can a kinder gentler nation survive?

[Paddy]

And I predict that when GWB and Cheney die, the location of their graves will remain secret, because future generations will dig up their sorry rotting carcasses and hang them.

Seriously?   

Yes seriously.  Once their crimes and destruction have been exposed and made public, this administration will be reviled until the end of time.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

"There is not and never has been a rule that you may be shot simply because someone in the uniform of an army said you were a spy or a guerrilla.  And there're good reasons why, if you think about it.  Granting executives and their agents the right to punish summarily, without answering to any judicial authority, and without having to observe any procedures for proving allegations, amounts to giving the executive the right to punish whomever it wishes whenever it wishes.  "

really?!  never?  they still teach american history  natan hale ring a bell?
or this from your friends?
  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/09/wafg409.xml


Taliban 'hanged boy, 12, for spying for UK'
By Tom Coghlan in Kabul
Last Updated: 2:40am GMT 12/12/2007



Taliban fighters hanged a 12-year-old boy from a mulberry tree, claiming he was passing information on Taliban roadside bomb attacks to police and British forces, Afghan police have said.

   
Afghans gather around a Taliban hanging

 
The gruesome murder, which occurred in Sangin, an area held by British forces since driving out the Taliban in April, sparked outrage among politicians, who accused the al-Qaeda-linked militant group of atrocities against villagers. It was the second execution of a child attributed to the Taliban in three months.

 

[HankB]

Once their crimes and destruction have been exposed and made public, this administration will be reviled until the end of time.

Well, Harry Truman hasn't been reviled yet, and he 1) gave away Eastern Europe to Joseph Stalin; 2) Made sure the Nationalist Chinese didn't have the means to fight Mao; and 3) Got the USA involved in Korea, while at the same time protecting Red China.

And of course JFK hasn't been reviled yet, though he screwed up royally in the Bay of Pigs fiasco and really got the ball rolling for the USA in Vienam.

LBJ? Not reviled yet, though his phony Tonkin Gulf incident led directly the death of over 58,000 Americans, and his Great Society program's cumulative costs are eerily close to our national debt . . . and don't forget his GCA '68.

Jimmy Carter helped fund the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan by forcing the USA to buy chromium from that great defender of human rights, the USSR, rather than the evil Rhodesia. (Though I wonder whether rather than being evil, he was simply inept.)

Clinton? Downsized the military, ignored Osama, passed the AWB, and a host of other things.

I'm no fan of Bush by any means - his profligate spending, support for illegal aliens, many aspects of his conduct of Iraq, etc. - all disgust and disappoint me. But so far, there are several Democrats ahead of him in the contest for "Most Reviled."

[K Frame]

"he 1) gave away Eastern Europe to Joseph Stalin"

You need to rethink that position.

Truman had no part in the Yalta conference, in which the "spheres of influence" by the major powers were decided.


"Clinton? Downsized the military, ignored Osama, passed the AWB, and a host of other things."

Clinton continued the military downsizing that was started under Bush I.

[Scout26]

Yep, all those guys at Gitmo are innocent.

Hell, even the French found them guilty.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071219/wl_nm/france_guantanamo_dc_1

French court finds ex-Guantanamo inmates guilty
 


PARIS (Reuters) - Five former Guantanamo Bay inmates were found guilty on Wednesday of terrorism-related charges by a French court and sentenced to one year in prison.
 
A sixth man was acquitted, according to the ruling that was read out in court.

The verdict took into account the 18-30 months the defendants had spent in the Guantanamo U.S. military prison and none will have to serve further time in jail.

The men say they were tortured at Guantanamo and a French public prosecutor said earlier this month that they had already suffered enough and should not return to prison.

Prosecutors said the five men, who are all French nationals, received military training in al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan between 2000 and 2001. They were accused of "criminal association in relation to a terrorist enterprise."

They had said there was not enough evidence to convict the sixth defendant and had urged the court to drop the charges.

The trial over the suspected links to al Qaeda began last year but was thrown into doubt after it emerged that French agents secretly interviewed the six in 2002 during their detention in Guantanamo, which is on the island of Cuba.

The defense contested the legality of the meetings, which it said took place at a time when the men were held in leg irons and detained in cages in the heat of the sun. However, their request for the trial to be abandoned was rejected.

During the 2006 hearings, five of the men confirmed they had been in al Qaeda training camps but said they had not carried out any military action before their capture.

The men were arrested in Afghanistan and Pakistan after the United States invaded the country in 2001, and were transferred to Guantanamo. They were returned to France in 2004 and 2005 after negotiations between Paris and Washington.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

oops!  whats the deomographic breakdown on the detainees? by country of recors as well as cvountry of origin. anyway to look that up?  some folks might find gitmo preferable to what they get in courts at home.

