so when a member of our military is captured on the battlefield, or an american citizen is kidnapped in a foreign country, and either is subjected to a trial without having access to any evidence against that individual and then led off to the firing squad, you would have no objections? because that is exactly what you are condoning - just want to make sure that stands on the record, because that is EXACTLY the message we are sending to the rest of the world, that it is OK to submit "unlawful" aliens to trial based on coerced testimony and without allowing the disclosure of evidence.

go ahead matt - desperately accuse me of
"PROTECTING TERRORISTS" - in reality, i'm for the preservation of the well being and the rights of american citizens traveling or fighting for US interests around the world. put yourself in a foreign prison and imagine being falsely accused without rights, and facing the firing squad. concentrates the mind doesn't it.

and hey - if these guys are terrorists - the evidence should speak for itself and they should be summarily tried and executed.

Constitution is a little annoying to you eh? Matt? See... As the above person mentioned, If we do not treat prisoners with respect and with rights, then the enemy or for that matter another nation will treat us in the same mannor.

Heres another, a bit off topic but its worth mentioning... Why no mention of Governor Ann Richards?

I started out as a Republican, then a Democrat now I am on the Fence, . To me its all nonsense, both from the Democrats and Republicans... Howabout this. To the Parties... Drop the personal attacks and start governing and passing good laws that are not political based and are helpful. Yeal theres a Novel soloution.

The numbers are growing Matt, you see it's not about politics to everyone, some of us have morals.

Magnum, stick around, it's good to see others that stand behind issues instead of parties.

Matt,
I think the salient point to all of this is that the Republicans are offering up divergent solutions to the issue of the detainees, while democrats have offered nothing. I am personally pleased to see the President’s solution being heartily debated and alternatives being put on the table for discussion. It's just too bad that only one party is actually debating the merits of the available solutions.
Congress wants to be part of this, as is their constitutional obligation, yet from the left all we get is election year posturing.

“Yeal theres a Novel soloution” ? Obviously a typo, but what did you mean to say?

I would get my panties in a ruffle too if we treated these scumballs the same way terrorists treat our soldiers and citizens. And, thank God we don't. At least they will have a chance at a trial instead of being tortured and beheaded.

Powell expresses opposition to Bush plan on military tribunals

Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell has voiced his strong opposition to a plan by his ex-boss US President George W. Bush to change the way "war on terror" suspects are interrogated and tried.

Powell sent a letter to Republican US Senator John McCain condemning the administration's plan to relax the standards for treatment of terror suspects, which would allow tougher questioning of detainees, while protecting US interrogators from being prosecuted for war crimes.

"I do not support such a step and believe it would be inconsistent with the McCain amendment on torture which I supported last year," Powell wrote, in a letter made public Thursday by McCain.

The US president was to visit Capitol Thursday to try to persuade Republican lawmakers to back his proposal.

McCain, a maverick Republican senator and former Vietnam prisoner of war, has joined with other leading members of his party in bucking administration efforts to change rules governing detainee treatment, which are covered under Article Three of the Geneva Conventions.

Powell, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in his September 13 letter to McCain lent his voice to their cause.

"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article Three would add to those doubts," he wrote.

And no, I don't support Powell's position!

Between the dems and the RINOs, IMO, they're trying to kill us all.

Well, we can add one more lie to that list of justifications for invading Iraq. WMD was a lie, connections to Al Qaida was a lie, and now concerns about abuse of human rights is a lie too. Torture is just a bit of "tom-foolery" and having to proof that alleged terrorists are real terrorists is just "political correctness".
Let me guess, can Saddam use that line of argument in his trial too?

Hey Magnum: Perhaps you should post an entry on dailykos and democratunderground and ask them why they haven't mentioned the passing of former Gov Richards?

My sympathy and prayers go out to her family on her passing. RIP Ann.

kimberly - there is an entire diary dedicated to her passing over at kos - i just checked. it's been up all day.
Link here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/13/224911/876

Thanks Orange. I had to laugh when they put:

"George Bush only wished he could have been a fraction as a good a governor of Texas as she was."

If she was so "good a governor", why did she only serve one term? I suppose it's how one looks at things to come to that conclusion.

