USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[xawery 0]

Haha, the belief that the "US and A" is the best thing since sliced bread isn't exactly new. I can only recommend Alexandra Pelosi's (yes, Nancy's daughter) documentary, "Friends of God". It premiered last thursday on HBO, but it's already being broadcasted here in the EU (it's being shown on Tegenlicht as I type). It's an intriguing study of extreme religiosity and nationalism. "There can be no morality without religion", "USA is the best country in the world", "The USA is blessed by God", "Please visit our drive-thru church" (I shit you not!... Amusing, but also pretty scary.

Another interesting aspects is that Pelosi was interviewing Ted Haggard around the time he was faced with accusation of drug and sexual abuse... Brilliant stuff; one moment he's preaching about how wrong gayness is, the other he's buggering a male prostitute. Double standards FTW!

Highly recommended!

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

ich, it makes no scence, why would god bless the USA over anyone other country? its ridiculous and to be its almost on a parr with extremest Islam, which is worrying becusae we could have a real holy war on our hands.  perhaps this is a different issue and we should stick to politics.  

[Baff1 0]

ich, it makes no scence, why would god bless the USA over anyone other country? its ridiculous and to be its almost on a parr with extremest Islam, which is worrying becusae we could have a real holy war on our hands.  perhaps this is a different issue and we should stick to politics.  

God blesses every country above all other countries.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

ich, it makes no scence, why would god bless the USA over anyone other country? its ridiculous and to be its almost on a parr with extremest Islam, which is worrying becusae we could have a real holy war on our hands.  perhaps this is a different issue and we should stick to politics.  

God blesses every country above all other countries.

Which is why we have wars

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

hmm, well perhaps a while back.  I wouldnt say most modern wars were drived by religion.  I think money is a much bigger issue in this capitalist phase were in (yes it is a phase).

[Sophion-Black 0]

ich, it makes no scence, why would god bless the USA over anyone other country? its ridiculous and to be its almost on a parr with extremest Islam, which is worrying becusae we could have a real holy war on our hands.  perhaps this is a different issue and we should stick to politics.  

God blesses every country above all other countries.

Which is why we have wars

we have wars because a group of people doesn't like another group of people. do you always tie wars to religion? it seems like every time someone says something about why a war was started you pop out of nowhere and yell "Its because of religion!" with an anti-religion mustache pinned to your head. it looks strikingly like hitler's mustache, might i add. he did, in fact, try to exterminate one religion. so you can kinda see why it looks so close.

But anyways, did you all hear about this:

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON, Nov. 30, 2006 —  U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories. According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006.

(Full Article)

just goes to show you that Iran hasn't changed and is still power hungry. I've been reading up on the history there it it looks like Iran is pushing to be imperialistic, in nature; and control the mideast.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

then again, the british goverment is providing iran equipment.  That also ends up in the hands of hezballah etc...  But we dont really care about doing that, i mean the US funded the IRA whos terror campaigns killed hundreds,  so why cant we wet our beak?

also what do you mean by hasnt changed?  i dont think iran has ever been power hungry.  Its been greeded over more like.  Suddenly Arab nationalism appears and there all 'power hungry'.

[Baff1 0]

just goes to show you that Iran hasn't changed and is still power hungry. I've been reading up on the history there it it looks like Iran is pushing to be imperialistic, in nature; and control the mideast.

Placing it in direct competition with ourselves then.

I don't think Iran has any especial historical record of this behaviour by the way.

[booradley60 0]

FBI snooping did not follow rules

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The FBI is guilty of "serious misuse" of the power to secretly obtain private information under the Patriot Act, a government audit said Friday.

The Justice Department's inspector general looked at the FBI's use of national security letters (NSLs), in which agents demand personal and business information about individuals -- such as financial, phone, and Internet records -- without court orders. Civil libertarians have slammed the practice.

"While national security letters are an important investigative tool, the FBI needs to ensure that it uses this authority in full accord with the national security letter statutes, attorney general guidelines, and FBI policies," Inspector General Glenn A. Fine said in the report.