[roo_ster]

So no, no one argues that Al Qaeda members should get POW status.  I don't think anyone has even tried to argue that.

Who do you mean by, "anyone?"  I have read plenty of copy that calls for such.  Maybe no one on APS, but the argument is common outside the hallowed grounds of APS.

"Unlawful Combatant"=criminal behavior.  Not complying with the conventions of war, ie, behaving like Al Qaeda, makes you a criminal.  And we all know what is required to impose punishments on criminals-there must be proof that the person is in fact a criminal, and that the person committed a specific crime. 

Well, now you get to an interesting question, "What is punishment?"

Capturing an UC and imprisoning him for a length of time to determine if he is, indeed a UC is not punishment.  Interrogating him as a means to help in that determination is also not punishment. 

After gathering such information, keeping them imprisoned for years or by executing them sounds a lot like punishment.

There is not and never has been a rule that you may be shot simply because someone in the uniform of an army said you were a spy or a guerrilla.

Might want to be careful with terms like, "never."  All that is required is one instance to prove you wrong.  I would bet dollars to doughnuts that there are many instances of such in the history of the USA, alone. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

never?

Despite his friends' misgivings, Hale departed from the Continental Army at Harlem Heights and traveled to Norwalk, Connecticut. Then, dressed as an unemployed Dutch schoolmaster with his college diploma in hand, he secured passage across the Sound to Long Island. An exact recounting of his activities after this does not exist. He managed to work his way into New York City, gathered some information on the British soldiers there and make preparations for an escape. However, under confusing circumstances, Hale was captured on September 21. His notes and drawings were discovered hidden in his clothes; tragically, he had failed to use invisible ink, a technology available at the time. Forthright to the end, Hale admitted he was a Patriot soldier, an admission that sealed his fate. He had been out of uniform and operated behind enemy lines; under the existing rules of war he was subject to execution without trial. It should be noted that the British officers were especially uneasy about spies at this juncture because of recent fires that had ravaged the city and were thought to have been set by rebel agents.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h550.html

they need to start teaching history again

[De Selby]

cassandrasdaddy,

The part that your blurbs left out, and that a real history would include, was that the British military had standards for proving such a case.  Evidence found on Hale's person was presented in support of the claim that he was a spy, and he confessed to the crime.

That's why they executed him-because the case was proven, not because you can just shoot spies if you say "spy spy!" in combat.

[De Selby]

jfruser,

Who do you mean by, "anyone?"  I have read plenty of copy that calls for such.  Maybe no one on APS, but the argument is common outside the hallowed grounds of APS.

Certainly no one has sued alleging that members of Al Qaeda are eligible for this.  I haven't seen anyone allege that Al Qaeda member should be POW's in popular press either.  I'd be happy to see any calls for it that you know of.

Well, now you get to an interesting question, "What is punishment?"

It is interesting-it's also the reason that international conventions are fairly specific as to how POW's must be a treated.  A good rule of thumb is that if you're not a POW, and you're in prison for indeterminate periods, you are being punished.

Might want to be careful with terms like, "never."  All that is required is one instance to prove you wrong.  I would bet dollars to doughnuts that there are many instances of such in the history of the USA, alone. 

This would be true in reference to a claim about all events in history; but I made a claim about law and custom.  One instance would not do this.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

cassandrasdaddy,

The part that your blurbs left out, and that a real history would include, was that the British military had standards for proving such a case.  Evidence found on Hale's person was presented in support of the claim that he was a spy, and he confessed to the crime.

That's why they executed him-because the case was proven, not because you can just shoot spies if you say "spy spy!" in combat.

Right-o!  The Brits had standards, which the modern Unites States does not.  That makes all the difference.  We're evil rat bastiches, ya see.  We randomly throw people into the clink down in Cuba without any review, evidence, or standards.  Cause we're mean like that.  Err, well, we aren't mean, cause we support Ron Paul and revile Kigh George Bushco.  We Paulistas are good people fighting the good fight to make sure everyone feels deep down in their gut  that our government is mean and unjust.

And Riley is dead on right.  They WILL have to hide the bodies of Bush and Cheney, 'cause people like us already have plans to dig 'em up and defile them, just to make sure the world knows how we feel about those two savages.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Texts/Narrative/Stein_Lovely_War.html

and this is a case that happened outside the phoenix program

[De Selby]

Right-o!  The Brits had standards, which the modern Unites States does not.  That makes all the difference.  We're evil rat bastiches, ya see. 

Sorry, but that is a gross distortion of what I said, which is precisely the opposite-that we do have laws here, and that if you look at our system, it's designed to protect people from summary execution without any requirement that the facts justifying said execution be proved.

