Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance

According to the GC,the people being held at Gitmo do NOT meet the criteria to be POW's.
There are certain criteria they MUST meet,and they dont.

Since they are not covered under the GC,they can be held for as long as we want to hold them,and they can be held incommunicado if we want.
They do not get the rights and protections of the GC.

In WW2,they would have just been shot as guerilla's or spy's.

Doesn't corporate america owe its existence to information control? What is more Orwellian than capitalism run amok, as it has in America?

It appears that only people who are suffering under the delusion that they are experts on literature would write--

What is more Orwellian than capitalism run amok, as it has in America?

Some people haven't even read the book, 1984, or understand its meaning.


In the Appendix to 1984 Orwell writes---

quote
NEWSPEAK WAS THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF OCEANIA AND HAD BEEN DEVISED TO MEET THE IDEOLOGICAL NEEDS OF INGSOC, OR ENGLISH SOCIALISM.

end of quote

It is clear that Orwell was talking about English Socialism RUN AMOK NOT, AMERICAN CAPITALISM!

But, Plain Ol Me probably heard some effete English professor wannabe use the term Orwellian at a wine and cheese party, and now thinks she can label anything Orwellian because it sound oh so chic!!!

Not sure just what you are asking, diane, other than re 2008.

Link to Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

Link to Khalilzad's confidential memo re how things REALLY are in Baghdad http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1090904.ece

Review of Suskind's new book http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/20/books/20kaku.html

There you go.. We can declare them to be whatever we want and don't need to hold any military tribunals to determine anything. Who needs the law when we can act like a dictator?

Hey, it was at that party in Princeton, NJ where I was buttonholed by an older man who would not shut up. What was his name? Something out of James Joyce, I seem to remember. Yes! That was it! Bloom. Harold Bloom!

What gives? This petulant poster screams for threads and threads, demanding I confirm to his admiration for Harold Bloom, an English professor, then condemns me for listening to another English professor.

Geez! Which way is it?

All the more reason you should give Dr.Bloom's ideas credence,Plain Ol Me, unless he made a comment about your hat that he didn't like. That would explain why you are opposed to his ideas(Just why is it that you are opposed to his ideas??)

Mr. Parados- I am astonished that you do not follow the news more closely. The status of the prisoners at Gitmo has been adjudicated on a lower level and will be adjudcated by the USSC--Patience, sir.

We do not and will not solve our prisoner problem by torturing our prisoners and decapitating them. We are not savages like the Islamo-Fascists.

Mr. Parados- I am astonished that you do not follow the news more closely. The status of the prisoners at Gitmo has been adjudicated on a lower level and will be adjudcated by the USSC--Patience, sir.

We do not and will not solve our prisoner problem by torturing our prisoners and decapitating them. We are not savages like the Islamo-Fascists.

Here is your answer as to what was done. The USSC will soon take it up from there:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It would appear that Mr. Parados is not aware that the US Supreme Court has ruled on Guantanamo.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3867067.stm

US Supreme Court Guantanamo ruling


Prisoners can now go to court
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay can take their case that they are unlawfully imprisoned to the American courts.

BBC News Online looks at the issues involved.

What did the Supreme Court say?

The overall ruling of the court was: "United States courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay."

The court then described how this should happen. It accepted the argument from lawyers from the Center for Constitutional Rights that the Federal District Court in Washington DC (to which the case was first brought) does have jurisdiction to hear the prisoners' petition, under the "habeas corpus" law, that they are held "in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States."

What is habeas corpus?

Habeas corpus is a Latin phrase meaning: "You have the body." It is the name given to an ancient legal device under English common law (a mixture of judge-made laws, precedents and statutes). Habeas corpus was continued in American law after independence.

If a writ of habeas corpus is issued by a court, the person holding a prisoner (the "body") must bring the prisoner to the court and justify the detention. It has been a basic instrument under which courts in common law systems have protected citizens against wrongful imprisonment.

Why did the Supreme Court rule in the prisoners' favour?

The court was divided 6-3. The majority opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens and hinged on the definition of "sovereignty." He argued that, even though Cuba retained "ultimate sovereignty", the United States exercised, in the words of the lease from Cuba, "complete jurisdiction and control" at Guantanamo Bay.

Therefore federal jurisdiction applied there and "aliens, no less than American citizens, are entitled to invoke the Federal courts' authority."

