Putin Dissolves Government

[Perd Hapley]

       


Riley, that just tops off your whole rant about Bush's power grabs.  This is the administration that can't even fire a few govt. lawyers, legally, without the Attorney General having to resign.   

[Paddy]

      


Riley, that just tops off your whole rant about Bush's power grabs.  This is the administration that can't even fire a few govt. lawyers, legally, without the Attorney General having to resign.   

{sigh}

Presidents have been firing govt. lawyers for years for merely partisan purposes, yet the Bush Admin can't do the same without exposing a completely incompetent AG (although there have been plenty of incompetent AG's in the past).  So I guess, yeah, you're right.  The Bush Admin is simply an impotent victim of .........whatever.........

Because the excuses from this admin and the bushbots are never going to stop.  Everything from crying the blues because the idiot(s) Rumsfeld or Gonzales, or whoever, had to leave, to excuses about the failure of the war being the fault of war critics, those treasonous bastards who are sticking knives in the backs of our courageous troops...yada yackety quack.  I just love how so-called 'conservative'  Republicans will preach to everyone else about 'personal responsibility', yet take none themselves, instead choosing to blame any and everybody who disagrees with them (while hiding behind the 'troops' and waving the flag)  Can you say hycpocrisy?

Anyway, you know what fistul?  You win.  I'm done ragging on Bush and Iraq. Neither are going to change (for the better) before he's outta office January 20, 2009.  It's a waste of my time and energy; I'll concentrate on illegal immigration (knowing the NWO corporate globalist neocon Bush admin won't do a damn thing about it) and other relevant issues.

I'm done.

[CAnnoneer]

What some might call "a powergrab", others would call just exercising the powers of the executive branch. In any case, legislative seems to believe it has the right to expand into the other two branches. It is a bad idea to let the legislative try to run day-to-day operations. They should make laws, not policy, and they certainly have no business trying to micromanage a war.

Ultimately, a non-uniformed enemy is not covered by anything. Such used to be summarily shot as bandits not so long ago. Same goes for spies. Why are terrorists any different? Because liberals sympathize with them?? If anything, terrorists are worse than bandits and spies. Double standards, as usual.

Same goes for incarceration and torture. A couple of years ago, Bush said "Tell us what torture is, so we know what we can and cannot do legally." That was probably a stupid move, but it does show the vacuum of both law and leadership engendered by the new world we live in.

[Hawkmoon]

That's why he went to Congress and had them sign off on military action against Iraq.

The Congress screwed the pooch on that one.

The Constitution doesn't make any mention of having Congress "sign off on" military actions. It says the Congress shall have the authority to declare war. There was no declaration of war, ergo the invasion of Iraq was unconstitutional.

The problem is that too many members of Congress were wooed by the opportunity to appear that they were not "soft on terrorism," so they went along with what they perceived as the majority -- failing to remember (a) their oath of office, and (b) the basic notion that everyone else thought the other guys were the majority.

What Congress needs is a parliamentarian ombudsman who reviews every proposed vote and determines whether or not it's Constitutional before that pack of mongrels ever votes on it.

Same goes for incarceration and torture. A couple of years ago, Bush said "Tell us what torture is, so we know what we can and cannot do legally." That was probably a stupid move, but it does show the vacuum of both law and leadership engendered by the new world we live in.

They don't need any laws to know what's "torture" and what's not. All they have to do is apply the "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" principle. If the "interrogation technique" under consideration is one to which we would object if an American were subjected to it by a foreign military ... there's a good chance we probably should not be utilizing it ourselves.

[CAnnoneer]

They don't need any laws to know what's "torture" and what's not.

Law is about written rules, not common sense or personal decisions. It is not unreasonable for the executive to ask the legislative to do their job and provide laws by which the government can function, especially when the legislative uses the vacuum to take political potshots at the executive.

All they have to do is apply the "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" principle. If the "interrogation technique" under consideration is one to which we would object if an American were subjected to it by a foreign military ... there's a good chance we probably should not be utilizing it ourselves.

The golden principle works very well for men in uniform. That is why things like the Geneva Convention are a good idea. There is parity. "We treat your uniformed regular soldiers the way you treat our uniformed regular soldiers."

