee cases before him and indefinitely stayed the cases, noting that the new law "raises serious questions concerning whether this Court retains jurisdiction" to hear them. Walton wrote that he will wait for the appeals court to resolve the jurisdictional issues before removing the stays.

Joshua Colangelo-Bryan, who represents a Guantanamo Bay detainee named Jumah Dossari, said yesterday that the stay in his case leaves his client with few options for improving his conditions at the prison. Dossari has tried to kill himself at least 10 times, according to his lawyers, who have been asking the court for independent mental health experts and better living conditions.

"He may have been placed in a legal limbo that may last months or years," Colangelo-Bryan said. "This means that he is utterly and entirely at the mercy of the military, which chose to place him in isolation despite knowing that he was suicidal. Our hands are tied in terms of seeking relief."

Setanta, nope. The plot I refer to is the one where Smedly Butler was recruited to take Roosevelt's place in a coup. When Smedly spilled the beans he was ridiculed by the press. But in the end his story was proven to be true. "the plotters made a fatal mistake in their choice of leader, however. "With incredible ineptitude," states Jules Archer in The Plot to Seize the White House, "they had selected the wrong man." The plot, and the men behind it, represented everything Smedly Butler [the man the group chose to seize the White House] now despised. Over the years his youthful passion for battles abroad had given way to an equaly fierce desire to fighty hypocrisy at home. [...] Butler was not about to add the United States to the list of countries where he had used military force to defend U.S. corporate interests from populist threats. On November 20, 1934, he revealed the plot to the House Un-American Activities Committee in a secret executive session in New York City." http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:1YkGTpKvTkkJ:www.urbanvancouver.com/blog%3Ffrom%3D260+smedly+butler+roosevelt+plot&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

You are hilarious--you are no better than the rightwing conspiracy theorist who was telling me yesterday that FDR has blood on his hands because he knew the Imperial Navy would attack Pearl, and he didn't tell anyone.

Tell ya what, you keep your loony conspiracy theories to yourself, and i will cease and desist from ridiculing your complete lack of perspective and judgment.

Setana, tell you what you gotta do better than just say childish stuff like you're hilarious or loony conspiracist theories. That aint a grown up way of looking at history. It's a lazy way and a way of those who dont wanna know and dont want others to know. As DI pointed out just calling someone an idiot is not much of an argument. The Smedly Butler story is the story of some powerful Americans with un-American intentions coming up against a true Americasn hero. And yet I dont think you wanna know just what a great man he was. Rather than keeping the history to myself I'll post a more complete study just because it's the right thing to do. " 1933, Butler was approached by men representing a clique of multi-millionaire industrialists and bankers. They hated U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) with a passion, and saw his "New Deal" policies as the start of a communist take-over that threatened their interests. FDR even had the temerity to announce that the U.S. would stop using its military to interfere in Latin American affairs! Wall Street's plutocrats were aghast! They had long been accustomed to wielding tremendous control over the government's economic policies, including the use of U.S. forces to protect their precious foreign investments. Because of Butler's steadfast military role in upholding U.S. business interests abroad, the plotters mistakenly thought they could recruit him to muster a "super-army" of veterans to use as pawns in their plan to subjugate or, if necessary, eliminate FDR.

Butler played along in order to determine who was behind the plot. He later testifying under oath before the MacCormack-Dickstein House Committee on un-American Activities. During that testimony Butler named those who were directly involved in the plot. He also identified an powerful organization that was behind the scenes coordinating and backing the plot. This organization, the American Liberty League, was comprised of some of America's wealthiest bankers, financiers and corporate executives. (Click the American Liberty League link for details on the League's main backers.)

However, the House Committee did not properly investigate the coup plot. In fact they helped to cover it up. The powerful fascists plotters behind the coup were never questioned, let alone arrested or charged with sedition or treason. The Committee even dropped from their report of Butler's testimony most of the names of these wealthy bankers and corporate presidents whom Butler had identified. Butler was of course outraged and he went on national radio to name the names of those behind the coup plot. A sympathetic reporter from the Philadelphia Herald, Paul Comly French was one of the only mainstream journalists to help Butler expose the plotters. John Spivak, a reporter, from the socialist magazine New Masses, interviewed Butler and helped him to put the coup plotters' names onto the public record. (Click here to read Spivak's account of the fascist plot: "The Plot and the Main Players.") For the most part, the mainstream media either ignored the story or went to great lengths to ridicule General Butler. (In his book 1000 Americans, anti-fascist journalist and media critic, George Seldes, described the media's coverup of Wall Street's plot. Click here to read an excerpt.)

