Defending the Truth

By your own admission this is what you wait for! (sic)


Houston we have a problem!


Rumsfeld denies making claims Iraq had WMDs

Eight United Methodist bishops, other leaders, speak against war with Iraq

The Memory Hole > 5-Minute Video of George W. Bush on the Morning of 9/11

You didn't get your secret decoder ring did you? Man you are in for some tough times. If you think Gitmo is rough, wait until you are in a fenced up pen on one of the Aeutian Islands in the Bering Sea in winter. Your balls are going to shrink up to your lungs.

Idiots jump up and down - citing Ivins' writing - before realizing that she's a loon.

Defend the Great Writ

Dear Friend of CCR,

The fight over the military commissions bills today isn’t about politics, it’s about lives, and it’s not over. Please take a minute from your busy day to help, even if you acted last week.

The debate around these bills misses the point: both versions strip away the fundamental right to habeas corpus, the right to challenge your detention in a court of law, not to be locked up under the President’s say-so, guilty or innocent, never to be heard from again.

An amendment in play could take out this dangerous measure – please use our site to fax your senators and tell them to support the Specter-Levin Amendment on habeas corpus when it gets introduced. The bills are S.3901, The Military Commissions Act of 2006, sponsored by Senator Warner and S.3861, The Bringing Terrorists to Justice Act of 2006, sponsored by Senator Frist. Please call your Senators at (202) 224-3121 IMMEDIATELY, especially if they are among the 26 we’ve identified below as critical in this fight.

Anyone in U.S. custody, at home or abroad, must have the right to challenge their detention in court. Nothing is more fundamental to our democracy than this right. Tell your Senator TODAY that they must vote to save habeas corpus.
CCR

To steal a line or two from Riddick,

The First mistake you made was using an article by Molly Ivins, an admitted plagiarist and user of made up statistics.

The Second mistake you made was relying upon her version of what the Bill in question will allow, rather than reading it for yourself.

And your final mistake was posting it here, where you knew that it was going to be critiqued.

Once again we see a journalist using fear-mongering, hoping that the American people are too stupid to see what the Bill really means.

Ms Ivins claims,

"It leaves the president with the power to decide who is an enemy combatant."

While this is in part true, she fails mention that the bill also establishes a panel that is in place to review and ultimately answer this question before an individual is brought to trail. Hmmm a lie, or the result of basing an opinion off a journalist who has no legal training.

Intangible Child you said,

"Furthermore, if imprisoned at said whim, you have no right to challenge Him. You, a U.S. citisen, would remain imprisoned until such time as the President decided you could be released, if ever."

Have you read the Bill??? Obviously not, how can I knowingly say this, because I did bother to read the Bill and the Bill says quite plainly in black and white that the purpose

"This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission."

Perhaps you missed that glaring word, alien, meaning not a US Citizen. So obviously either your statement is false and a lie, or it is only the opinion of someone who didn't even bother to take the time to read the Bill before opining.

This bill prohibits the use of statements obtained by Torture, and allows the the accused the right to call witnesses, produce evidence and respond to evidence produced against them. It also establishes a method of appeal to the Appeals Court of the District of Columbia and to the Supreme Court.

Again the error being made is treating detainees as criminals. The majority of detainees are not criminals, but rather individuals that have been captured in hostilities against this country during War. Even the Geneva convention allows for these detainees to be held without trail until the ending of hostilities. Furthermore, this Bill now establishes for which crimes the individuals may be charged with and held accountable. As illegal combatants this individuals were already in violation of the Geneva conventions and as such were guilty of war crimes. These are combatants, President Bush coined the term, "Enemy Combatants", the Geneva convention called them, "Illegal Combatants". That word used by the Geneva convention, "Illegal", presupposes that the individuals are guilty of a violating the law.

How about that, it would seem that these individuals have broken the law. Hmmm, and the majority of those individuals have been released without any tribunal.

Yes you fear-monger can continue to avoid the truth, for that is the only way that your arguments will stir up enough support to win. Unfortunately, in the end, all you are supporting is a lie.

dmk

Please don't fail off your chairs, but I agree with srg. I think the writ of Habeas Corpus should stay in our domestic courts but I also think that the bill, focusing on alien enemy combatants, is a step in the right direction.
I do think holding them without a trial is incorrect and in this case our war on terror is a different situation than any other wars. Holding them untill the 'end of hostilities' is looking more and more like a life sentence so anything getting them into a court is a good thing.

Believe it or not I actually agree with you that holding them until the end of hostilities would be egregious error. My use of pointing out this fact is to distinguish the difference that occurs with detainees and criminals. Time and time again we hear how we are holding these individuals without trail, this is mistaking them for criminals, someone who was caught committing a crime. In most cases, these individuals were caught during hostilities against the United States. Under the Geneva convention they are illegal combatants. However, for the most part we are not treaty the vast majority of them as criminals, instead, we are interrogating, gaining intelligence and releasing. Do not forget that at one point there were some 2000 plus detainees, now the number hovers around the 500 plus mark.

I point out that the detainees can be held until the end of hostilities to remind everyone that their detention is within the law, the very law everyone seems to think the President is breaking.

dmk

YouTube - Keith Olbermann: Death of Habeus Corpus

I cannot believe anyone is in favor of this.

There was a time where I supported president Bush, that time ended. There weas a time where I supported the war, that ended. There was also a time where I supported the Patriot act, that ended for me today. It took me 'till just now to understand how much of a coward you are to give away rights for freedoms, I now know what Tadpole was talking about. This is sad, especially for REAL conservatives who are for small government, Bush has shit on the idea of small government. How can you stand in favor of him?

Good for you Neb. I thought I should mention my veiw on this topic once more. Just for the record, I don't think any other laws would have been approved and while I don't care for the 'interogation' clause, I don't think any of the injustices would have ended anyway. Now these people who aren't charged are going to be. It is now the law and they will either be released or judged guilty.
I agree with your concerns about Bush. I think there is only one way to slow down his steamroller government and that is to vote Democrat on Nov. 7th.
I know this idea probably bothers the shit out of you but think of it this way.... McCain may run two years from now and this is the only way to put the brakes on the current policies.