"We concluded that many of the problems we identified constituted serious misuse of the FBI's national security letter authorities."

File this one under the "No shit" category.

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

This thread is NOT to be used for Bush or America bashing.  There are plenty of places to do that.

The intent of this thread is to discuss a very specific topic.  If you can't stay on target or resist the urge to make dimwitted comments...then refrain from posting anything.

Topic:  National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 51 (or NSPD-51).

Do a search of this topic and you will find a distinct lack of coverage by the "mainstream" press.  Bush has few fans remaining, and yet this nugget has been completely ignored by all of his foes.  You would think that such a seemingly diabolical event would ignite furious debate, and provide those eager to furthur damage the administration with evidence of their lofty claims.  And yet ....there is nothing to be said?

I can find some discussion on nut-job web sites...but they always have some Haliburton/UFO/satan conspiracy to talk about.  There has even been some talk about it in major US newspapers, yet with a satirical twist that robs it of any serious contemplation.  So why is it that an actual news source deemed "right wing" is the only one voicing sober concern?  

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but this really has my brain working hard trying to sort all of the possibilities, both simple and complex.  I hope that conservatives, libertarian's, and those in the middle not blinded by a partistan inflexibility will not let this go.  This may indeed get ugly.

I'm sorry this thread requires research, but I think you will be glad that you did.

Power Grab

George W. Bush Is GOP's Bill Clinton

Whitehouse.gov

Have you figured out why this guy is pissed?

NSPD-51/HSPD-20

[vilas 473]

if directive is a part of law of state, i cannot understand how parts of such law regulation can be secret ?

if law is law (and citizen has to obey this law reulation) , every citizen should have possibility to check it up , or am i wrong ?

in my country secret can be document, order, information but not a law regulation for citizens

Quote[/b] ]Sections 23 and 24 of NSPD-51/HSPD-20 specify that Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes are incorporated into the directive, even though they remain secret and are not available for examination as part of the published document

[shinRaiden 0]

Rock and a Hard place. The constitution makes elementary provision for succession in the presidency in extra-electoral situations, and that was expanded on by congress.

Continuity of National Command Authority is fairly well covered and has been even pre-Cold War. Continuity of regulatory and operational command is another matter entirely. Previously, it had been up to the individual agencies to implement and maintain their own continuity of operations plans, and those plans have continually evolved over time.

This Directive mandates that all agencies implement and maintain robust continuity of operations and regulatory powers programs. That is a very good thing. As was evidenced in New Orleans, the local continuity plans consistently are "head for the hills and wait for the Federal Government to bail us out." I disagree with that policy, but you also have to be pragmatic and make provision to cover those who don't view it as expedient to cover themselves, or in actual need have their resources entirely vacated.

Where the debate on this comes in is the theoretical premise that this would consolidate absolute power in declared emergency situations (Third World et. al.), with the potential for the Executive branch to find agencies of government not in compliance and exercise powers over those agencies. The concern then is that there would be insufficient resources for appeals through the courts, and the administrative authority to enforce judicial actions remains with the Executive branch, creating a catch-22 where the Executive branch would have to be trusted with implementing decisions potentially made against it, in situations where martial law etc gives clear constitutional authority for the suspension of habeas corpus etc.

On the surface, the premise of mandating continuity of operations and authority is a very good principle. In the Cold War, the assumption was that things would be so nuked that all you would need is a token congress, a couple judges, and the President on a plane with the Football. Post 9/11 however a different situation has to be considered, that is the state of limbo.

The Stock Markets were able to operationally recover within a day or two, if not hours, because of the business continuity plans in place. Yeah, there wasn't anybody to come in and the data lines were in trouble, but the parts were all there just waiting to be turned on. But until they got turned on the economy was on pause.

Secondly, look at the Anthrax mailings. Before they overhauled the mail handling processes, when one of the mailers came in they had to lockdown the entire building, and wait for decon and medical evaluations for all the staffers. That's downtime, and downtime is generally a bad thing in our 24x7 world.