The court rejected an argument that a case arising out of World War II should be followed in this instance (see below), saying that the two were quite different.

Justice Stevens quoted a predecessor on habeas corpus: "Executive imprisonment has been considered oppressive and lawless since [King] John, at Runnymede, pledged that no free man should be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, or exiled save by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."

The majority was formed by the liberals on the court, joined by the "swing" justices. One of the latter, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, said that the US government could not have a "blank check" even in time of war.

What did the minority on the Court say?

The minority opinion, on behalf of the three core conservatives, was written by Justice Antonin Scalia.

He based his argument on the "Eisentrager" case. This arose out of the arrest in China of a number of Germans agents accused of helping the Japanese after the surrender of Germany in World War II.

Their leader, who called himself Lothar Eisentrager though his real name was Ludwig Ehrhardt, had hired himself to the Japanese after the German surrender. He was sentenced to life in a prison in Germany but appealed for a writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court ruled that this did not apply because he was an alien outside US sovereign territory. He was eventually freed anyway under an amnesty.

Justice Scalia said that the "carefree" court's "spurious" ruling on Guantanamo was a "wrenching departure from precedent" and "boldly extends the scope of the habeas statute to the four corners of the earth."

The consequence, he said, was "breathtaking." It enabled "an alien captured in a foreign theater of active combat to petition the Secretary of Defense." It brought the "cumbersome machinery of our domestic courts into military affairs".


Is this the end of the prisoners' "legal black hole"?


It should be the beginning of it, though getting access to the US courts does not mean the prisoners necessarily getting their freedom. But they do now have much more of a legal status and the courts might order a full clarification.


The Defense Department announced (on 7 July) that nine more prisoners will face trial by military commission, bringing to 15 the number of prisoners who will be tried in this way.

On 7 July, the Pentagon announced that cases would be reviewed by military tribunals. Why?


The Pentagon is responding to the Supreme Court ruling and is trying to pre-empt any criticism from a US court. It is setting up three-officer review panels to determine whether a prisoner is a combatant.


This is supposed to happen under Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention which states that if there is doubt as to whether someone was a combatant, a "competent tribunal" should determine his status. The conventions have not been applied to the Guantanamo prisoners, so the panels, provision for which exist in US military law, were not convened. The decision to set them up now does not mean that Washington is suddenly going to apply the conventions but it is following them more closely.


The prisoners' lawyers are likely to argue in court that the panels are not enough and that the detainees should be properly charged or set free.


Whatever happens in the District Court is likely to be appealed in a procedure which could go on for many months.


end of quote-

Mr. Imposter does not realize that the rulings of the USSC are the law of the land--whatever they may be--and whatever we may think about them.
( Roe Vs. Wade) (Gore Vs. Bush)

Careful note should be made of the last line of the link-

Whatever happens in the District Court is likely to be appealed in a procedure which could go on for many months.

It is called the "rule of law", Mr. Parados and it takes time. It is not a one hour TV show where everything is solved in fortyfive minutes,

That depends on the people and I see almost nothing in them that demonstrates anything different in 2008. I think people have been reduced to marketing subjects. There is very little (or nothing)in our culture or society that stimulates freethinking or intellect of the average person and why would the people value freethinking and intellect?

Will it make them money? or make them better looking? or lower the price of gas?

By the nature of the people and the nature of the government if both George Orwell and Carol Williams did not exist what they are talking about would.

Bernie, perhaps you missed this part in the USSC ruling..
let me highlight it for you.



It seems Bush has violated the rule of law by executive imprisonment. Bush tried to prevent it from going to court. Bush has done an end around the court by transferring individuals to make their cases moot. This only shows how illegal Bush's actions have been. The rule of law is what the US courts stand for, not what Bush does.

Anyone see Frontline last night?

No, but is this it? The dark side.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/

You can watch the whole thing online on Thursday.

Oh, No, Mr. Parados. I read it. I read all of the USSC rulings. Are you acquainted with the law and the opinions given by the various members of the USSC, Mr. Parados? I have read a great many of them. I assure you that I can find a wide range of opinion in them.

Stevens's comment( it is probably not even really his but a comment dredged up by one of his clerks--I do hope you know how the court works.Mr. Parados) is interesting but in the final analysis, the only thing that really matters is the decision of the USSC ON THE WHOLE!