The Bush adminsitration has demonstrated abundant contempt for due process, and this goes for citizens as well as foreigners. Let no one forget that a key provision of the Patriot Act, and one of things that Bush fought hardest to keep, was the ability to try American citizens on charges of which they would not be informed, using secret evidence that would not be revealed to them (or their lawyers). So it's not at all a surprise that Bush proposes to try war prisoners using secret evidence, but it is a poignant reminder that he doesn't value due process for citizens any more then he does for those foreign prisoners.

Torture has become another one these sticky issues for us. Bush proclaims boldly that the U.S. rejects torture as a tool of warfare, and then he sends Chenney to pressure congress to specifically ALLOW the CIA to use torture in its operations. The word "torture" is being used very loosely nowadays, and I personally find it ridiculous to suggest that flushing a koran in a toilet qualifies as torture. Call me crazy, but I'd rather have someone toss my bible in the loo than break my ribs. But clearly, the serious stuff is the real danger when the Bush adminstration has to ship prisoners to countries like Egypt and Afghanistan in order to take advantage their "relaxed" attitudes toward prisoner abuse.

Bane,
You make a very good point, that congressional republicans are turning out to be the rational drive behind this debate, on both sides. The blustering that I hear from democrats on this issue doesn't often strike me as being as genuine, or useful, as the dialogue that Sen.'s Warner and Graham have started.

Constitution is a little annoying to you eh? Matt? See... As the above person mentioned, If we do not treat prisoners with respect and with rights, then the enemy or for that matter another nation will treat us in the same mannor.

Since when is a non-U.S. citizen AND plain-clothed, unlawful enemy combatant, by definition not subject to even the Geneva Convention , entitled to Constitutional rights?

The point about it, brainiac, is that by and large we have treated our detainees, unlawful enemy combatants, better than any nation has treated prisoners since the inception of war. Have you seen the amenities that the guys at Gitmo are afforded? They get medical care that many of our own poor don't get.

And how do our enemies treat their prisoners? Ask Daniel Pearl.

Do you really--I mean really think that doing away with military tribunals and letting the terrorist scumbags have jury trials with ACLU lawyers is going to result in our guys getting treated any better?

You, sir, are dangerous.

If your proposed way of doing things wasn't so absolutely naive, not to mention dangerous, it would be laughable.

Psycmeistr,

Well said.

Well, really convenient for the US Government. You can arrest anyone it doesn't like, declare that he or she is a "plain-clothed, unlawful enemy combatant" and he or she has lost every international of constitutional right for a fair trial. The US Government doesn't have to say what you're accused of (just claiming that you're a ‘terrorist’ is enough) plus the Government doesn't have to present any evidence.

Witches in the Middle Ages had at least the possibility to proof that they were *not* witches. They were thrown in the water and when you drowned, it was clear you were not a witch. You were dead of course, but at least your name was cleared.
Alleged "plain-clothed, unlawful enemy combatants" don't even have that option.

After reading so many ridiculous statements here, I have to say this.

I cant believe people actually think that if we "play" by "a certain set of rules", then "they (terrorists and terrorists nations) will play by the same set of rules.

LMAO! That is hilarious.

The prisoners at GB have better treatment then American prisoners here in the US AND US prisoners elsewhere.

The more and more I read, I realize that liberals are the terrorists best chance at continuing with the lives they currently lead. Lives that are destined to murder us all - including the very liberals who try sooo hard to protect them.

Ridiculous.

liberals are the terrorists best chance at continuing with the lives they currently lead

sigh - i was waiting for that canard to spring-up. frankly i'm surprised it was 16 comments down and not earlier...

GOP playbook rule 818-c - "when in doubt or at loss, drop liberal heart terrorist line.."

"liberals are the terrorists best chance at continuing with the lives they currently lead"

It's true. If you saw the text of OBL's last rant you would see that it was nothing more than democrat talking points. During a speech the other day, Admadinejad was quoting Bush's approval numbers that suggested "the americans support is weakening for the war on terror".