Although Butler's patriotic efforts did thwart this fascist coup plot, the Wall Street bankers and corporate leaders who sponsored it continued to conspire behind the scenes to rid America of FDR and to smash his "New Deal." Evidence of continued efforts by powerful U.S. fascists to regain control of the White House is illustrated by a 1936 statement by William Dodd, the U.S. Ambassador to Germany. In a letter to Roosevelt, he stated:

"A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime.... A prominent executive of one of the largest corporations, told me point blank that he would be ready to take definite action to bring fascism into America if President Roosevelt continued his progressive policies. Certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy. They extended aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power, and they are helping to keep it there. Propagandists for fascist groups try to dismiss the fascist scare. We should be aware of the symptoms. When industrialists ignore laws designed for social and economic progress they will seek recourse to a fascist state when the institutions of our government compel them to comply with the provisions."

Many of the plotters exposed by Butler, had been boosting their fortunes by investing in the fascist experiments of Mussolini and Hitler. Some of them even amassed great profits by arming the Nazis, both before and during WWII.
http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/53-index.html

I have nothing but disdain for Satana, but I have never doubted his opinions or knowledge of history. It's usually the truth. It's the surrounding commentary that gets ugly.

There was none. Then again, this is not criminal law. The presumption when you capture someone in the field isn't that there is a doubt about his status, and that you need a competent tribunal to alleviate that doubt. When you catch someone fighting without a badge or some other identifiable sign, you can shoot him on the spot -- or imprison him on terms that the Geneva Convention does not regulate. At least that's my understanding from reading an introductory legal textbook about the Geneva conventions. (Eric Jinks: Rules of War -- The Geneva Conventions in an Age of Terror. Oxford University Press (2005)).

Obviously, if you shoot the sonofabitch on the field of battle, one is not held to account. Once they are prisoners, as the convention clearly states, they are entitled to treatment as prisoners of war until such time as a competent tribunal finds otherwise. Do you purport that article five was written in an idle moment for the amusement of those convened, and was not intended to govern any real situation?

No, I purport that there are three categories of prisoners. 1) Those who clearly fall under the provisions of article 4, so never have their status clarified. 2) Those who clearly don't fall under those provisions, so never have their status clarified. 3) Those who neither fall clearly into our out of those categories. Only people in category 3) must have their status clarified.

It would be interesting to know how international law determines whether a "doubt" has arisen in terms of article five. As I remember it, the book I read did not really answer that question. But there is no presumption that there is a doubt, and that you need a competent tribunal to determine someone's status.

About a broader point: As I think Joe mentioned, there are other conventions protecting enemy combatants. And as I pointed out myself, torturing prisoners wouldn't be okay even if there were no legal constraints on it. But blueflame had specifically referred to the Geneva conventions, and McGentrix stated that they don't apply. That is the extent of my agreement with McGentrix. I never defended his broader claims about the prisoners' (non-) protection by international and national law.

Just for shits and giggles, i had a look at your web site, BF, and found typical inflamatory horseshit being pawned off as history. This is the opening paragraph:



The Congressional Medal of Honor, instituted at the time of the American Civil War, is not a decoration particular to the Marine Corps. If one goes to the United States Army Center for Military History Medal of Honor Citations page, one finds that Butler was awarded the citation for the first time in the occupation of the city of Vera Cruz in Mexico. That's the same comic opera operation in which Douglas MacArthur (after tireless lobbying and considerable whining) recieved his Medal of Honor.



Oh yeah . . . the Marines went ashore with (relatively) modern equipment to take out Mexican defenders, whose loyalty to their government was dubious, in a nation racked by years of civil war launched against Porfiro Diaz, a veteran of the 1859 War of the Reform, and the 1862 Cinquo de Mayo triumph against the French, who had been elected President in 1876, and declared himself "President for Life" in 1878, and not finally unseated until the civil war began in 1911. Just wonderful--you, who rail against the capitalists, describe as a real American hero a man who lead his troops in a bum's rush against ill-equipped, ill-lead and ill-motivated Mexicans, all in the name of assuring that American creditors could seize Mexico's customs revenues to have their debts repaid.

His second citation came in the following year:



Yup, that's a hero for ya--twice cited for his heroic actions to protect the corporate interests of private American citizens. Your linked page shows that he also served in Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua and China. In every instance, your "hero," Butler, fought for the corporate interests of private individuals in the United States--just the kind of guy you should love to hate, based on your earlier rants.