You may be aware, Mr. Parados, of Griswold Vs. Connecticut. It is the law of the land. The concept of "privacy" is at its center.

Justice Black DISSENTED from the decision saying--"I like my privacy as well as the next one, but I am nevertheless compelled to admit that the government has a right to invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision"

An interesting comment, just as Steven's comment was interesting, but it makes no difference unless it rules the decision to be made by the USSC on Gitmo which is forthcoming!!!

Comments by individual judges may be interesting but not necessarily definitive.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2006/06/22/iraq_debate/index2.html

Bernie...

It seems you still have a problem reading.. Let me highlight another part for you..



Stevens statement wasn't the minority opinion nor was it just his opinion. 6 justices concurred and signed unto the opinion. It was the court's decision.

Cut & Run Liberals




I want to be perfectly clear about this. We liberals really do want to cut and run.

I admit it. We are cut and run liberials, just as Karl Rove alleges. More than that, I am proud of it and encourage more Americans to join us.

We are liberal/progressives and, damn it, we want to cut and run:


We want to cut and run from the borrow and spend, borrow and spend economics of the GOP that have piled an additional $4 trillion in debt onto our children, grand children and great grand children.

We want to cut and run from the unholy alliance between the GOP and energy companies that have left us at the mercy of a bunch of medieval Islamic tribal leaders who run their own countries like feudal states and treat their own people -- especially their women -- worse than Americans treat farm animals.

We want to cut and run from a national health care system designed by and for giant health care and pharmaceutical interests, that enriches a few while leaving 45 million Americans without affordable health insurance.

We want to cut and run from a government which, over the past six years, has become not only increasingly closed to public scrutiny and accountability, but overtly hostile and suspicious of citizens who insist on either.

We want to cut an run from a style of governance that not only plays on fear and petty prejudices, but cultivates and exploits them for cheap political gain. The cynical, dishonest purposeful pitting of majority populations against minority groups on the grounds that they don't share "American values," and then later deny responsibility for the entirely predictable destructive consequences of those tactics.

We want to cut and run from policies that view science and scientists as adversaries whose findings must sometimes be suppressed, while embracing, even endorsing, religious dogmas that have no basis in fact whatsoever.

We want to cut and run from GOP economic polices that have handed the already wealthy a couple of trillion dollars in tax cuts while leaving working Americans payroll tax virtually untouched.

We want to cut and run from GOP economics that argue - with a straight face - that the minimum wage of $5.15 an hour should not be raised to a still unlivable $7.25 an hour because doing so would "hurt low wage workers."

We want to cut and run from policies that scoff at mandating substantially higher fuel millage standards, even as the fossil fuels run out and the effects of global warming become more apparent with each passing day.

We want to cut and run from policies that justify turning "the land of the free and home of the brave," into place where none of us can any longer feel sure that the government isn't listening to our private phone calls, reading our emails or isn't keeping an eye on us from a pole-mounted camera on the corner.

We want to cut and run from an administration that wraps inconvenient truths in the opaque blanket of national security while justifying selective disclosure of classified information for purely political reasons -- such as the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, and the now discredited disclosures that Iraq had tried to buy uranium ore from Niger.

We want to cut and run from policies that allow religious extremists to determine what medical procedures or family planning medications women will be allowed access to.

We want to cut and run from policies that allow our government to decide which American citizens will be allowed to enter into legally recognized committed relationships, and which will be banned by law from doing so.

We want to cut and run from policies that encourage counseling and treatment for Americans suffering from alcohol addiction, but incarceration for those suffering drug addiction.

We want to cut and run from cynically selective policies that treat some dictators as friends of America and others as enemies requiring a deadly dose of regime change.

We want to cut and run from policies that are increasingly militarizing entirely domestic matters, such as internal terrorist threats, border control and domestic law enforcement, particularly the gathering of intelligence on political groups and movements.

We want to cut and run from policies that allow industries government is supposed to regulate for the public good, to write the very rules under which they will be regulated.


Do we want to cut and run from Iraq? I wish the hell we could. But that fat is already in the fire. Liberals understand we can't cut and run from Iraq. But whose fault is it that we're stuck there now? Not ours, that's for sure. We would like to see US troops leave Iraq as soon as possible -- but not in a way that would make matters worse for ordinary Iraqis than our invasion already has.