What do you liberals stand for? I've been racking my brain for years trying to answer that. At one point I just came to the conclusion that you just hate your country. Then I figured that view might be a little to myopic. Please help me answer this question because I see you offering absolutely no solutions to what you guys like to call a "mess". There are no ideas that come from the democrat party except for nationalized healthcare and social security lockboxes. Again, what do you stand for? Because, the aid and comfort your words provide the enemy is nothing short of treasonous.

AFWIFE says,

"I cant believe people actually think that if we "play" by "a certain set of rules", then "they (terrorists and terrorists nations) will play by the same set of rules."

Did we expect the Viet Cong to "play by the rules"? Or the Serbians? How about Somali warlords, or the East Germans or Russians during the cold war?

When have we ever fought an enemy that "plays by the rules"? And since when does that give us an excuse to relax our own principles? If America believes in due process for accused criminals, then why would we ever feel good about not upholding that belief? We are pround to be Americans not just because we are better than the scumbags. We are proud because we do what's right, period.

says essentially the same thing as AFWIFE:

"Do you really--I mean really think that doing away with military tribunals and letting the terrorist scumbags have jury trials with ACLU lawyers is going to result in our guys getting treated any better?"

You might as well take this argument to its logical end and conclude that rules of conduct in war are useless for everyone, because the bad guys don't follow them anyway, right?

And remember folks, this isn't just about foreigners. Bush has fought to suspend due process for American citizens just as he has for war prisoners, and that means You and Me.

Sorry, that last quote came from Psycmeistr.

And remember folks, this isn't just about foreigners. Bush has fought to suspend due process for American citizens just as he has for war prisoners, and that means You and Me.

Prove one freedom that you have lost--prove one time that Bush's terrorist surveillance program listened in on Aunt Gertrude giving her secret recipe for peach pie.

Talk about canards.

Nate: That doesn't mean "you and me" unless "you" are involved in terrorist activities. Tell me ... what rights would you give scumball submit to Islam or else die Adam? Should he be tried for treason when we catch him? I believe he gave up ALL rights as an American citizen when he joined AQ.

Psycmeistr says "Prove one freedom that you have lost--".

When bush signed the Patriot Act in 2001, I lost the following rights:

I lost the right to consult an attorney if I recieve a demand for information from the government via a National Security Letter.

I lost the right to challenge a government-issued subpoena (via NSL) in court, as well the gag order that prevents me from seeking councel.

I lost the right to engage in private communication with an attorney. And if the government compels my attorney to release private information, the attorney cannot even tell me about it. Ever.

And none of the above even requires that I be suspected of terrorism. Section 505 of USAPA allows the FBI to demand records, outside of judicial review, from people who are not even suspected of wrongdoing, let alone terrorism. Some of these provisions were struck down as unconstitutional by various courts (notably some of NSL provisions), and others had to be fought over in the renewal legislation passed this year. In all cases, the changes were fiercely resisted by the Bush administration.

Shall I go on?

According to presidential briefs filed during prosecution of Yaser Hamdi, I have lost the right to Habeas Corpus if the government can accuse me of acting as an "enemy combatant". The defintion of enemy combatant is, of course, left a bit vague. Here's an excerpt from a brief filed on June 19, 2002 in the case:

"The military has the authority to capture and detain individuals whom it has determined are enemy combatants, including enemy combatants claiming American citizenship. Such combatants, moreover, have no right of access to counsel to challenge their detention."

Again, the determination of "enemy comatant" status was completely at the discretion of the president, and not the courts. This means that I would have no chance to challenge in charges in court, and I would not even be allowed to hire an attorney.

These are not trivial things. These are fundamental rights, critical to the functioning of our democracy. They have been threatened before, by other presidents and other government officials, and it is the constant duty of patriots to fight that encroachment.

Thoughts? Rebuttals?

Leo,
The Left side of the Blogosphere has been aflame for years regarding the Patriot Act and Due Process of Law. To them, having the Government request and receive the record of books you’ve read is a violation of the Due Process. Yet, these same people willingly take off their shoes and allow government agents to search their luggage without cause every time they take a vacation; these same alarmists want every container aboard any ship searched thoroughly regardless of the owner’s due process.

Liberals complain constantly that the Administration hasn’t enforced the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission, and then make specious allegations about the loss of freedoms as a result of enactment of the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission.

