Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on September 12, 2007, 06:15:30 AM
Quote
MOSCOW (AP) - President Vladimir Putin dissolved Russia's government Wednesday in a major political shakeup ahead of parliamentary and presidential elections, the Kremlin said.
The dissolution is expected to result in a new prime minister, who will be seen as Putin's choice to succeed him after he steps down next spring.
The newspaper Vedomosti, citing unidentified Kremlin officials, reported that Sergei Ivanov, a first deputy prime minister and a leading contender to succeed Putin, could be appointed to replace Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov.
Another first deputy prime minister, Dmitry Medvedev, who is a top executive at natural gas monopoly OAO Gazprom, is considered the other leading contender.
Under the constitution, Putin has two weeks to propose a new head of government, which the lower house of parliament, the State Duma, then has a week to vote on. Russian news agencies said Fradkov would serve as acting prime minister until the vote.
Fradkov said he asked for the dissolution of the government because with elections approaching, Putin needed to have a free hand to make decisions, including those concerning appointments.
Parliamentary elections are scheduled for Dec. 2, followed some three months later by presidential balloting.
"You might be right that we must all think about how to structure the government so that it better suits the pre-election period and prepares the country for what will happen after the parliamentary and presidential elections," Putin said.
The dissolution is expected to result in a new prime minister, who will be seen as Putin's choice to succeed him after he steps down next spring.
The newspaper Vedomosti, citing unidentified Kremlin officials, reported that Sergei Ivanov, a first deputy prime minister and a leading contender to succeed Putin, could be appointed to replace Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov.
Another first deputy prime minister, Dmitry Medvedev, who is a top executive at natural gas monopoly OAO Gazprom, is considered the other leading contender.
Under the constitution, Putin has two weeks to propose a new head of government, which the lower house of parliament, the State Duma, then has a week to vote on. Russian news agencies said Fradkov would serve as acting prime minister until the vote.
Fradkov said he asked for the dissolution of the government because with elections approaching, Putin needed to have a free hand to make decisions, including those concerning appointments.
Parliamentary elections are scheduled for Dec. 2, followed some three months later by presidential balloting.
"You might be right that we must all think about how to structure the government so that it better suits the pre-election period and prepares the country for what will happen after the parliamentary and presidential elections," Putin said.
Post by: Paddy on September 12, 2007, 06:18:40 AM
Post by: Ex-MA Hole on September 12, 2007, 06:38:39 AM
/sarcasm
Post by: The Rabbi on September 12, 2007, 07:15:22 AM
Come on, we all know that would never happen here.
/sarcasm
/sarcasm
It's true. George Bush has secret plans to dissolve Congress and declare himself President For Life if Hillary gets the nomination. I know it's true because I read it on the Internet.
Post by: K Frame on September 12, 2007, 07:50:33 AM
See what can happen when the Chief Executive has too much power?
Actually, this is what can happen when the chief executive HAS the power to dissolve the government.
That's right, Putin HAS that power under the Russian constitution.
To say that it's too much power, or too little power, only goes to show a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the Russian political process.
But, not surprising that people would jump to conclusions and immediately assume that George Bush has the same plan. That would be kind of tough for him to do, given that Bush has no Constitutional authority to dissolve Congress.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 12, 2007, 07:56:48 AM
Quote
by Tim_Leslie
for iCorvallis.com
I had a nightmare late last month. It was triggered by a news report on Feb. 26 that Yoweri Museveni, Ugandas president since 1986 and already East Africa's longest-serving leader, had won reelection to yet another five-year term.
In my horrible dream, U.S. presidential adviser Karl Rove had heard the same news report. He was holding court in a White House meeting room, patiently explaining the situation to President George W. Bush and a bevy of administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Press Secretary Scott McClellan. As I tossed and turned, Rove laid out his evil plan. Heres what I overheard:
Rove: "So you see what Im saying here. This man, Yoweri Museveni, has been the president of Uganda for 20 years in a row. By law, there was supposed to be a new president this year, but Museveni paved the way for his reelection by ramming through a constitutional amendment to lift presidential term limits."
Rumsfeld: "Ok, I see where youre going with this.