Nicaragua, now there's a real wonderful example. Have you ever heard or read of Augusto Sandino? It was for him that the Sandinistas of Nicaragua named themselves. You know, the Sandinistas, who took over the country, and against whom the Contras fought, with the illegal backing of the Reagan administration, with Ollie North--another Marine--as their dogsbody in the Iran-Contra deal to sell weapons and replacement parts to the Persians (for use in the Iran-Iraq war, in which we were also funding Hussein) in order to get the money to fund the Contras. Yeah, i bet Butler was a real hero in hunting down the peasants of Nicaragua in the 1930s. You know, the Americans installed the Samoza dynasty, which the Sandinistas finally drove from Nicaragua. Do you know what the Nicaraguans called Anastasio Somoza? No? They called him, The Last Marine. Yeah, you got yerself a certifiable hero there.

This is precisely why i speak of hilarious and loony conspiracy theories. You've been ranting for pages now about dark, evil corporate conspiracies, and now you want to describe a man whose entire career was devoted to fighting for the corporate interests of the United States and a "true American hero." Crap like this is also the reason why i never have to read very far into a conspiracy theory page to begin laughing out loud, and to go find something else worthwhile to read.

Thomas, i understand your point, i simply don't agree with it.

Setanta, so you cant dispute that Smedly was asked to participate in a coup and refused. That's what makes him a huge hero in my mind. But he did win 2 Cingressional Medals of Honor. Yes he knew he was fighting wars for corporate fascists. He addressed that in one great piece of writing, War is a Racket. It's sad your attack on Smedly but it's your problem. "Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933 by General Smedley Darlington Butler, USMC. General Butler was the recipient of two Congressional Medals of Honor.
War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. . . .

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. .
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2001/0911-Racket.html

If that happened I would have no reason left to live.

Did any of you wise guys consider for a moment the possibility that the kid might deserve to have his testicles crushed?


/damned kids!
//stay offa' my lawn!

You have managed to miss the point entirely, BF--which does not surprise me. When someone begins to read something, anything, which contains glaring factual errors (" . . . twice been awarded the Marine's prestigious Medal of Honor.") and which is hopelessly entangled in contradictions, they are going to abandon the effort. A careful reading of that page, and following its links leads one to discover that the purpose of the entire exercise is to indict the Bush family as venal and greedy capitalists. It is not necessary to make **** up (the alleged coup attempt being linked to the Bush family, for example) to reasonably accuse the Bush family of being venal and greey capitalists. Furthermore, that page does not establish the veracity of its claims, it simply refers to others making unsubstantiated claims--he said/she said simply does not make it as evidence. Butler's conversion to righteousness after he is comfortably retired on the pension of a Major General (the highest rank to which a Marine Corps officer may attain) is less than convincing--it hardly qualifies him as a hero that he spends more than thirty years leading men to their deaths, and ordering them to kill others, in causes he condemns once his career is comfortably behind him.

You are, perhaps, aware of the parable of the boy who cried wolf. When you go to such extreme and questionable lengths to make a shakey point, people will eventually come to the conclusion that you have nothing worthwhile to offer, just shrill ranting about conspiracy theories. At such point as that at which you have a well-founded and substantive charge to level at a public figure, no one is going to pay any attention to you, because you will have created a reputation for yourself of peddling BS.

You lack of a sense of proportion and historical perspective comes from your near-hysterical insistence upon the evil nature of capitalists supporting the Nazis. Capitalists don't support ideologies, they ignore them. Capitalists support their own income, and work mightily to make it as large as possible, paying little to no attention to the source (this describes most, but not all, capitalists--most generally don't care, some few have throughout history).

Vladimir Illiyich Ulyanov--a.k.a. Lenin--is reputed to have said something to the effect that a capitalist is a man who will eagerly sell you the rope that you use to hang him. That is really rather a succinct (if not literally accurate) statement of what motivates capitalists. No American capitalists supported the Bolsheviks or the Nazis because of their ideologies, or because those American capitalists were inherently evil. They did such things, if they actually in fact did them at all, because they were out to make a buck.

If you make yourself the political little boy who cried wolf, not only do you destroy your own credibility, but you waste your time and energy on ludicrous conspriacy theories, while real crimes continue unabated and unchallenged.

But you have a big time with your conspiracy pages, their entertainment value is not to be doubted.