Add my voice to those wanting to know which rights have been trampled by the Patriot Act. Not which perceived rights might be trampled, not which could be trampled, but which ones have been trampled.

Btw, searching your luggage at an airport is not in the Patriot Act.

They were thrown in the water and when you drowned, it was clear you were not a witch.

So, Willemena, why don't we throw you into the water, and if you drown, we'll all know that you're not a bitch. I think you are, but I can't be sure. At the least, you're a punk...

It is evident, Matt, that these kook trolls feel that scum captured on the battlefield, i.e., terrorists, should be afforded Constitutional rights as U.S. citizens. Unfortunately, so do a few RINOs in our Senate.

There's only one solution, and that's to take no prisoners. Blow their heads off on the battlefield, and we'll have no problems.

I rest my case. Time to paint the basement...

kimberly4bush said, "That doesn't mean "you and me" unless "you" are involved in terrorist activities."

Right, right, so if I've done nothing wrong, then I need not be concerned with due process, because innocent people are never accused of wrongdoing. Is that it?

"Tell me ... what rights would you give scumball submit to Islam or else die Adam?"

I want to give him the same rights that we give to accused rapists, murderers, thieves, etc., ESPECIALLY if he is an American citizen. They are the same rights that I want for myself if I am ever accused of a crime.

Bane,

Did you read my post immediately preceding yours? You asked to know which rights have been trampled by the Patriot Act, and I would like to know what you think of my answer.

Daily Kos... Ok I will look em up and tell them also to stop politics and pass laws that help.

And yes, I am not a good speller.

Nate,
We posted at the same time, yours wasn't in view when I posted mine, so here's my thoughts.

If you lost the right to counsel or Habeas Corpus then you case must fall under Ex parte Milligan, or Ex parte Quirin.

To the best of my recollection, section 801 of the original Patriot Act defines an Enemy combatant as one who commits any action that endangers human life that is a violation of any Federal or State law. Section 501 of Patriot II extends that designation to American citizens.

The courts have ruled that the President has the authority to designate an "enemy combatant". Many cases have been brought up regarding this, and enemy combatants during time of war are not/and should not be guaranteed the same criminal rights as rapists, murderers, thieves, etc.,

Suppose there were 5,000 Padilla, sent to overwhelm our judicial system; Would you still favor giving full access to our intelligence information to the lawyers of these terrorists? Do you believe that our ability to covertly discover the terrorists’ plots would be compromised? Do you feel this is a greater risk to our population than one terrorists right to a speedy trial?

Now, has any American citizen lost these rights under the Patriot Act? Padilla, as I recall was awarded the right to counsel and Habeas Corpus by the courts. The Supreme Court refused to hear this case. In doing so, the Patriot Act has stood as written; Constitutionally sound.

Kim and Leo,
Nate is addressing the issue from a purely Conservative standpoint. As a conservative and a constructionist, I see it a little different; I believe that in order for his argument to be sound someone must have lost the rights that the President and the Patriot Act are accused of taking.

In my opinion, legislation should be drawn up on the process for handling the detainees, and let the legislation take its course. I don’t believe these detainees should be accorded the rights set forth by the Geneva Convention as they have not abided by the conditions. If the legislation does not meet Constitutional muster, the Court will send it back to Congress.

Psycmeistr has it right concerning treatment of enemy combatants that are not affiliated with a signatory of the Geneva convention...ie. Taliban, Al Queda, Hezbullah etc.

I'm sure you lefties also agree with the absurd decision, this past week, not to fire the Preditor on the 190 Taliban attending a funeral.

This isn't a board game its war...give no quarter ...ask for none.

Thanks Bane. My respectful analysis:

-"If you lost the right to counsel or Habeas Corpus then you case must fall under Ex parte Milligan, or Ex parte Quirin."

This is true only in a superficial sense. While the supreme court may hobble a government case that cannot draw from Milligan or Quirin, the Bush administration doesn't care, which can be demonstrated by its rejection of major parts of both decisions.

In the Milligan case, the supreme court decided that military tribunals could not try civilians in areas with open civil courts, wartime or not. Bush has decisively rejected this part of the court's ruling. Futhermore, the court left unaddressed the issue of whether or not the president even had the authority to suspend habeas corpus at all without congressional approval.