But, terrorists dressed as civilians are not afforded the same protections, and cannot be. They do NOT play by the rules of civilized warfare, and thus are not protected by them either. We should never equate a terrorist to a uniformed GI, neither ethically nor technically. Terrorists are NOT foreign military either.

If there is any parallel to be drawn, perhaps the closest is spies during the Cold War. If you get captured, you should expect torture to reveal the information you possess. Those are not rules for uniformed civilized warfare. The terrorists are lower than spies and saboteurs on the civility ladder. It is beyond ridiculous to think of them as POW's and afford them any privileges.

[De Selby]

Ultimately, a non-uniformed enemy is not covered by anything. Such used to be summarily shot as bandits not so long ago. Same goes for spies. Why are terrorists any different? Because liberals sympathize with them?? If anything, terrorists are worse than bandits and spies. Double standards, as usual.

Uh, no, not true.  There is no time in modern history where spies and non-uniformed combatants were shot without any trial or fact-finding process. 

The distinction between the two is immunity from criminal prosecution: the Uniform means that you cannot be tried for crimes on the basis of your acts of violence in pursuit of the war.  No uniform traditionally means every violent act, even against uniformed troops in combat, may be tried as a crime just like any other murder.

The idea that there is this past where non-uniformed fighters and spies were simply shot on sight is pure fiction.

[CAnnoneer]

Uh, no, not true.  There is no time in modern history where spies and non-uniformed combatants were shot without any trial or fact-finding process.  The idea that there is this past where non-uniformed fighters and spies were simply shot on sight is pure fiction.

It would serve your credibility well to do a bit of research before making blanket statements like that.

Most of the guerrillas/partisans in Nazi-controlled Europe were shot without trial because they fought in civilian clothes, and therefore were classified as bandits/brigands. We are talking well in the hundreds of thousands.

As spies go, anybody caught from the Red Orchestra knew he would not make it. So did German spies that the British nipped. Finally, the British soldiers that went to assassinate Rommel were summarily executed after they failed and got captured, because they fought out of uniform. Incidentally, they knew it before they went out to the mission.

The above are just some of the examples of modern times.

[De Selby]

It would serve your credibility well to do a bit of research before making blanket statements like that.

I have.  In America, the only real debate is whether or not unlawful combatants get civilian or military trials.  There is not a single example of a summary execution or torture being considered lawful in the history of the republic.

 

Most of the guerrillas/partisans in Nazi-controlled Europe were shot without trial because they fought in civilian clothes, and therefore were classified as bandits/brigands. We are talking well in the hundreds of thousands.

The only executions en masse of this nature were committed by the Nazis-it was a recognized war crime at the time to do so.  The Nazis generally didn't do this for the purpose of punishing attacks against German targets, either.  It was something they did to "pacify" the locals in countries where they weren't wanted.  They generally had trials for saboteurs, spies, and traitors.

So did German spies that the British nipped. Finally, the British soldiers that went to assassinate Rommel were summarily executed after they failed and got captured, because they fought out of uniform. Incidentally, they knew it before they went out to the mission.

Yes, like I said, you are pointing to the Nazis as an example of the traditions of western laws of war.  Considering what happened to them after the war, you might want to rethink your theories about how Nazis represented the tradition of western law.

This did not happen in America-captured German spies and those aiding Germans got courts martial.  America and Britain didn't become Nazi states.

Basically, the only support for your claim that summary execution was lawful or customary comes from the Nazis, or other regimes that were tried for war crimes.  The practice has precisely zero foundation in the Anglo-American tradition....at any point in time.

[Balog]

No documentation, but in a history of the large caliber repeating air rifles used as sniper rifles in Rev War times, I seem to recall the author mentioning anyone caught with one being summarily executed by the Brits. No idea if it's true or not.

[CAnnoneer]

In America, the only real debate is whether or not unlawful combatants get civilian or military trials.  There is not a single example of a summary execution or torture being considered lawful in the history of the republic.

You can pull out plenty of examples from the Civil War, where 'rebs' were shot dead, even in uniform, even when captured, to pacify the population or make a point. Read up on the use of land mines and the yankee retaliation. Also, the yankees marching uniformed prisoners in front of their columns to sweep the roads.

Yet, your Anglo-American so-called law did not execute Sherman as a war criminal.