Post-9/11 the agencies started looking at their own independent continuity plans. Most were billed to GWOT expansion, but a lot of the facilities were overcrowded and out of date anyway. What I suspect is driving a lot of the controversy is that a proper continuity of operations plan insists that your redundant facility have significant geographical and infrastructure separation from the primary operational center. So all of a sudden 'lifers' that thought they'd 'arrived' and they were finally in the 'inner circle' of social elites are getting told they're going to be working a long ways from downtown, and definitely outside the beltway. Faced with that humiliation of reality trumping personal petty pandering, they start throwing public hissy fits over the conspiracy theories the crackpots stay up all night dreaming up.

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

In response to vilas comment, it was not done in "secret."  It was as if nobody was paying attention.  

Interesting analysis shinRaiden.  You approach it from from an angle that is very informative, and seemingly much more trusting.

However it dose not alleviate my concern.  These new powers granted far exceed anything previously held by a president in a time of war.  This is a giant leap past FDR's War Powers Act during WWII or Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus in 1861 and 1862.  

Again I see this as far more than simple consolidation, which may be practical in business, but goes completely against separation of powers in American government.  Regardless of the intent of NSPD-51, of which an adequate explanation has yet to be given, the language and power granted is quite startling.

The simple fact is that this president, and those that follow, now hold power that the office was not intended to have.  The founding fathers would clearly have a fit if they knew that the office of the President had the powers of king.

I know the response to this is that I’m overstating it.  The simple fact is…I’m not.  This does give supreme power for any reason the President sees fit.  That is NOT over simplifying it.  The language is that broad, and the power that far reaching.

Of course that dose not mean it will be used with ill intent.  But can anyone guarantee that any successive president will also not misuse this?  We are talking about elitist politicians here….

[shinRaiden 0]

This doesn't have anything to do with separation of powers. This directive only applies to administrative functions and agencies already under the executive branch.

Quote[/b] ](9) Recognizing that each branch of the Federal Government is responsible for its own continuity programs, an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall ensure that the executive branch's COOP and COG policies in support of ECG efforts are appropriately coordinated with those of the legislative and judicial branches in order to ensure interoperability and allocate national assets efficiently to maintain a functioning Federal Government.

That says that the Executive Branch's chief coordinator shall coordinate with the other branches' coordinators.

If you want to explore possible changes in government, it's this section that you should be looking at :

Quote[/b] ](10) Federal Government COOP, COG, and ECG plans and operations shall be appropriately integrated with the emergency plans and capabilities of State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to promote interoperability and to prevent redundancies and conflicting lines of authority. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall coordinate the integration of Federal continuity plans and operations with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to provide for the delivery of essential services during an emergency.

Now let's look at the situation a little deeper. There's no obvious concern on the strictly Federal level, it's just a matter of cracking the whip on the DC agencies to get their plans in gear (hello, Y2K, this stuff should have been done 10 years ago, its not just a 9/11 thing) and coordinate them. Does that give the President more power over the Executive branch? If the answer is yes, then what was going on (or not) before hand? That's a worrying question there.

Switching over to Federal-State relations is where you have a case for things getting murky. The states are all technically their own authorities (except in interstate activities) and duplicate all their agencies. The National Guard likewise is state's resources, not the Federal government. However, that doesn't mean they can't be bought off, see all the bits in section (16). All those goodies in training and money, does that come free? Most likely not. That's the way funded mandates work, you get the money by agreeing to show up when called. If you want DC's money for new radios, you have to agree to let them run the radio net. And so on.

This is where you get the dissolution of the Federal-State checks. By outsourcing their emergency services, the local governments can then shift those monies over to political projects. Things may have been quite a bit different in New Orleans if the locals hadn't been skimming the levee money for local graft. Had they done their job as they should have, it's much less likely that their established constituency would not have had to be airlifted out and scattered across the country.

[Major Fubar 0]

I've merged the NSPD-51/HSPD-20 thread by Sc@tterbrain into the USA Politics Thread.

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

I've merged the NSPD-51/HSPD-20 thread by Sc@tterbrain into the USA Politics Thread.

But I hate this thread!   Well having entered the topic graveyard, end of discussion for me. I really prefer to aviod this thread.

