No Country Is Perfect, But The U.s. System Is The Closest To Perfect,

[Ludovicus]

The US Senate today has followed the example of the House of Representatives in denying the right of habeas corpus for enemy combatants. Along with with President Bush's recent "tweaking" of the Geneva Conventions the world will evaluate this "perfect" system. I am a US citizen. 9-11 was a black day. Now add 9-28.

Good-bye Magna Carta enshrined habeas corpus. Hello waterboarding of terror suspects. If you want to see what waterboarding looks like:

 

http://hereswhatsleft.typepad.com/photos/u...ter_torture.png

[tflex]

The US Senate today has followed the example of the House of Representatives in denying the right of habeas corpus for enemy combatants. Along with with President Bush's recent "tweaking" of the Geneva Conventions the world will evaluate this "perfect" system. I am a US citizen. 9-11 was a black day. Now add 9-28.

Good-bye Magna Carta enshrined habeas corpus. Hello waterboarding of terror suspects. If you want to see what waterboarding looks like:

 

http://hereswhatsleft.typepad.com/photos/u...ter_torture.png

 

In times of war drastic measures must be taken, and terrorists do not fit under 'enemy combatants', they fight like terrorists and they should be tortured like terrorists, better they pay the price than innocent people. Anyways, what the U.S. calls torture is probably along the lines of sleep deprivation.

[Moonlapse]

Sayyid Qutb and Ayman al-Zawahiri supposedly became progressively more radical after being tortured in Egypt.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The Magna Carta and US Constitution do not guarantee habeas corpus to non-citizens. GIs in WWII did not need a writ to apprehend enemy combatants. Get real.

[Ludovicus]

The Magna Carta and US Constitution do not guarantee habeas corpus to non-citizens. GIs in WWII did not need a writ to apprehend enemy combatants. Get real.

 

 

So you have hundreds of detainees who were rounded up on a battlefield in the chaos of an invasion (cooks, soldiers, camp followers, and people targeted by others with a grudge, and anyone else who happened to be in the wrong spot at the wrong time) all tried with evidence possibly gained from torture. They will have no right to defend themselves in the way we tell the world that free people ought to.

 

Is this a recipe for "freedom" or for the end of the rule of law in the US?

 

Maybe this would help:

 

Your son or daughter is jailed in a foreign country for violating the law there. Wouldn't your first question be on arrival to ask, to demand, "Why is my child being held?"

 

9-11 was a black day in the US. Add 9-28.

[M. Porcius Cato]

So you have hundreds of detainees who were rounded up on a battlefield in the chaos of an invasion (cooks, soldiers, camp followers, and people targeted by others with a grudge, and anyone else who happened to be in the wrong spot at the wrong time) all tried with evidence possibly gained from torture. They will have no right to defend themselves in the way we tell the world that free people ought to. Is this a recipe for "freedom" or for the end of the rule of law in the US?

 

My guess is that it's neither a recipe for freedom nor the end of the rule of law in the US. Regarding the first option, I'd not applaud our handling of the people picked up--some certainly deserved to be interrogated for months, but some didn't, so the freedoms of the latter group were violated and that's not part of a good recipe for freedom. However, the legal decisions made about the treatment of enemy combatants do not form the basis for precedents in the treatment of US citizens, so they hardly entail an end to the rule of law in the US.

[Gaius Octavius]

Article I, Section 8, U.S. Constitution.

 

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

 

There doesn't seem to be a reference here as to whom it does not apply to. Since the U.S. is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, they are the law of the land. To my mind, the question is: are combatants not in uniform a proper subject for the Conventions? In WWII, captured combatants not in uniform were summarily shot.

Edited October 16, 2006 by Gaius Octavius

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Article I, Section 8, U.S. Constitution.

 

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

 

There doesn't seem to be a reference here as to whom it does not apply to. Since the U.S. is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, they are the law of the land. To my mind, the question is: are combatants not in uniform a proper subject for the Conventions? In WWII, captured combatants not in uniform were summarily shot.