The Quirin case called out a specific sort of enemy combant, with the following example given in the decision: "The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property". Bush clearly does not intend to subject his enemy combatants to an even remotely similar test, as demonstrated by the administration's imprisonment of Moazzam Begg, who was arrested far away from any warzone, held for two years without a trial, and then released without being charged. He may or may not be dangerous, but he was not an enemy combatant in any way that was explained in the Quirin decision.

All this to say that the Bush administration care little for the rule of the judiciary, past or present. They cherry-pick pieces of decisions to assemble into a sort of frankenstein of a legal body, which has so far received a cool audience in federal courts at all levels.

-"To the best of my recollection, section 801 of the original Patriot Act defines an Enemy combatant as one who commits any action that endangers human life that is a violation of any Federal or State law. Section 501 of Patriot II extends that designation to American citizens."

The patriot act says nothing about enemy combatants. Section 411 defines the term "terrorism", and section 802 applies it to domestic activities. The definition of "enemy combatant" as used by the Bush administration is a rather more vague concept, and is not codified in legislation.

-"The courts have ruled that the President has the authority to designate an enemy combatant".

This is true, but the same decision also declared that the Bush administration could not deprive their enemy combatant of their right to habeas corpus, which it had sought to do. So, clearly, enemy combatants are to have SOME rights in common with accused rapists, murderer, thieves, etc. Which is really an obvious statement if you think about it. Bush never declared that all enemy combatants should be executed on sight. He believes in some amount of due process, just not the amount specified in the constitution, which is plainly evident in his rejection of guaranteed habeas corpus for citizens and non-citizens alike.

-"...enemy combatants during time of war are not/and should not be guaranteed the same criminal rights as rapists, murderers, thieves, etc.,"

The phrase "same criminal rights" is slightly misleading in this context. Senators Warner and Graham are not propsing to give non-citizens the same criminal rights afforded to citzens. They are insisting that the prosecution of foreign fighters be informed by some of the very most fundamental precepts that underly our domestic legal sytem. As well as the whole geneva convention thing, but that's another bag of gas entirely.

-"Would you still favor giving full access to our intelligence information to the lawyers of these terrorists? "

Here's another sort of funny phrase; "full access" is not expected, and not needed, just as we don't expect the government to reveal all of its sources when prosecuting drug dealers. But, by law, prosecutors must reveal enough to inform the accused of the charges, and to convince a court of their guilt. Right? Drug dealers, without a question, cause more death and destruction in this country than "terrorism" in all of its forms, and yet it is not currently being argued that the threat of drugs demands that we start suspending constutional rights (although it certainly has in the past; drugs just aren't Bush favorite crisis right now).

-"Now, has any American citizen lost these rights under the Patriot Act?"

Again, yes. These rights and the others that I mentioned in my previous post.

-"Padilla, as I recall was awarded the right to counsel and Habeas Corpus by the courts. The Supreme Court refused to hear this case. In doing so, the Patriot Act has stood as written; Constitutionally sound."

Padilla's petition for the writ has granted, over the objections of the bush administration, which is exactly my point. However, the Padilla case had nothing to do with the patriot act. And the patriot act has absolutely NOT stood as written. Two very prominent parts were struck down as unconstitutional, and others were changed in the 2006 revision, again over the strenuous objections of bush. I'll let you find out which parts these were, or I can tell you if you wish.

So - my hands are tired - we can dress this crap up in a bunch of legalese, but the essence of my problem remains, and we still haven't talked about the rights at the top of the list in my previous post. With my apologies for the redundancy, allow me to reproduce that part here:

"I lost the right to consult an attorney if I recieve a demand for information from the government via a National Security Letter.

I lost the right to challenge a government-issued subpoena (via NSL) in court, as well the gag order that prevents me from seeking councel.

I lost the right to engage in private communication with an attorney. And if the government compels my attorney to release private information, the attorney cannot even tell me about it. Ever.