Having read the laguage itself and being enlightened by Shin radien, I am "less" worried about this. Thanks for your input.

My suspicious nature will still have me wondering what ways it can be misused.

[Balschoiw 0]

There is no such thing as "illegal combatants".

Finally some common sense is coming back to the USA delivering a blow for G.W. and delivering some basic rights to prisoners at Gitmo.

A camp that has lost it´s right to exist long ago.

Supreme Court Blocks Guantánamo Tribunals

Quote[/b] ]The Supreme Court on Thursday repudiated the Bush administration's plan to put Guantánamo detainees on trial before military commissions, ruling broadly that the commissions were unauthorized by federal statute and violated international law.

"The executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails in this jurisdiction," Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the 5-to-3 majority, said at the end of a 73-page opinion that in sober tones shredded each of the administration's arguments, including the assertion that Congress had stripped the court of jurisdiction to decide the case. A principal but by no means the only flaw the court found in the commissions was that the president had established them without Congressional authorization.

The decision was such a sweeping and categorical defeat for the Bush administration that it left human rights lawyers who have pressed this and other cases on behalf of Guantanamo detainees almost speechless with surprise and delight, using words like "fantastic," "amazing," "remarkable." Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a public interest law firm in New York that represents hundreds of detainees, said, "It doesn't get any better."

President Bush said he planned to work with Congress to "find a way forward," and there were signs of bipartisan interest on Capitol Hill in crafting legislation that would authorize new, revamped commissions intended to withstand judicial scrutiny.

The courtroom was, surprisingly, not full, but among those in attendance, there was no doubt that they were witnessing a historic event, a definitional moment in the ever-shifting balance of power among the branches of government that ranked with the court's order to President Nixon in 1974 to turn over the Watergate tapes or with the court's rejection of President Truman's seizure of the nation's steel mills, a 1952 landmark decision from which Justice Kennedy quoted at length.

Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, introduced a bill immediately and said his committee would hold a hearing on July 11, as soon as Congress returns from the July 4 recess. Mr. Specter said the administration had resisted his effort to propose similar legislation as early as 2002.

Two Republican senators, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jon Kyl of Arizona, said in a joint statement that they were "disappointed" but that "we believe the problems cited by the court can and should be fixed." They added, "Working together, Congress and the administration can draft a fair, suitable, and constitutionally permissible tribunal statute."Both overseas and in the United States, critics of the administration's detention policies praised the decision and urged President Bush to take it as an occasion to shut down the Guantanamo prison camp. "The ruling destroys one of the key pillars of the Guantanamo system," said Gerald Staberock, a director of the International Commission of Jurists in Geneva. He added: "Guantanamo was built on the idea that prisoners there have limited rights. There is no longer that legal black hole."

The majority opinion by Justice Stevens and a concurring opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who also signed most of Justice Stevens's opinion, indicated that finding a legislative solution would not necessarily be easy. In an important part of the ruling, the court held that a provision of the Geneva Conventions known as Common Article 3 applies to the Guantanamo detainees and is enforceable in federal court for their protection.

This provision requires humane treatment of captured combatants and prohibits trials except by "a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized people."

The opinion made it clear that while this provision does not necessarily require the full range of protections of a civilian court or a military court martial, it does require observance of protections for defendants that are missing from the rules the administration has issued for military commissions. The flaws the court cited were the failure to guarantee the defendant the right to attend the trial and the prosecution's ability under the rules to introduce hearsay evidence, unsworn testimony, and evidence obtained through coercion.

Justice Stevens said that the historical origin of military commissions was in their use re as a "tribunal of necessity" under wartime conditions. "Exigency lent the commission its legitimacy," he said, "but did not further justify the wholesale jettisoning of procedural protections."

The majority opinion was also joined by Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer, who wrote a brief concurring opinion of his own that focused on the role of Congress. "The court's conclusion ultimately rests upon a single ground: Congress has not issued the executive a blank check," he said.