 

I'm just wondering, just when the hell has the Geneva Convention ever been useful in the War on Terrorism. Because I sure as heck haven't seen any large benefits projected by any political side or even the media.

[Germanicus]

I find in Australia at least the only people defending it are those poor damaged, but much admired souls, our fathers and grandfathers, who have been the victims of torture during war.

[Gaius Octavius]

[quote name='FLavius Valerius Constantinus' date='Oct 16 2006, 11:42 PM' post='46919'

I'm just wondering, just when the hell has the Geneva Convention ever been useful in the War on Terrorism. Because I sure as heck haven't seen any large benefits projected by any political side or even the media.

 

I don't understand your point in its relation to my post.

Edited October 18, 2006 by Gaius Octavius

[brotus maximus]

The U.s. System Is The Closest To Perfect

 

i highly doubt that look who they had as the last president "bush jr" ya he caught saddam but anything else he do right???

i am not bashing americans but there is this standerd out there that i have noticed that up here in canada at least in the part of alberta that i am(full of redeck albertans eeeekkk ) that americans in general have their heads up their asses about somethings( reminded that i am not bashing americans) ya they voted for the other guys this time and got i think the demacrats (somehow i dont think anything will change much) ya u guys might be a military might, but one day someone else will be better then you and have more economy then you(china for instance and north korea-army wise i think)for instance canada is already becoming a superpower slowly((very slowly)too slowly for me though) the country i think that is most near to perfection (here the black ninja strikes again hehe) canada of course then followed by the other commonwealth countrys(you know who you are hehe)

remember i am not bashing i am just saying what i see about somethings

riddick

B.M

[CiceroD]

I guess this is the point Brotus when I, an American retorts with some fault of the great nation of Canada. Then I could still assert (In the typically chauvinistic American way) that we really are the best.

 

But I wont

 

yah many Americans have their heads up their keisters

yes The American Government is far from Angelic

yah we voted in a complete idiot as prez in 2000

and yes at some point we will lose economically, diplomatically, or Militarily

 

duh

 

I think this comes out of the very natural and understandable Canadian resentment for Cowboy Americans.

after all

we tried to invade you in 1812 (stupidly)

South Park animates you crudely

And 99.999% of us have never heard of Steven Harper (the Prime Minister)

 

"for instance canada is already becoming a superpower slowly((very slowly)too slowly for me though)"

 

Perhaps you should enjoy you country's innocence before youve traded it for superpowerdom.

This is inevitable. With wealth and power comes corruption.

 

That's why I think the closest country to Perfection is The Most Serene Republic of San Marino.

It's the world's oldest and smallest republic. one that has held on to its liberty since the end of Rome

 

They understood that with wealth and importance came a terrible price.

Napoleon after all offered them more land and they turned them down recognising their independence and freedoms rested on their insignificance.

(Although everyone in that country is related and their dependant on selling stamps to tourists)

[Gaius Octavius]

And San Marino is run by a bunch of communists! Oh, dear! Wait until a 'certain party', who, naturally, shall remain unnamed, MPC, gets an eyeful of this intelligence.

 

[CiceroD]

Now just to make sure that all of you dont assume Im a communist,

 

Yes the communist party of San Marino has had several periods of rule since the end of World War Two.

 

Yet unlike other Communist nations San Marino has had other political parties. Despite their predominance during some periods they never instituted single party rule. After all In 1986 the Communists had to join a coalition with the Christian Democrats. Then in 1990 the Communist party became the Democratic Progressive Party.

 

But even when the Communists were their strongest 1947-1957 the country didnt really socialize according to the August 1967 National Geographic (yes Im citing a 40 year old magazine article). this same article goes on to state that the communists were given the boot (constitutionally) when they infringed upon religion.

 

so I dont consider them a communist state because they retained their constitution through all of those times.

 

And to my knowlege there was no Tiannamen square like incidents so I still admire them.

 

P.S. and thanks Gaius Octavius for scaring me . when I read your reply my heart dropped into my stomach. ha ha