And none of the above even requires that I be suspected of terrorism. Section 505 of USAPA allows the FBI to demand records, outside of judicial review, from people who are not even suspected of wrongdoing, let alone terrorism. Some of these provisions were struck down as unconstitutional by various courts (notably some of NSL provisions), and others had to be fought over in the renewal legislation passed this year. In all cases, the changes were fiercely resisted by the Bush administration."

Earth to McCain. Earth to Graham. If our soldiers are captured by the enemy, they will be tortured and beheaded. End of Story. That is what the terrorists do. That's all that they do. It does not matter how much compassion you show to captured terrorists, our soldiers will be killed. If you show compassion to a captured terrorist and he has the chance, he will behead you. If he escapes, he will hunt you down and behead you. If McCain and Graham get their way and fight a more sensitive war, if the terrorists had their chance, they would behead them. Is it sinking in.

How wonderfully callous bush is to turn what never should even be a debate. "Americans do not torture." Unless of course it's in a foreign country in some secret prison.

By what right does this chickenshit of a man profess to trash what was once a great nations moral stand? By what right does this pathetic excuse for a human being even begin to drag this country down to the level of those that we would profess to fight against?

And just how morally bankrupt does one have to be to follow the logic of this most horrible of men?

James allegro -

Yes, we know the terrorists are bad, bad people. AFWIFE and others earlier made the excact same point that you just made, and I'll ask you the question that I asked them:

Are you suggesting that these terrorists are somehow worse or more brutal than most other enemies that America has fought? Worse than the Korean communists, or the Viet Cong, or Somali warlords, or the freakin nazis? When has America EVER fought against an enemy that doesn't torture and kill their POWs? How is this war any different in that regard from any other war?

America's enemies in war have always been bad, bad people. But Americans STILL have always tried to fight fair. Americans STILL value strict rules of conduct in war, because it's a part of who we are. It is something that sets us apart from our enemies. Are you suggesting that we compromise our principles just because we don't expect our enemies to treat us with the same respect?

You say "earth to McCain" as though you think McCain is unaware of the nature of our enemies in this war. You do know that McCain was a POW in Vietnam for over five years, don't you?

“When has America EVER fought against an enemy that doesn't torture and kill their POWs”

In the conflicts you cite, in each case we were at war with a country or group of countries, this is not the case here. We are at war with an ideology without borders, an enemy without humanity, an evil without regard for our rules of engagement. Btw, Germans treated Allied POW’s by the rules in place at the time; no torture, even the hated Russians that were executed was done so by the rules. The partisans and spies that were captured did not engage by the rules and were not accorded Geneva niceties.

The abhorrent, inhumane treatment in the concentration camps was reserved for those who were decidedly not prisoners of war. Contrast that to our enemies now that treat everyone; civilian, soldier, Moslem, Christian, Jew, men, women, children with the same disdain and inhuman treatment. I don’t suggest we do the same, but these are not soldiers of a recognized country, fighting under a recognized flag, identifying themselves as combatants. They are cowards that use civilians as weapons.
Let’s at least clarify what the interrogation techniques our people can use on these animals.

Nate,
From your law school classes I assume that you know the purpose of preparing an argument and filing briefs is to “cherry pick” the portion of precedent or code that supports your assertion. Interesting that you bring up the Begg case, while ascribing Bush’s disregard for the role of the judiciary; it was Bush that ordered Begg’s release over the objections of the CIA, the military and the FBI. To the point of Begg, the prevailing wisdom is that he was arrested for being a sponsor of terrorism (9-11) which, had the court been aware of this potentiality in Quirin, would have surely included this in their description of a spy, (IMHO).

Milligan upheld suspension of habeas corpus, and the court ruled that military tribunals could not be empanelled in States that had “open civil courts” still available. What open civil court is available in Guantanamo?

I’ll grant that the Patriot Act doesn’t use the term “enemy combatant” but the section I cited (801) does define a Terrorist, which is what we’re discussing here. But, as your law school professor might say, arguing the minutia of the law is a little like picking fly sh*t out of the pepper.