The dissenters were Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel A. Alito Jr. Each wrote a dissenting opinion. Justice Scalia focused on the jurisdictional issue, arguing that Congress had stripped the court of jurisdiction to proceed with this case, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, No. 05-184, when it passed the Detainee Treatment Act last December and provided that "no court, justice, or judge" had jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions filed by detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The question was whether that withdrawal of jurisdiction applied to pending cases. The majority held that it did not.

Justice Thomas's dissenting opinion addressed the substance of the court's legal conclusions. In a portion of his opinion that Justices Scalia and Alito also signed, he called the decision "untenable" and "dangerous." He observed that "those justices who today disregard the commander-in-chief's wartime decisions" had last week been willing to defer to the judgment of the Army Corps of Engineers in a Clean Water Act case. "It goes without saying that there is much more at stake here than storm drains," he said.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. did not take part in the case. Last July, four days before President Bush nominated him to the Supreme Court, he was one of the members of a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court here that ruled for the administration in this case.

In the courtroom on Thursday morning, the chief justice sat silently in his center chair as Justice Stevens, sitting to his immediate right as the senior associate justice, read from the majority opinion. It made for a striking tableau on the final day of the first term of the Roberts court: the young chief justice, observing his work of just a year earlier taken apart point by point by the tenacious 86-year-old Justice Stevens, winner of a Bronze Star for his service as a Navy officer during World War II.

The decision came in an appeal brought on behalf of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who was captured in Afghanistan in November 2001 and brought to Guantanamo in June 2002. According to the government, he was a driver and bodyguard for Osama Bin Laden. In July 2003, he and five others were to be the first to face trial by military commission. But it was not until the next year that he was formally charged with a crime, conspiracy.

The commission proceeding began but was interrupted when the federal district court here ruled in November 2004 that the commission was invalid. This was the ruling that the federal appeals court, with the participation of then-Judge Roberts, overturned last July.

Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, Mr. Hamdan's Navy lawyer, told the Associated Press that he had informed his client about the ruling by telephone. "I think he was awe-struck that the court would rule for him, and give a little man like him an equal chance," Commander Swift said. "Where he's from, that is not true."

The decision contained unwelcome implications, from the administration's point of view, for other legal battles, some with equal or greater importance than the fate of the military commissions themselves.

For example, in finding that the federal courts still have jurisdiction to hear cases filed before this year by detainees at Guantanamo Bay, the justices put back on track for decision a dozen cases in the lower courts here that challenge basic rules and procedures governing life for the hundreds of people confined at the United States naval base there.

In ruling that the congressional "authorization for the use of military force," passed in the days immediately following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, cannot be interpreted to legitimize the military commissions, the ruling poses a direct challenge to the administration's legal justification for its secret wiretapping program.

Representative Adam Schiff, a California Democrat who has also introduced a bill with procedures for trying the Guantanamo detainees, said the court's refusal to give an open-ended ruling to the force resolution meant that the resolution could not be viewed as authorizing the National Security Agency's domestic wiretapping.

Perhaps most significantly, in ruling that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to the Guantanamo detainees, the court rejected the administration's view that the article does not cover followers of Al Qaeda. The decision potentially opened the door to challenges, by those held by the United States anywhere in the world, to treatment that could be regarded under the provision as inhumane.

Justice Stevens said that because the charge against Mr. Hamdan, conspiracy, was not a violation of the law of war, it could not be the basis for a trial before a military commission. Justice Kennedy did not join this section of the opinion, leaving it with only four votes, because he said it was unnecessary given the general finding that the commissions were invalid.

Guantanamo pair's charges dropped

Quote[/b] ]A US military judge has thrown out charges against two Guantanamo Bay detainees, casting fresh doubt on efforts to try foreign terror suspects.

Both cases collapsed because military authorities had failed to designate the men as "unlawful" enemy combatants.

In one case a Canadian man, Omar Khadr, was accused of killing a US soldier in Afghanistan with a grenade.

Charges were also dropped against Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni accused of being Osama Bin Laden's driver and bodyguard.

The BBC's James Westhead in Washington says the rulings deal a stunning blow to the Bush administration's attempt to bring its detainees at Guantanamo Bay to trial.