They generally had trials for saboteurs, spies, and traitors.

Again, you need to educate yourself. Read up on the Red Orchestra and the partisans on the East Front, or for that matter even in France. Captured guerrillas/partisans would be shot or hanged without trial but with a big plackard reading "PARTISAN". The only ones that got a trial were a select few German traitors, whose trials were meant as a public example.

Yes, like I said, you are pointing to the Nazis as an example of the traditions of western laws of war.  Considering what happened to them after the war, you might want to rethink your theories about how Nazis represented the tradition of western law.

What happened to them after the war is no indication at all. Gen. LeMay himself said that he and his colleagues would have been tried as war criminals if the Axis had won. Also, the Nazi treatment of Western POWs is among the best in recorded history. Besides, the idea that the entire German society and state under the Nazis was inherently and irrevocably twisted and evil in all respects, and a complete departure from European tradition, belongs in a children's book rather than any serious discussion. Finally, for examples of Anglo-American law practices in historical perspective, you might want to read up on colonial war history. The execution of Sepoy prisoners by cannon comes to mind of the top off my head.

Generally, this idea that law is somehow larger than life and exists in abstraction and outside the bounds of a particular situation is endearing but naive. Throughout history, laws have been ignored or changed to match the needs of the moment. Except for the most peaceful of situations, the law is worth less than the paper it is written on.

[De Selby]

You can pull out plenty of examples from the Civil War, where 'rebs' were shot dead, even in uniform, even when captured, to pacify the population or make a point.

Great, now find me one example of where such conduct was considered in accordance with law or custom of the time.

You can find plenty of examples of recognized war crimes in every war; not all of them punished.  That doesn't mean the crimes then become automatically the law of the land.  The fact is, the recognized legal method of dealing with traitors during the civil war was the trial.

Yet, your Anglo-American so-called law did not execute Sherman as a war criminal.

Not all criminals are punished-but the the laws regulating their conduct remain in effect.  Not even every Nazi collaborator was punished, but that doesn't mean that the Nazis behaved lawfully.

The only ones that got a trial were a select few German traitors, whose trials were meant as a public example.

So we can be done with this issue: Citing the behavior of the most notorious outlaw regime in history does not constitute providing a legal basis for summary execution.  You are literally trying to argue "Well hey, the Nazis did it, so it must have been part of the legal tradition".  That really requires no further response.

What happened to them after the war is no indication at all. Gen. LeMay himself said that he and his colleagues would have been tried as war criminals if the Axis had won.

See above.  What you are posting here is an example of everyone recognizing something as a crime, not an example of people saying "well, it's not a crime because we didn't punish all the people who did it."  No, not everything Nazis did was considered criminal.  They provided water and food to some people sometimes too.  But you are citing an example of a practice that was in fact considered criminal by every judge except for the Nazis themselves.

Finally, for examples of Anglo-American law practices in historical perspective, you might want to read up on colonial war history. The execution of Sepoy prisoners by cannon comes to mind of the top off my head.

Yet another example of a practice universally regarded as a war crime.  It's just bizarre-you have cited nothing but war crimes and criminal regimes, recognized as such by the entire world, to support the claim that summary execution is part of the anglo-American tradition.

Try this: Find one authority, of any kind, who says that this conduct is legal.  Gang shootings happen frequently in America today, but I don't think you would accept anyone providing you with some news articles and then saying "See, it must be legal.  Gangs shoot people all the time, and they aren't all in jail."  But that's exactly what you are trying to do.

Throughout history, laws have been ignored or changed to match the needs of the moment. Except for the most peaceful of situations, the law is worth less than the paper it is written on.

If you don't care what the law is, why are you trying to argue that summary execution is lawful?  Why all this geneva conventions business and pseudo-legalese?  If you stand for the proposition that we should be like the Nazis, willing to do whatever, no matter what the traditional law or moral principle involved, then go try to convince people of that.  But that has nothing to do with what our laws and traditions require-and on this point, they're pretty clear.  Summary torture and execution, are and always have been considered crimes.

[CAnnoneer]

The world is not a courtroom. Hopefully, you will never get to discover this for yourself the hard way. Meanwhile, enjoy the life and safety paid for by actions you so loudly deplore. <barf>