Rove: "You do?"
Rumsfeld: "Granted, the guy sounds like a crook, but Im not going to bomb one more country for you until we waste Iran, Karl. I mean, there isnt even any oil in Uganda, and ..."
Rove: "Damnit, Don, Im not talking about bombing Uganda. Im talking about emulating them."
Rumsfeld: "Well why didnt you say so? We dont need bombs if you just want to emasculate them."
Rove: "No, no, no! Emulate! We need to emulate them."
McClellan: "That's a difficult word, Don. Karl's saying we should strive to equal the actions of the Ugandan president."
Rumsfeld: "Dont patronize me, you little smart aleck."
McClellan: "Who are you calling a smart aleck, you lying sack of dung."
Rumsfeld: "Hah, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You told more lies in todays half-hour press briefing than Ive told in 35 years of &"
Cheney: "Hey, knock it off, you chuckleheads. This is important stuff. Karls on to something here. Go ahead Karl."
Rove: "Well, I think its obvious what Im implying here. I think we should follow Mr. Musevenis lead and refuse to vacate the White House in 2008."
McClellan: "Pardon me, Mr. Rove, but thats impossible. The American people will never stand for it."
Cheney: "Thats exactly what you said when we started torturing Iraqi prisoners."
Rumsfeld: "Yeah. You said the same thing when we imprisoned Afghanis and Iraqis without granting them due process. You said wed never get away with turning our backs on the Geneva Conventions."
McClellan: "Well, you probably wouldnt have, if it hadnt been for Ari Fleischer and me working overtime to spin it."
Rumsfeld: "Right. The press guys get all the credit. If you ask me, we should replace the lot of you with military propagandists, just like we're doing in Iraq."
Cheney: "Thats enough, Rummy. Weve got work to do here."
Rumsfeld: "But Im not done with this impudent punk yet. I want to say that &"
Cheney: "I said shut up!"
Rumsfeld: "And what are you gonna do if I dont shut up, Dicky? Drink another six-pack and shoot me with your quail gun?"
Cheney: "Why you little son-of-a &"
Bush: "Now hold on there, fellas. Heh, heh. This is gettin a little out of hand. Let's all just settle down so I can understand what Karls tellin us. It sounds like hes sayin we should suspend the U.S. Constitution. Unless Im mistaken, it limits presidents to two terms, right?"
Rove: "Thats correct, Mr. President. Its the 22nd Amendment."
Bush: "Well, I think I have to agree with Scott on this. Its a nice thought, Karl, but the voters will take to the streets. My approval rating is already in the toilet. Whatll they do when they see us messin with the Constitution?"
Rove: "I used to worry about that, too, Mr. President. And then our little secret leaked out about our warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens. Thats when I learned how malleable our Constitution really is when our party controls both houses of Congress."
McClellan: "Malleable. That's another hard word, Don. It means 'capable of being altered or controlled by outside forces or influences.' "
Rumsfeld: "That's it. I've taken all the abuse I'm going to take today." (Jumps to his feet and stomps out of the room.)
Bush: "Haven't I warned you guys to take it easy on Rummy? His war hasn't been goin real well, and he's been under a lot of pressure lately. Ok, go ahead Karl."
Rove: "Uh, where were we?"
McClellan: "Our malleable Constitution."
Rove: "Oh, right. Now, I shouldnt admit this, but our program to spy on American citizens is a total violation of the Fourth Amendment. And yet, you saw what happened after it was leaked to the press. A few liberals got a bit huffy for a few weeks, and then the whole thing blew over. The public just didn't seem to care. Everyone went back to watching American Idol and downloading the latest Paris Hilton sex video."
Cheney: "I think you're right, Karl. Most people don't seem to care. And those that do will think twice before they criticize this plan. It's clear that our effort to label critics of this administration as terrorist sympathizers is working."
Bush: "President-for-life Bush. I like the sound of that. How soon can we start?"
Rove: "As soon as possible. In fact, March would be a great month to announce our intention to remain in office indefinitely. Hell, everyones so busy filling out their basketball brackets that the whole thing will be a done deal by the time the tournaments over. Itll be our own little version of March Madness."
