…and you also said “They fight for a philosophy which is abhorrent to human dignity, and when they are captured, they claim their own dignity as sacrosanct.”

So, you think what they did is “abhorrent to human dignity”, and yet not “unjust”. WTF?

“Yoo’s answer is that they qualify for neither constitutional rights nor Geneva Convention rights, and therefore, subject to some sort of minimal process that determines they are, in fact terrorists, they have no rights which limit the executive power to do whatever it wants with them.”

…and currently that “some sort of minimal process” apparently consists of Commander Codpiece looking at a picture and having Jesus whisper into his ear whether or not they are really terrorists.

Yeah, I’m sure that works out well…

“…and I think their statements in captivity should be admitted even though statements taken from an ordinary criminal under the circumstances would be clearly inadmissable.”

…because everybody knows torture produces the most acurate information with which to determine guilt or innocence. And in Mitch’s world, those stupid Geneva Convention people just didn’t understand that EVERYTHING CHANGED ON 9/11!!!

“Unlike, for example, warrantless wiretaps of civilians, I don’t think my rights are put into jeopardy by the designation of this technicality allowing torture of Al Quaeda operatives.”

Mitch, in America v2.0, we don’t get to determine which Constitutional violations are okay and which are not. The King/Dictator-for-life/Sovereign/Maximum-Leader/Etc. gets to determine those things. And since we have been “in a state of war” against the tactic of terrorism, which has always been used by the weak, and will always be used in the future, this war will never end. So if Emperor Palpatine determines, for example, that commenting on blogs is punishable by death, no one can stop him.

“Pressure at home has more or less tied the administration’s hands on the torture issue.”

…okay…who’s being naive here, Mitch?…

“There’s no question of innocence here, and these guys are so odious that there’s no way to generate any particular public outcry on their behalf here, or anywhere in the world.”

…because when Jesus whispers into your ear, he never lies. No trial needed, no evidence needed, no witnesses needed. So much simpler than all that trial/jury crap.

Hey, maybe we can just do that for ALL legal cases in the US. Save everybody a lot of time and money. They’re probably guilty anyway…

“Bush produced Khalid Shaikh Mohammed from such a detention and announced that he would be tried.

The trial seems like a political stunt, and I think it would have been better if KSM had never been brought out to allege mistreatment.”

…which is EXACTLY what the Soviets and the Chinese kept telling us. “Trials”? What a load of crap. Just take them to the wall, shoot them, and send a bill for the bullet to their families. If they were really innocent, why were they in prison?…

Mitchforth, if you like this world the wingnuts are creating, you’re welcome to it. Just realize that once the dogs of injustice are unleashed, they eventually come back to bite everybody in the ass - even the people who thought it was a good idea at the time…

The terrorists are not fighting to institute mandatory child pr0n or some other vile affront to morality, they are fighting for what they believe is justice.

I can’t think of anyone who ever actually thought what they did was unjust. Maybe Skeletor. Even serial killers have sick rationalizations for themselves.

I know that on both extremes of the political spectrum, people have characterized terrorism as America’s chickens coming home to roost. Pat Robertson thinks it’s for being too liberal on sex, and Jeremiah Wright thinks it’s for imperialistic foreign policy.

But these guys are radical theocrats who basically just want to kill anyone who doesn’t believe what they believe.

Elevating the terrorists to the same status as an opposing national military force thru the use of the word “war” misses the entire point.

The events of 9/11 are a criminal matter - premeditated murder on a large scale.

Unless Congress has ressurrected the Letter of Marque - allowing Congress to declare war upon an individual - this is really just a global police manhunt.

Well, the question is what rights these captives should be afforded. Yoo’s answer is that they qualify for neither constitutional rights nor Geneva Convention rights, and therefore, subject to some sort of minimal process that determines they are, in fact terrorists, they have no rights which limit the executive power to do whatever it wants with them.

I object pretty strongly to giving these captives the full procedural rights of criminal defendants captured in the United States. In particular, I think there should be no evidentiary rule prohibiting hearsay evidence, and I think these captives are entitled to no fourth amendment protection (since none of the foreign raids was conducted with a search warrant), and I think their statements in captivity should be admitted even though statements taken from an ordinary criminal under the circumstances would be clearly inadmissable.

The fact that you, or any of us *would* murder someone for righteous vengeance is the reason acts like murder and motives like vengeance are not recognized as legitimate under our laws. I oppose the death penalty not because i think i’m sooo awesome i would just never get vengeful, but because i shouldn’t be trusted to decide who lives and who dies, and neither should the people who hate me.

