Let's Help GWB and Rove Out With Their Propoganda

Poor Bernard wouldn't know what to do with a Beaver if you gave him an operating manual.

But Bernard is a stand-up guy, since he can clearly see that victory in Iraq is right around the corner.

I think you may have missed my post, Mr. Parados, I did quote you correctly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is clear that you are mistaken, Mr. Nation.

Here is what Parados said:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton and cutting off of heads..

ANYTHING but talking about how the courts have said Bush has pretty much violated the law.
_________________________________________________________
He did not say that I said "Clinton and cutting off of heads", according to you. What he did say after that line--
ANYTHING BUT TALKING ABOUT HOW THE COURTS HAVE SAID BUSH HAS PRETTY MUCH VIOLATED THE LAW.

It is clear to me that ANYTHING refers to "Clinton and cutting off of heads"

____________________________________________________________

But I appreciate your critique of my use of English. It is reasonable to say that one who cannot express himself adequately would not be able to frame coherent or logical arguments.

Therefore, Mr. Nation, it is clear that your Ad Hominem arguments and the blurbs laid down by subsequent posts do nothing to destroy my arguments but merely prove that the only thing left for some on these threads is name calling.

_________________________________________________________

I ask Mr. Parados again:

Sir, you said that Bush has the courts have said that Bush has "pretty much" violated the law.

Please be so good as to list court decisions which hold that Bush has "Pretty much" violated the law. Lower court decisions which are on appeal, of course, have no bearing until they are properly and fully adjudicated.

YOU HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO THE LAST SECTION OF MY POST, MR. PARADOS.

Why?

ps. In today's news concerning Guantanamo, the UN is asking that the US removes the prisoners from Gitmo. The President responded that he is awaiting the decision from the Supreme Court. That's the way it works in the US, Mr. Parados--when there is a dispute about the powers of the executive branch or the legislative branch, the dispute is referred to the Supreme Court for adjudication. I am truly sorry it is such a slow process. I know the Islamo-Facist method of decapitation is so much faster--It only takes two or three days to solve a problem or, at most , a week.

I am very much afraid that with regard to Gitmo, Mr. Parados, you are just going to have to wait for the Supreme Court to decide.

Bernard....


Nobody cares.


But that's what you're really afraid of, right?

But everybody cares that victory in Iraq is just around the corner!

And coming soon:

Victory at the border is also right around the corner!

Pretty soon, you're gonna go over the line.

First, in 2004:
Court: Terror suspects can challenge detentions
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court dealt a setback to the Bush administration on Monday, ruling that both U.S. citizens and foreign nationals seized as potential terrorists can challenge their treatment in U.S. courts.

The court refused to endorse a central claim of the White House since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001: That the government has authority to seize and hold suspected terrorists or their protectors and indefinitely deny them access to courts or lawyers while interrogating them.

=======

Some three months after that ruling, this article reports the complaints of the detainee's lawyers.

U.S. Stymies Detainee Access Despite Ruling, Lawyers Say


====

It's now nearly three YEARS later. What this administration did first was not to serve justice but to re-write the rules. It asked for and got a law passed by Congress - The Detainee Treatment Act signed into law Dec. 30, 2004 --intended to prevent detainees from having access to U.S. courts.

So, here's the lesson for all you students of American Justice, if the Supreme Court rules against you, you, just like if you were some regular brand of autocrat, change the law you asserted gave you the rights and powers you were found not to have. Voila, you're not in violation. At least not as long as you are living in the same delusion of grandeur that this President is.

The modus operandi is the same for this guy. If Congress passes a law he doesn't like, he doesn't VETO it, he just doesn't execute it. He's the decider, yah know, not them. And so what if the Supreme Court said the Guantanamo prisoners have the right of habeas corpus? So what? He's the Pres-i-dent and what's a little violation of his oath of office? You remember, the part about 'faithfully execute the office... ."

And if he feels like invading another sovereign nation unilaterally... .

And if he feels like sending people to secret prisons to be tortured... .

And if he feels like tapping your goddamned phone calls and emails...

And if he feels like arresting you because of the way you look or seem.. .

And

Joe(there's someone at my door)Nation

The Geneva Conventions allow unlawful combatants to be interned incommunicado so long as they pose a threat.

No charges are required.

It is possible that their treatment violated the Geneva Conventions, but I doubt it was a major violation.

As unlawful combatants, they do not get the full protections of POWs and may be detained incommunicado.

You do realize that if you want to hold a criminal trial while the war is still ongoing, we'll have to dispense with giving them a fair trial, because that would expose too many state secrets to the enemy.

Kind of a traffic ticket offense as you see it? We're taking you away for five years, you don't get to know the charges or even who is holding you.
Your innocence can not be determined so we are jailing you. But hey, it's nothing major, it just undercuts the entire fabric of American Justice.

Joe(but whatever,right?)Nation

Geneva 4 of 1949.





The Constitution does not prohibit unlawful combatants from being detained incommunicado for the duration of the war.





They should be held incommunicado until we have defeated al-Qa'ida and all their allies. Then they should either be criminally charged in front of a military tribunal, or they should be released.

Criminal charges have nothing to do with detaining captured enemy soldiers for the duration of the war.





Holding captured enemy soldiers for the duration of the war does not undermine anything.

If they are an enemy soldier, and we are at war, we can indeed hold them for the duration of the war.

Check out the Geneva Conventions.





The ongoing war between the US and al-Qa'ida.

Once upon a time, society was consider "civilized" by the concept of doing the right thing ethically and morally; once upon a time. By this concept (partially) slavery was abolished but the american conservatives retaliated with "robber barons" "slum lords" and union wars. Yes, I've always been an idealist, a humanist and a secularist striving for all mankind to maximize life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
My only remaining question is whether or not Gatos will ever read Thomas Mann in the original german text.

oralloy said...



Now,here is the geneva Convention from 1949....
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Please tell me what parts apply.
Provide the correct article,so I can read it.

The US of A (fuc*k the UN) by law. does not use torture. The Bush Admin obfuscates US law (not in our national boundries etc). This is a load of crap. Wrap yourself in that flag and burn it.

Your link is to Geneva 3 of 1949. These people are covered by Geneva 4 of 1949, specifically articles 5 and 42.

Geneva 4: www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/380

Article 5 commentary: www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600008

Article 42 commentary: www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600048

The UN does come up with the dorkiest things sometimes. The laws against torture do not prohibit us from detaining captured enemy soldiers until the war is over.

I don't think anyone is taking their Guantanamo tantrum seriously though.