McClellan: "And just how do you intend to sell this to the American public?"
Rove: "I thought youd never ask, Scott. Its quite simple, really. We just have to tell the voters the same thing weve been telling them all along. The nation is at war. There hasnt been an attack on U.S. soil since 9-11. President Bushs leadership is the reason. To change leaders now would put everyone at risk, and that would be unacceptable. In short, the president must remain in office indefinitely in order to protect the American people."
Bush: "Sheer genius, Karl. Its like that talking point we had during the 2004 campaign: If Kerry gets elected, the terrorists will hit America."
Rove: "Right. Its not a new message for us. We just have to amp it up a bit."
Bush: "This reminds me of that speech I gave back in 2000. Remember when I said, If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long as I'm the dictator. Heh, heh. It looks like I'm finally going to be the dictator."
Rove: "Uh, right Mr. President."
Bush: "Hey, when Im president for life, will they have to call me generalissimo? Ive always wanted to be called Generalissimo Bush."
Cheney: "We can talk about that later, George. Now let's get to work."
for iCorvallis.com
I had a nightmare late last month. It was triggered by a news report on Feb. 26 that Yoweri Museveni, Ugandas president since 1986 and already East Africa's longest-serving leader, had won reelection to yet another five-year term.
In my horrible dream, U.S. presidential adviser Karl Rove had heard the same news report. He was holding court in a White House meeting room, patiently explaining the situation to President George W. Bush and a bevy of administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Press Secretary Scott McClellan. As I tossed and turned, Rove laid out his evil plan. Heres what I overheard:
Rove: "So you see what Im saying here. This man, Yoweri Museveni, has been the president of Uganda for 20 years in a row. By law, there was supposed to be a new president this year, but Museveni paved the way for his reelection by ramming through a constitutional amendment to lift presidential term limits."
Rumsfeld: "Ok, I see where youre going with this.
Rove: "You do?"
Rumsfeld: "Granted, the guy sounds like a crook, but Im not going to bomb one more country for you until we waste Iran, Karl. I mean, there isnt even any oil in Uganda, and ..."
Rove: "Damnit, Don, Im not talking about bombing Uganda. Im talking about emulating them."
Rumsfeld: "Well why didnt you say so? We dont need bombs if you just want to emasculate them."
Rove: "No, no, no! Emulate! We need to emulate them."
McClellan: "That's a difficult word, Don. Karl's saying we should strive to equal the actions of the Ugandan president."
Rumsfeld: "Dont patronize me, you little smart aleck."
McClellan: "Who are you calling a smart aleck, you lying sack of dung."
Rumsfeld: "Hah, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You told more lies in todays half-hour press briefing than Ive told in 35 years of &"
Cheney: "Hey, knock it off, you chuckleheads. This is important stuff. Karls on to something here. Go ahead Karl."
Rove: "Well, I think its obvious what Im implying here. I think we should follow Mr. Musevenis lead and refuse to vacate the White House in 2008."
McClellan: "Pardon me, Mr. Rove, but thats impossible. The American people will never stand for it."
Cheney: "Thats exactly what you said when we started torturing Iraqi prisoners."
Rumsfeld: "Yeah. You said the same thing when we imprisoned Afghanis and Iraqis without granting them due process. You said wed never get away with turning our backs on the Geneva Conventions."
McClellan: "Well, you probably wouldnt have, if it hadnt been for Ari Fleischer and me working overtime to spin it."
Rumsfeld: "Right. The press guys get all the credit. If you ask me, we should replace the lot of you with military propagandists, just like we're doing in Iraq."
Cheney: "Thats enough, Rummy. Weve got work to do here."
Rumsfeld: "But Im not done with this impudent punk yet. I want to say that &"
Cheney: "I said shut up!"
Rumsfeld: "And what are you gonna do if I dont shut up, Dicky? Drink another six-pack and shoot me with your quail gun?"
Cheney: "Why you little son-of-a &"
Bush: "Now hold on there, fellas. Heh, heh. This is gettin a little out of hand. Let's all just settle down so I can understand what Karls tellin us. It sounds like hes sayin we should suspend the U.S. Constitution. Unless Im mistaken, it limits presidents to two terms, right?"
