Busy downtown Seattle Oct 5

[underworld]

don't bother DC... i asked for someone to point out some of these same details from the 'torture bill' the other day. a simple cut and past from the bill itself and none of these 'experts' here could deliver.

[slothrop]

how do you pick sides on something like this. let's, for a second, pretend that the u.s. condones and celebrates torture. now it's a level playing field. why do you pick the u.s. govt to protest? or is there also a walk-out comdemning the other side's use of torture? when is it? simple question - why are WE (the u.s.) the bad guys?

 

If you really think this is about "sides", you're missing the point entirely.

 

If you think protests against the US government are ineffective, try protesting, say, China's government (and it's practice of torture) with marches in the US. Laughable. Principled, but not likely to change a damn thing.

 

Consent of the governed is central to our democracy, supposedly, and protest is a means of indicating consent has not been given.

[underworld]

ok.. so let's see if tomorrow changes anything.

 

but i think you're missing the point of my post. where are the demonstrations that condemn inhumane acts of, say, al qaeda?

[tvashtarkatena]

My solution: Kill them on the battlefield.

 

Capital idea, Captain Courageous! Especially with our two wars going so swimmingly!

 

Christ, I've never seen anyone fall on their own grenade so completely in the face of current events. And the tired Orwell quotes...where have I NOT heard those before.

[tvashtarkatena]

If Jim is right, then our duly elected leaders, who represent us as their constituents, passed this law. Thus, the people passed the law.

 

Our duly elected leaders also passed laws that made African Americans worth less than whites and put 110,000 Japanese Americans in concentration camps. When a bad law is passed, it is the duty of citizens of good conscience to fight to reform it.

 

In addition, the Supreme Court, which has to date denied the Bush Administrations power to designate enemy combatants and hold military tribunals based on heresay evidence, has yet to weigh in on the constitutionality of this new law. Finally, the law is a contradiction of the Geneva Conventions, to which the US has been a signatory for over 50 years. If we forego that, what a great big FUCK YOU to our troops in the field from now on.

 

And, for you legal scholars out there, any person on US soil has the basic legal rights granted under the constitution. The Supreme Court has already ruled that Guantanamo, in effect, falls within this standard. Yes, the 423 or so folks who are rotting in Guantanamo for over four years and who have yet to be charged with ANY crime have some basic legal rights, as well they should. Who are these people? Clueless villagers picked up by bounty hunters? Terrorists? We don't know. Is anyone here advocating that we shouldn't bother to find out?

 

The bottom line is this: If you think someone's an asshole, then give him a fair trial, and if he's guilty, punish the asshole. It's called due process, folks, and that's how we figure out if we got the bad guy or just some innocent lackey by mistake. That's how we find out if our government is blowing smoke up our asses or acting in good faith. But of course, our government would NEVER do that, would it? The government that talks so much about 'freedom'? Well, what does that mean, exactly? It's our constitutional system, our bill of rights, and it already works very well to put bad guys away without all the alpha-male fascist tactics.

 

It astounds me that the true believers fail to see the potential for abuse of these new powers against lawful dissenters or purely political enemies despite a long history in this country of exactly that. The political climate will change, the enemies will change, but these near absolute powers will still be there. Who'll be the next target?

 

Certainly Mr. Orwell has an appropriate quote for that scenario...he may even have an entire book on the subject.

[chucK]

"Indefinite detention"? Sounds like what occurs in every war.

 

Perhaps, but this "war" is different, remember? The main difference being that this war is indefinite. The battlefield is anywhere in the world. This law gives our executive branch authority to imprison anybody, anywhere in the world (i.e. someone the president or secretary of defense deem an "enemy combatant") indefinitely. No recourse, no official way to say, "wait, you got the wrong guy".

 

You guys are all focusing on terrorists who blow people up. What I worry about is all the innocent people who are getting swept up in the net. Our policy is to offer big monetary rewards for turning in "terrorists" (what's the reward for Bin Laden now?), then when somebody is turned in they have no way of protesting their innocence. Is this a good way to keep innocents out of our jails?

 

This is all just considering possible mistakes by otherwise good people. Just think what could happen with a slightly corrupt Executive Branch (main detained for mouthing off to Cheney )?