Under a new system of military justice approved by Congress last year, detainees facing trial must be designated "unlawful enemy combatants".

When they were assessed years earlier they were described only as "enemy combatants". The word "unlawful" did not appear, giving the new tribunals no jurisdiction.

It seems the same may apply to all the other 380 detainees, leaving the tribunal system in legal limbo while Bush administration lawyers race to clarify the situation.

The US government has basically three options, our correspondent says:

* throw the whole system out and start again, which would

be very embarrassing for the Bush administration

* redesignate all the detainees as "unlawful enemy

combatants", which would require a separate administrative

hearing

* appeal against the ruling - but this would need to be

handled by an appeals court, the military commissions

review, which has not yet been established

Tribunal issue

Defendant Omar Khadr, 20, appeared in court on Monday wearing a prison uniform, light sandals and a straggly beard.

He was just 15 years old when he was captured in Afghanistan, and was accused of killing a US soldier during a battle at a suspected al-Qaeda base in 2002.

He appeared in court charged with murder, attempted murder, conspiracy and providing support for terrorism.

The judge left open the possibility that Mr Khadr could be re-charged if he appeared before an official review panel and was formally classified as an "unlawful" enemy combatant.

He said prosecutors could lodge an appeal within 72 hours, although it was not immediately clear who they could appeal to. Prosecutors have indicated they intend to appeal.

All charges were dropped in the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, accused of serving both as chauffeur and bodyguard to al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden.

Lawyers for Mr Hamdan said: "It was a victory for the rule of law and the law of war."

Legal limbo

The tribunal's chief defence counsel, Marine Colonel Dwight Sullivan, said the rulings were not a technicality, but another demonstration that the system did not work.

Senator Chris Dodd, a Democratic presidential candidate, said the system was corroding America's foundation of freedom.

Senator Arlen Specter, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told the New York Times that Monday's ruling could prompt Congress to re-evaluate the legal rights of detainees.

"The sense I have is that there's an unease, an uncomfortable sense about the whole Guantanamo milieu. There's just a sense of too many shortcuts in the whole process," he said.

The Guantanamo Bay facility was set up by the US in January 2002 to detain foreign prisoners suspected of links with al-Qaeda or the Taliban.

About 770 inmates - many from the conflict in Afghanistan - have been at the camp on Cuba, which is not subject to normal US court rules.

Only one person - Australian David Hicks - has been convicted at Guantanamo. He was jailed for nine months in March 2007, and is now serving the sentence in Adelaide.

Stuck in Guantanamo

Quote[/b] ]President Bush tried to create a new legal system for terrorism suspects. He created a quagmire instead.

Thursday, June 7, 2007; Page A26

THE BUSH administration's chronically failing attempt to invent a new legal system for holding and trying terrorism suspects has suffered yet another setback. On Monday, war crimes charges against two al-Qaeda suspects held at the Guantanamo Bay prison were dismissed by two different military judges. Both ruled that the administration had not legally established that the accused were "unlawful enemy combatants" and thus subject to trial by Guantanamo's military commissions. More than five years after President Bush rejected the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. court-martial system for handling al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners, the first trial of a detainee once again has been put off indefinitely. That gives Congress a chance to rework the bad system it was stampeded into approving before last fall's midterm elections.

The administration's latest stumble resulted from the fact that the two men it was trying to put on trial, Salim Ahmed Hamdan and Omar Khadr, had been judged by Guantanamo's parallel system of Combatant Status Review Tribunals to be "enemy combatants" only, without the designation "unlawful." Contrary to the claims of embarrassed Pentagon spokesmen, the problem is not merely semantic but stems directly from Mr. Bush's disastrous decision to ignore the Geneva Conventions. Capt. Keith J. Allred, a military judge, ruled that Mr. Hamdan had never received "an individualized determination" that he was an unlawful combatant, as required under Geneva; without that, detainees are entitled to be treated as prisoners of war. The judge also found that the standard for "enemy combatant" used by the status tribunals was broader than that for "unlawful combatant" as established by Congress for purposes of the military commissions.