Rove: "Thats correct, Mr. President. Its the 22nd Amendment."
Bush: "Well, I think I have to agree with Scott on this. Its a nice thought, Karl, but the voters will take to the streets. My approval rating is already in the toilet. Whatll they do when they see us messin with the Constitution?"
Rove: "I used to worry about that, too, Mr. President. And then our little secret leaked out about our warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens. Thats when I learned how malleable our Constitution really is when our party controls both houses of Congress."
McClellan: "Malleable. That's another hard word, Don. It means 'capable of being altered or controlled by outside forces or influences.' "
Rumsfeld: "That's it. I've taken all the abuse I'm going to take today." (Jumps to his feet and stomps out of the room.)
Bush: "Haven't I warned you guys to take it easy on Rummy? His war hasn't been goin real well, and he's been under a lot of pressure lately. Ok, go ahead Karl."
Rove: "Uh, where were we?"
McClellan: "Our malleable Constitution."
Rove: "Oh, right. Now, I shouldnt admit this, but our program to spy on American citizens is a total violation of the Fourth Amendment. And yet, you saw what happened after it was leaked to the press. A few liberals got a bit huffy for a few weeks, and then the whole thing blew over. The public just didn't seem to care. Everyone went back to watching American Idol and downloading the latest Paris Hilton sex video."
Cheney: "I think you're right, Karl. Most people don't seem to care. And those that do will think twice before they criticize this plan. It's clear that our effort to label critics of this administration as terrorist sympathizers is working."
Bush: "President-for-life Bush. I like the sound of that. How soon can we start?"
Rove: "As soon as possible. In fact, March would be a great month to announce our intention to remain in office indefinitely. Hell, everyones so busy filling out their basketball brackets that the whole thing will be a done deal by the time the tournaments over. Itll be our own little version of March Madness."
McClellan: "And just how do you intend to sell this to the American public?"
Rove: "I thought youd never ask, Scott. Its quite simple, really. We just have to tell the voters the same thing weve been telling them all along. The nation is at war. There hasnt been an attack on U.S. soil since 9-11. President Bushs leadership is the reason. To change leaders now would put everyone at risk, and that would be unacceptable. In short, the president must remain in office indefinitely in order to protect the American people."
Bush: "Sheer genius, Karl. Its like that talking point we had during the 2004 campaign: If Kerry gets elected, the terrorists will hit America."
Rove: "Right. Its not a new message for us. We just have to amp it up a bit."
Bush: "This reminds me of that speech I gave back in 2000. Remember when I said, If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long as I'm the dictator. Heh, heh. It looks like I'm finally going to be the dictator."
Rove: "Uh, right Mr. President."
Bush: "Hey, when Im president for life, will they have to call me generalissimo? Ive always wanted to be called Generalissimo Bush."
Cheney: "We can talk about that later, George. Now let's get to work."
Post by: mtnbkr on September 12, 2007, 08:01:49 AM
Chris
Post by: Paddy on September 12, 2007, 08:27:36 AM
See what can happen when the Chief Executive has too much power?
Actually, this is what can happen when the chief executive HAS the power to dissolve the government.
That's right, Putin HAS that power under the Russian constitution.
To say that it's too much power, or too little power, only goes to show a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the Russian political process.
But, not surprising that people would jump to conclusions and immediately assume that George Bush has the same plan. That would be kind of tough for him to do, given that Bush has no Constitutional authority to dissolve Congress.
Nor does he have any Constitutional authority to initiate war. Or perform domestic surveillance, or seize and detain any American citizen indefinitely without access to legal counsel or judicial review or suspend the Geneva convention and federal laws that prohibit torture, or establish military tribunals, or terminate treaties, or exercise any other override authority he sees fit. Yet the Bush Administration asserts and exercises these powers.
There is no constitutional authority for the provisions of PA I & II (as Congress is also limited by the Constitution). The usurpation of power won't be confined to the Bush Admin. Do you actually think President Hillary {shudder} will practice restraint, or do you think she will move to expand those executive powers?
Post by: K Frame on September 12, 2007, 08:33:03 AM
Blah blah blah blah blah.