Well, the people who hate you will murder you if they can. But this is not about vengeance. It’s a question of whether this legal gap exists between the protections for criminals and the protection of soldiers, that terrorists fall into because of the the nature of the kind of warfare they perpetrate.

Unlike, for example, warrantless wiretaps of civilians, I don’t think my rights are put into jeopardy by the designation of this technicality allowing torture of Al Quaeda operatives.

The practical aspects of the determination of what rights protect different offenders is what will happen if we mistreat particular detainees. Some states have demanded that their nationals held at Gitmo be turned over to them, and we’ve complied.

Pressure at home has more or less tied the administration’s hands on the torture issue. Our own courts have refused to accept Yoo’s construction of presidential power.

However, as a practical matter, many of the highest level detainees could just vanish into secret detention. There’s no question of innocence here, and these guys are so odious that there’s no way to generate any particular public outcry on their behalf here, or anywhere in the world. Bush produced Khalid Shaikh Mohammed from such a detention and announced that he would be tried.

The trial seems like a political stunt, and I think it would have been better if KSM had never been brought out to allege mistreatment. If Bush gets this guy the death sentence, there will be allegations it was a show trial and that due process was not satisfied. But if he had never surfaced again, his execution assumed but unacknowledged, I don’t think there would have been much of an outcry.

I believe laws against murder, rape and kidnapping still apply to soldiers. Unlawful confinement of soldiers and taking hostages iare war crimes.

Iraqi and Afghan civilians are protected under the various conventions protecting civilians during wars. The argument is that the combatants are not protected under the conventions which dictate how enemy soldiers are to be treated.

I believe laws against murder, rape and kidnapping still apply to soldiers.

Not according to Yoo. After all, every soldier involved in a battle would be potentially on the hook for murder!

4. However, war crimes protections do not apply to al Qaeda prisoners because they are not POWs.

I believe laws against murder, rape and kidnapping still apply to soldiers. Unlawful confinement of soldiers and taking hostages iare war crimes.

One form of protest would be something as simple as an arrest warrant for kidnapping on a soldier who served as a guard in Iraq or Gitmo. That might force the DoD to state that these people either are or are not POWs…

The fact that you, or any of us *would* murder someone for righteous vengeance is the reason acts like murder and motives like vengeance are not recognized as legitimate under our laws. I oppose the death penalty not because i think i’m sooo awesome i would just never get vengeful, but because i shouldn’t be trusted to decide who lives and who dies, and neither should the people who hate me.
The memo is a testament to why you don’t give the power of life and death to a guy who’s like, “He tried to kill my dad.” Man, if i had a torture memo for everybody who might have tried to kill the dads of people i care about, i’d be like… at the Hague. The issue isn’t whether you *feel* the right kind of anger or vengeance, but whether it’s ok for you to do the wrong thing. It’s not ok.

Exactly, and really no different, except in scale, from the effort to identify and prosecute the Oklahoma Bomber, etc.

But “war” just has a better sound to it, and brings all sorts of potential for legal shenanigans, while “police manhunt” just doesn’t sound studly enough for guys like Commander Codpiece and Vice President Palpatine…

The events of 9/11 are a criminal matter - premeditated murder on a large scale.

Unless Congress has ressurrected the Letter of Marque - allowing Congress to declare war upon an individual - this is really just a global police manhunt.

Mitch, I think you have the terrorists confused with the Cheney/Bush administration.

The terrorists are not fighting to institute mandatory child pr0n or some other vile affront to morality, they are fighting for what they believe is justice.

We may (very strongly) disagree with their goals and especially their techniques for achieving their goals, but to claim, sans specifics, that their goals are always “abhorrent to human dignity” is naive at best and the lowest propaganda at worst.

Need I remind you that by any current definition, the founders of this country would be considered terrorists, for example?

OTOH, it’s pretty obvious that the Cheney/Bush administration sees their goals as the looting of the treasury, the raping of Iraq, the destruction of the Constitution, the acquiring of as much political power as possible, and the projection of American military power into any and all parts of the planet.

Now, who’s philosophy is more abhorrent?…

Or perhaps that you are not, in fact, a liberal at all.

That would explain the vague feelings of goodwill I’ve been having toward John McCain lately. I thought I might be coming down with meningitis or something.

Or perhaps that you are not, in fact, a liberal at all.