 

If we know someone blew up 10 people, I'm sure we can bring that evidence into some sort of military court. Make it necessary to have some surety before locking people up forever. That's all I ask.

[underworld]

If we know someone blew up 10 people, I'm sure we can bring that evidence into some sort of military court. Make it necessary to blow people up before locking people up forever. That's all I ask.

 

[selkirk]

ok.. so let's see if tomorrow changes anything.

 

but i think you're missing the point of my post. where are the demonstrations that condemn inhumane acts of, say, al qaeda?

 

Those protests would be the two wars we're engaging in.

[dinomyte]

It's funny, I initially posted in this thread just to fuck with people, but giving it a bit more thought, this occurred to me:

 

Too often, people do not protest injustice, they protest the people that they deem responsible, and just as often they protest along party lines.

 

Think about it, homelessness, poverty, etc. are a big probelm regardless of who is in the White House. This equals few protests.

 

I doubt that the Seattle thing will be a "Torture is wrong" thing, it will be a "Bush is wrong" thing.

 

Fortunately, drinking and climbing (though not necessarily at the same time) are my escapes, and I don't think about this shit that often.

[catbirdseat]

If we know someone blew up 10 people, I'm sure we can bring that evidence into some sort of military court. Make it necessary to blow people up before locking people up forever. That's all I ask.

 

I don't generally swear, but underworld, you are fucking clueless!

[underworld]

dude.. that's basically what he said. he wants to be SURE before anyone gets approached... this isn't standard. murder suspects, for instance, get arrested BEFORE their guilt is proven.

 

again - nobody has shown from the 'torture bill' that these suspects aren't getting due process.

[Dechristo]

CBS, go back to your chemistry where you can curse compounds for their properties instead of working with them adroitly. In doing so, your acumen there will appear as it does here.

[cj001f]

CBS, go back to your chemistry where you can curse compounds for their properties instead of working with them adroitly. In doing so, your acumen there will appear as it does here.

 

Please continue your extraordinary rendition logic.

 

Spray is the great equalizer - everyone looks like a chimp

[Dechristo]

you're just trying to pawn your banana

[catbirdseat]

dude.. that's basically what he said. he wants to be SURE before anyone gets approached... this isn't standard. murder suspects, for instance, get arrested BEFORE their guilt is proven.

 

again - nobody has shown from the 'torture bill' that these suspects aren't getting due process.

The entire point of the torture bill is to deny due process.

[underworld]

editorial

 

it's just as easy for me to say the whole point of climbing is to own a rope

[cj001f]

you're just trying to pawn your banana

 

Ain't nothing like a freshly microwaved banana peel to make the afternoon

[Dechristo]

sky rockets in flight

[underworld]

i'm not a legal expert... you sound like you are one. so here's the link .

 

what's the difference between it and what you consider due process.

 

so far it's all been alegations that i drive a hummer, drink at starbucks, and am a fqin idiot etc etc... nobody is really pointing to the document that they are so wrapped up about.

[cj001f]

sky rockets in flight

 

pooflinging fight

[Dechristo]

My WMDs don't stink

[cj001f]

My WMDs don't stink

 

all the ladies say they are duds

[Jim]

Well, not to reguritate what has been in the papers and on the radio for the past month or so and is easily obtainable; here are the primary issues (IMO):

 

 

Enemy Combatants: A vaguely broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.

 

The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Bushie to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible (rather than use the guidelines in the Conventions). And his decision could stay secret — there’s no requirement that this list be published.

 

Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. Therefore, no due process. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence. In addition, if charged and the evidence against you is labled as "classified" then you will not be allowed to see it. How convenient.

 

 

Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.

[catbirdseat]

i'm not a legal expert... you sound like you are one. so here's the link .

 

what's the difference between it and what you consider due process.

 

so far it's all been alegations that i drive a hummer, drink at starbucks, and am a fqin idiot etc etc... nobody is really pointing to the document that they are so wrapped up about.

It says "Please resubmit your search".

[olyclimber]

Please! I can't ready HotCarl and DeCrisco's inanity through all this drivel