The law works quite well, and our legal system and constitutional protections are as good as any in the world and better than every other in most respects. 

The problem is that the system is being ignored and the law broken.  Not that the United States is bad.

[De Selby]

http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Texts/Narrative/Stein_Lovely_War.html

and this is a case that happened outside the phoenix program

This little story, (I have no idea what sources this comes from or whether it's true), is a good example of how American law deals with summary execution.

It's a crime.  The US military, being the disciplined and law abiding organization that it is, actually investigates and punishes these crimes.  That would tend to support my point here, which is that it has never been customary or legal (or viewed as such by authority figures-until now) to summarily execute suspected war criminals and spies without any sort of trial.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Texts/Narrative/Stein_Lovely_War.html

and this is a case that happened outside the phoenix program

This little story, (I have no idea what sources this comes from or whether it's true), is a good example of how American law deals with summary execution.

It's a crime.  The US military, being the disciplined and law abiding organization that it is, actually investigates and punishes these crimes.  That would tend to support my point here, which is that it has never been customary or legal (or viewed as such by authority figures-until now) to summarily execute suspected war criminals and spies without any sort of trial.

its a good example?  they dropped the case
and you uncomfortable talking about phoenix? or more so about the story from 210 days ago about your heroes in the taliban and the 12 year old?

[De Selby]

its a good example?  they dropped the case

Yeah, criminal cases get dropped all the time.  The article is pretty clear on the fact that execution without trial is a crime, though.  So I'm not sure how it serves your point.

and you uncomfortable talking about phoenix? or more so about the story from 210 days ago about your heroes in the taliban and the 12 year old?

Huh? I'm the one saying that what the Taliban did is contrary to international law, international custom, and decidedly different from what America does.

You're the one saying it used to be the law here, remember?  I don't know how citing an example of the Taliban killing some kid for suspected spying would tend to prove that the law of the US and international law approve of such things.

[longeyes]

The liberal obsession with torture springs from narcissism and misplaced empathy.

I suggest an obsession with liberty instead.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I think we in this country have had it so good for so long that we've forgotten what the real world is like. 

Waterboarding and sleep deprivation are not torture.    This is torture:

Blood-splotches on walls, chains hanging from a ceiling and swords on the killing floor  the artifacts left a disturbing tale of brutalities inside a suspected al-Qaida in Iraq torture chamber.

The rooms "had chains, a bed  an iron bed that was still connected to a battery  knives and swords that were still covered in blood,"

Nearby were nine mass graves containing the remains of 26 people,

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071221/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_torture_chamber;_ylt=Am56x3DazQZbXlKxwbGCIxis0NUE

[Perd Hapley]

And I predict that when GWB and Cheney die, the location of their graves will remain secret, because future generations will dig up their sorry rotting carcasses and hang them.

Seriously?   

Yes seriously.  Once their crimes and destruction have been exposed and made public, this administration will be reviled until the end of time.

Oh, so not seriously.   

[De Selby]

I think we in this country have had it so good for so long that we've forgotten what the real world is like. 

Waterboarding and sleep deprivation are not torture.    This is torture:

Those are also torture, but waterboarding clearly meets the statutory definition of torture.  Torture isn't up for debate in terms of it being a crime-that's defined in statute, just like every crime.

For your reference, 18 USC 2340:

(1) torture means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

See subsection two for defining further:

(2) severe mental pain or suffering means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

There is absolutely no sane way to argue that waterboarding does not fit that definition.  That's probably why they classified most of the memos authorizing the practice-because if anyone read them, they'd realize that they weren't even close to a good faith attempt to interpret the law.

If a bunch of Leftists here at home caught an American soldier and waterboarded him every day for a year to make him talk about war crimes in Iraq, I'd be outraged if they weren't charged with torture.  So would most people, I imagine.  The idea that there should even be a debate about what is basically the chinese water torture is a legal fiction from the past decade; before this, I think you would've been laughed out of any court in America if you actually tried to defend against a torture charge on that basis.

And indeed, the lengths to which this administration is going to prevent any judicial review of the process indicates that it too sees the legal writing on the wall.

[roo_ster]

Frankly, I am not particularly concerned with contemporary re-definitions of words that have established meanings.

I am concerned with real torture and not "torture."  The firmer I oppose, the latter is a contemptible mutilation of the language.

Even given the above legal definitions, sleep deprivation, waterboarding, etc. is not "severe physical or mental pain or suffering."  The techniques are not severe while in the midst and there are no lasting effects, save (perhaps) the lingering guilt of having given up fellow mass-murdering jihadis.