That's why he went to Congress and had them sign off on military action against Iraq.
Whoops, forgot about that, didn't you?
I'll tell you the same thing I told the schmucks who claimed that Clinton was going to do an end run around the Constitution to stay in office permanently...
Up the dosage, Kenneth.
Post by: Paddy on September 12, 2007, 08:45:06 AM
Quote
That's why he went to Congress and had them sign off on military action against Iraq.
Whoops, forgot about that, didn't you?
Whoops, forgot about that, didn't you?
Of course. How silly of me. It's only the Congress who are not limited/subject to the Constitution.
Post by: SteveS on September 12, 2007, 10:45:24 AM
Quote
Bush: "Hey, when Im president for life, will they have to call me generalissimo? Ive always wanted to be called Generalissimo Bush."
I kinda figured that he would want to be called el jefe.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on September 12, 2007, 10:47:12 AM
Schroedinger's Branch.
Post by: MechAg94 on September 12, 2007, 12:12:43 PM
Quote
Nor does he have any Constitutional authority to initiate war. Or perform domestic surveillance, or seize and detain any American citizen indefinitely without access to legal counsel or judicial review or suspend the Geneva convention and federal laws that prohibit torture, or establish military tribunals, or terminate treaties, or exercise any other override authority he sees fit. Yet the Bush Administration asserts and exercises these powers.
Constitional authority: already answered.Domestic surveillance: You mean the tapping of foreign phones that happen to call the US or the stuff approved by the secret court?
detain any American citizen indefinitely without access to legal counsel or judicial review:
Do mean the guy who got his day in court?
suspend the Geneva convention and federal laws that prohibit torture: You mean the Geneva convention that doesn't apply to insurgents? Which torture are you talking about exactly?
establish military tribunals: Nothing new about military tribunals at all.
terminate treaties: So how do we terminate treaties? They don't last forever do they?
Where did you dig up all this stuff?
Post by: MechAg94 on September 12, 2007, 12:13:30 PM
Post by: De Selby on September 12, 2007, 12:21:00 PM
Quote
detain any American citizen indefinitely without access to legal counsel or judicial review:
Do mean the guy who got his day in court?
Do mean the guy who got his day in court?
Let's be fair: It's not like the administration willingly submitted to demands for Padilla to have a day in court. The white house spent several years arguing exactly what you said above: that he had no right to judicial review, access to counsel, or anything. Literally, no rights.
I don't buy the "no constitutional authority to do xyz" arguments at all. There is simply no comparison to Putin on those counts.
But the legal fictions that had to be created to come up with the original guantanamo plan and the even more harsh treatment of U.S. citizen Jose Padilla were really outrageous-that's one area where the Feds actually got close to being "Putinesque" in my opinion.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 12, 2007, 12:25:20 PM
Post by: De Selby on September 12, 2007, 12:30:17 PM
No, the gov't was on good authority. They had a very good case with excellent precedents (see the German spy case from the 1940s). The courts ruled against them. That doesn't mean they didnt have a case though.
The government was on good authority with that line of cases to try even US citizens in military tribunals-that constituted a decent argument. It makes intuitive sense too. Our own soldiers don't get the right to appear in civilian courts for many crimes, so why should combatants fighting for the other side get more?
What they were not on good authority to do was declare a class of persons to which no law, legal remedy, or right to anything whatsoever applied. But that's exactly what they tried to do.
The proper treatment of someone to whom the "lawful combatant" label does not apply is a criminal trial, and the case law would support making that a court martial as opposed to a civilian court. Just as long as no one can be punished by imprisonment for life without any shred of legal process.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 12, 2007, 12:42:28 PM
He forfeited them by taking up arms against the U.S. without donning the uniform of a foreign combatant. He wasn't covered under Geneva. He wasnt covered under civil law.
Too bad. Must suck to be him.
Post by: De Selby on September 12, 2007, 12:50:54 PM
So he had no rights. So what?
He forfeited them by taking up arms against the U.S. without donning the uniform of a foreign combatant. He wasn't covered under Geneva. He wasnt covered under civil law.
Too bad. Must suck to be him.