In our entire history, never before have enemy combatants, captured on the battlefield or found aiding and assisting our enemies, never have they been granted constitutional privileges or released before the hostilities cease. You again state that you have lost rights, yet I’m still addressing you on line, obviously you haven’t been arrested, haven’t been held incommunicado, haven’t had the government refuse a judge’s order to produce you and can, at any time you wish, consult with an attorney. As far as I can tell, except for being forced to take your shoes off without cause at the airport you still have every right granted by the Constitution, no more no less.

Gonads,
Maybe a compassionate liberal like you can better explain this phrase, "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment" to our intelligence officers. Is playing loud rock music "humiliating"? Can a female interrogate a Muslim man or is that “degrading”? Given that the Pope called for interfaith dialogue and these animals are calling for His Holiness to be beheaded, maybe we should just request that the enemies tell us whose next, what civilian centers they want to destroy, and where homosexuals are allowed to live. Or is “pretty please” too offensive to your sensibilities?

Bane -

I am flattered that you would think I had been to law school, thank you. No, I just talk fancy, but I'm sure that real lawyers are not fooled (and if you are a lawyer, then I must assume that you're just being nice to me).

I laughed out loud when I read your bit about Guantanamo. I somehow forgot about Guantanamo. Yes, that's a very convenient thing for the Bush administration, isn't it? Here we have a sort of magical place that Bush can claim is American soil, and at the same somehow not subject to American laws or courts. Your point is correct, of course, there are no open courts there, but Bush's use of Guantanamo to hide from judicial oversight is, to my mind, highly highly unethical. Following his logic, we can declare any embassy or military base abroad to be that same sort of no-man's land, where no laws or courts of any country can reach.

"In our entire history, never before have enemy combatants, captured on the battlefield or found aiding and assisting our enemies, never have they been granted constitutional privileges or released before the hostilities cease."

Yes, but a critical problem arises if you try to apply that assertion to the present situation; the terms "enemy combatants", "battlefield", and "hostilities" have all traditionally refered to a war with a defined scope. We are now stretching these definitions in order to justify whatever President Bush wants to do. When Bush markets the "War on Terror", he tells us that the whole world is his battlefield, and that anyone who is a threat to America is an enemy combatant. And what makes us think that hostilities the "War on Terror" will ever cease? Did they ever cease in the "War on Drugs".

So, voila, in the neverending Wars on Whatever, we are now allowed to detain anyone indefinitely without charge. And if Bush had gotten his way, no lawyer either.

"You again state that you have lost rights, yet I’m still addressing you on line, obviously you haven’t been arrested, haven’t been held incommunicado, haven’t had the government refuse a judge’s order to produce you and can, at any time you wish, consult with an attorney."

No, I'm not writing this from jail. But do I personally have to actually become a victim before I can be concerned about threats to our rights? Most people in China have never been arrested either, but they are still justified in fighting for their rights, aren't they? You may argue that those rights that I listed are trivial and justifiably revoked, or you might even argue that my interpretation of the Patriot Act is mistaken, but you seem to be saying that I should reserve my judgement until these laws start being widely used to victimize people.

Think of it this way: if someone gave my three-year-old son a sewing needle and told him that he is Zorro, Boss of the House, would you tell me, "relax, Nate, you haven't been stabbed yet"?

Rathaven -

What - in - the - hell - are you talking about?

-"Btw, Germans treated Allied POW’s by the rules in place at the time; no torture, even the hated Russians that were executed was done so by the rules."

Are you kidding me? This is a joke, right? So, you're saying that over 2 million russian POWs died in german custody "by the rules"? You're saying that no allied POWs were subjected to medical experiments in concentration camps? How much are you willing to bet, because I could really use some extra cash.

-"an ideology without borders,"

You mean kinda like communism?

-"an enemy without humanity,"

So this phrase can't be used to describe imperial Japan, or Mohamed Farrah Aidid...

-"an evil without regard for our rules of engagement"

...or the Viet Cong, or colombian drug lords...

"The abhorrent, inhumane treatment in the concentration camps was reserved for those who were decidedly not prisoners of war. Contrast that to our enemies now that treat everyone; civilian, soldier, Moslem, Christian, Jew, men, women, children with the same disdain and inhuman treatment."