In the meantime we are not about to let the very neocons that got us into that mess shift the blame onto liberials who oppose the war. You guys started it and that dead chicken is hung around your necks, not ours. So, Karl, stop the blame-shifting and wear it like man.

But Karl is right when he calls us "cut and run liberals." As you can see the list of things we do want to cut and run from is a long one.

We are cut and run liberals. And proud of it.
By Steve Pizzo

Cut & Run Liberals




I want to be perfectly clear about this. We liberals really do want to cut and run.

I admit it. We are cut and run liberials, just as Karl Rove alleges. More than that, I am proud of it and encourage more Americans to join us.

We are liberal/progressives and, damn it, we want to cut and run:


We want to cut and run from the borrow and spend, borrow and spend economics of the GOP that have piled an additional $4 trillion in debt onto our children, grand children and great grand children.

We want to cut and run from the unholy alliance between the GOP and energy companies that have left us at the mercy of a bunch of medieval Islamic tribal leaders who run their own countries like feudal states and treat their own people -- especially their women -- worse than Americans treat farm animals.

We want to cut and run from a national health care system designed by and for giant health care and pharmaceutical interests, that enriches a few while leaving 45 million Americans without affordable health insurance.

We want to cut and run from a government which, over the past six years, has become not only increasingly closed to public scrutiny and accountability, but overtly hostile and suspicious of citizens who insist on either.

We want to cut an run from a style of governance that not only plays on fear and petty prejudices, but cultivates and exploits them for cheap political gain. The cynical, dishonest purposeful pitting of majority populations against minority groups on the grounds that they don't share "American values," and then later deny responsibility for the entirely predictable destructive consequences of those tactics.

We want to cut and run from policies that view science and scientists as adversaries whose findings must sometimes be suppressed, while embracing, even endorsing, religious dogmas that have no basis in fact whatsoever.

We want to cut and run from GOP economic polices that have handed the already wealthy a couple of trillion dollars in tax cuts while leaving working Americans payroll tax virtually untouched.

We want to cut and run from GOP economics that argue - with a straight face - that the minimum wage of $5.15 an hour should not be raised to a still unlivable $7.25 an hour because doing so would "hurt low wage workers."

We want to cut and run from policies that scoff at mandating substantially higher fuel millage standards, even as the fossil fuels run out and the effects of global warming become more apparent with each passing day.

We want to cut and run from policies that justify turning "the land of the free and home of the brave," into place where none of us can any longer feel sure that the government isn't listening to our private phone calls, reading our emails or isn't keeping an eye on us from a pole-mounted camera on the corner.

We want to cut and run from an administration that wraps inconvenient truths in the opaque blanket of national security while justifying selective disclosure of classified information for purely political reasons -- such as the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, and the now discredited disclosures that Iraq had tried to buy uranium ore from Niger.

We want to cut and run from policies that allow religious extremists to determine what medical procedures or family planning medications women will be allowed access to.

We want to cut and run from policies that allow our government to decide which American citizens will be allowed to enter into legally recognized committed relationships, and which will be banned by law from doing so.

We want to cut and run from policies that encourage counseling and treatment for Americans suffering from alcohol addiction, but incarceration for those suffering drug addiction.

We want to cut and run from cynically selective policies that treat some dictators as friends of America and others as enemies requiring a deadly dose of regime change.

We want to cut and run from policies that are increasingly militarizing entirely domestic matters, such as internal terrorist threats, border control and domestic law enforcement, particularly the gathering of intelligence on political groups and movements.

We want to cut and run from policies that allow industries government is supposed to regulate for the public good, to write the very rules under which they will be regulated.


Do we want to cut and run from Iraq? I wish the hell we could. But that fat is already in the fire. Liberals understand we can't cut and run from Iraq. But whose fault is it that we're stuck there now? Not ours, that's for sure. We would like to see US troops leave Iraq as soon as possible -- but not in a way that would make matters worse for ordinary Iraqis than our invasion already has.

In the meantime we are not about to let the very neocons that got us into that mess shift the blame onto liberials who oppose the war. You guys started it and that dead chicken is hung around your necks, not ours. So, Karl, stop the blame-shifting and wear it like man.

But Karl is right when he calls us "cut and run liberals." As you can see the list of things we do want to cut and run from is a long one.

We are cut and run liberals. And proud of it.
By Steve Pizzo

Very good post, but I bet it went over the head of most of the conserative posters on this sight.