He forfeited them by taking up arms against the U.S. without donning the uniform of a foreign combatant. He wasn't covered under Geneva. He wasnt covered under civil law.
Too bad. Must suck to be him.
Well, that wasn't really the issue. The issue is: How did we decide that this guy was actually an unlawful combatant, and that he therefore could be subject to any punishment we want?
Not being covered under geneva is one thing; being able to decide who isn't covered without any process whatsoever is another. There is absolutely no legal support for a class of persons who get no legal process whatsoever, but who can still be jailed for life.
If they're guilty, convict them of the crimes they're guilty of and toss away the key. But it's dangerous to toss people in prison for life with no more than an administrative labelling. That really does give the executive the power to throw people in prison for no good reason at all.
Post by: Paddy on September 12, 2007, 12:51:46 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 12, 2007, 02:01:31 PM
I don't give a *expletive deleted*it about Padilla. Wait until President Hillary {shudder} arrests the President of the NRA for some bogus terrorist conspiracy charge. Or the president of GOA. Or NRA members, for that matter. Think it's a stretch?
Yeah, I do.If anyone else ever does what Padilla did, then I would expect (nay, demand) any future President to do to them what Bush did to Padilla.
Post by: Paddy on September 12, 2007, 02:13:37 PM
I don't give a *expletive deleted*it about Padilla. Wait until President Hillary {shudder} arrests the President of the NRA for some bogus terrorist conspiracy charge. Or the president of GOA. Or NRA members, for that matter. Think it's a stretch?
Yeah, I do.If anyone else ever does what Padilla did, then I would expect (nay, demand) any future President to do to them what Bush did to Padilla.
Padilla was on his way to jail, whether his status was 'enemy combatant', 'criminal defendant', or 'putz'. What's important is the power grab by the Bush Admin. Bad precedent makes bad law and any unchallenged action that oversteps Constitutional restraints will come back to bite us.
But you don't care about that. Now. You will.
Post by: De Selby on September 12, 2007, 02:17:19 PM
I don't give a *expletive deleted*it about Padilla. Wait until President Hillary {shudder} arrests the President of the NRA for some bogus terrorist conspiracy charge. Or the president of GOA. Or NRA members, for that matter. Think it's a stretch?
Yeah, I do.If anyone else ever does what Padilla did, then I would expect (nay, demand) any future President to do to them what Bush did to Padilla.
Uh, the question here is: How do you know what Padilla did?
You do realize that at trial, the facts he was convicted on were not related to a specific act or intended act of violence, right?
Post by: BakerMikeRomeo on September 12, 2007, 03:42:38 PM
Read the articles about Putin "dissolving the government" carefully. "Putin's Government" means something entirely different than you think it means. It has a whole hell of a lot more in common with the term "Bush Administration" than what we think when we say "government".
He threw a bunch of his appointees out and replaced them in order to shake things up. He put a new prime minister guy in place to throw people off until he gives the nod to the next guy everybody is going to elect to be president because they liked Putin so much.
~BakerMike
Reading Is Fundamental.
Post by: Paddy on September 12, 2007, 04:28:08 PM
Quote
Read the articles about Putin "dissolving the government" carefully. "Putin's Government" means something entirely different than you think it means. It has a whole hell of a lot more in common with the term "Bush Administration" than what we think when we say "government".
The Bush Administration is the government; it does what it wants when it wants the will of the people be damned.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 12, 2007, 05:43:36 PM
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.
Post by: Paddy on September 13, 2007, 12:24:27 PM
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.
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 21, 2007, 11:36:30 PM
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.
Post by: Hawkmoon on September 22, 2007, 07:45:45 PM
Quote from: Mike Irwin
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.
Quote from: CAnnoneer
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.
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 22, 2007, 08:08:09 PM
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.
Quote
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.
Post by: De Selby on September 24, 2007, 04:18:51 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 27, 2007, 07:47:50 AM
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.
Post by: De Selby on September 27, 2007, 02:01:01 PM
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Post by: Balog on September 27, 2007, 02:42:23 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 28, 2007, 08:03:07 AM
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Post by: De Selby on September 28, 2007, 10:39:53 AM
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 28, 2007, 07:28:55 PM