Wait, what? That doesn't even make sense. Are you saying that the Nazis did not subject men, women, and children to "inhuman treatment"? I feel like I'm talking to someone who doesn't know what World War II was. Have you ever read a book about it, taken a class, watched the friggin dicovery channel? Anything? Here's a couple of books (out of hundreds of possibilities) to start you out:
Gerald Fleming, Hitler and the Final Solution
Marcus J. Smith, The Harrowing of Hell: Dachau

And we haven't even started talking about the imperial Japanese, who were even less courteous to their POWs than were the nazis. Damn, man. Would you like to compare the beheading of U.S. soldiers in Iraq to the stuff that the Japanese did?

-"Let’s at least clarify what the interrogation techniques our people can use on these animals."

Well now, that's sort of hard to argue with, isn't it, but it's also not the problem here. Senators McCain, Warner, and Graham are trying to do just that. It just happens to be different from what the white house wants to be able to do.

Nate,
I’m no lawyer, as mentioned before I’m a fiscal analyst, I am married to a lawyer, and when a family member goes to law school the whole damn family goes to law school. One thing I hear often from my many attorney friends and relatives, “has that happened?” They speak endlessly of situations that could arise from legislation or governmental actions, and contingencies and legal pathways available should these come to fruition. But, like Lincoln and suspension of habeas corpus, our system will right itself should abuses take place. Always has, always will. (I still don’t like airport security; I carry an emergency medical kit and have been subjected to searches every time I travel. I even pull the kit out of my carry-on, and hold my Medic-alert® for the screener to see, but … every time I fly it’s off to the “detention area” to have my underwear examined.)

The courts allow for combatants found in places off of the battlefield, and our government has relied on these definitions for 200+ years. Our current wars are limited to the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, but the enemy doesn’t contain himself to those fields, so we must have the ability to address the threats these people pose. Guantanamo; very convenient thing for the Bush administration? That's why it was selected by this Administration, it wasn't a fortunate accident.

I’d ask the people of China, but it is a crime in China to speak out against the government, so most Chinese are already guilty under their system, (if you ever travel there you’ll find most Chinese will complain bitterly about conditions, but only once they know they can trust you.) We don’t need to wait until our rights are “being widely used to victimize people.” If and when that happens, to even a small group of citizen; as small as a group of one, rest assured that conservative jurists and legal scholars, Constitutionalists, strict constructionists and our legislature will move in to protect the rights of the individuals.

Regarding your last line to Rathaven, but that's exactly what the White House is asking Congress to do; clerify interrogation techniques. See my post to Gonads.

As far as your son, don’t make any sudden moves, and make it clear that you don’t represent the Spanish Government. I’ll send the ACLU; they’ll turn you son into the victim before can say "Bob's your uncle."

Nate, Why does your premise assume that american soldiers have ever tortured anyone. Even the media created nonsense of abu grabe, was one terrorist killed there, was one even injured. After all the beheadings and torture and throat cutting that these terrorists have done, I don't care if 5 US soldiers put womens panties or a black hood over their heads or forced them to get naked and jump into a pile. We do fight and always will. The valid and correct issue that President Bush addresses is that our soldiers and interrogators should know specifically what is and what is not okay to do, instead of the current vagueness of the Article in question. It has nothing to do with encouraging torture. It has everything to do with the members of our front line of defense not having to be worried about being sued by these terrorists, while they are trying to protect you and your loved ones from being tortured and beheaded or blown up. And please no moral equivolancy between our soldiers and what we are doing compared to iran, north korea or the terrorists.

Yes, tell the ACLU to send someone very large and intimidating :)

James allegro asks,

"Why does your premise assume that american soldiers have ever tortured anyone."

Read carefully James; I have not accused American soldiers of torture, and I have never compared American conduct in war to that of any of our enemies. Is their something in my post that was unclear?

I personally do NOT believe that the incidents at Abu Ghraib qualify as torture, and that opinion has gotten me into a lot of arguments.

I notice, James, that you have not answered any of my questions.

Bane,

You are correct when you write, "Regarding your last line to Rathaven, but that's exactly what the White House is asking Congress to do; clerify interrogation techniques."

That is actually what I was trying to say too, but I didn't say it very clearly. What I meant was merely that the directions of the two proposed clarifications are different.