In theory, the administration could appeal the judges' rulings -- but the appeals court that is to hear military commission cases hasn't yet been established. The administration could also rehold tribunals for the approximately 80 Guantanamo detainees it intends to put on trial. Either way, the legal quagmire it has blundered into will only deepen, along with the discredit Guantanamo has already acquired around the world. Cleaning up the mess won't be easy: While closing Guantanamo is an important goal, this administration or its successor will first have to figure out how to dispose of those prisoners who cannot be tried or returned to their native countries and who are too dangerous to be released.

For now, Congress can mitigate the trouble by passing two pieces of legislation that are before it. One, to be voted on today by the Senate Judiciary Committee under the bipartisan sponsorship of Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), would restore the right of habeas corpus to Guantanamo prisoners, allowing them to appeal their detentions to U.S. federal courts. The other, which has been attached to the Senate's version of the annual defense authorization bill by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), would reform the deeply flawed tribunal process at Guantanamo by requiring that detainees be represented by lawyers and have access to the evidence against them. The measure would also curtail the use of evidence obtained by coercion and require that the tribunals be headed by judges. If Guantanamo detainees are to be subject to special trials in which they could be sentenced to death, the process that determines them to be "unlawful combatants" who are eligible for that justice should be unimpeachable.

Removing even the very basic rights of humans in front of a court is nothing that is internationally accepted and it is a shame that such initiatives are coming from a country that does not hesitate to promote it´s way of living as a high value example of

democracy and tries to promote and spread that system among others.

I´m glad that finally the courts returned to some international standards, the White House under Bush has turned away from them so deeply that it´s almost criminal.

[allanorg 0]

The carrot patch kids are there for a reason.

who cares.

[baddo 0]

Removing even the very basic rights of humans in front of a court is nothing that is internationally accepted and it is a shame that such initiatives are coming from a country that does not hesitate to promote it´s way of living as a high value example of

democracy and tries to promote and spread that system among others.

Yes, yes... it is very controversial that a country that drives its ideology of democracy and freedom to others is actually doing this kind of things. For starters keeping people locked away for years so that they have practically no chance to even try defending themselfs.

One of the most disgusting things I have ever seen is the spreading of democracy with acts of war, even if it is said to come as a side effect. In my opinion such a system spreads by itself if it is truly worth it. Forcing it upon others with the 'help' of acts of war is not going to be succesful, no matter how brilliant you claim the system is.

A lot of compassion and support was given for USA after the incidents of 9/11/2001. It is sad that some relatively small group of people have so effectively blewn it all away.

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

A lot of compassion and support was given for USA after the incidents of 9/11/2001. It is sad that some relatively small group of people have so effectively blewn it all away.

Not to mention the billions of US dollars spent after the tsunami, to prop up the crumbling UN, and thrown out to numerous government enteties including Hamas.

Of course the billions spent in Iraq pretty much wash that out of the minds.

Anyway...to keep the topic current. Today in the Senate, out of touch Senators hearing the distant roar, decided the safe bet to keeping thier jobs was to listen to those who can still legally vote.

"Rarely does a legislative fight get as emotional as the battle over immigration. A flood of angry phone calls from opponents of the overhaul shut down the Capitol switchboard before the vote, overwhelming the message from a small klatch of immigrant-rights demonstrators urging passage outside the Capitol. Latino lawmakers from the House flooded onto the Senate floor to encourage senators to keep the legislation alive and let the House have a turn.

The bill's opponents painted the fight as a battle between U.S. citizens and a government that has grown insensitive to an illegal-immigrant invasion that threatens the nation's fabric. Proponents said the Senate had succumbed to the angry voices of hate, venom and racism."

Full Article

Dosen't matter what side your on, it sure has been a while since the will of the people was heard. Maybe the people need to lean a bit harder on their representatives to get some movement on other topics of the day as well.

discuss...

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

This isn't directly related to US politics, but more about the media in the US. More precise, Fox news.

Check out this video:

(Outfoxed)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6737097743434902428

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

Figures, considering Murdoch is now a Hillary Clinton supporter who has given buku bucks to her campaign.

Slime tends to stick together.

Murdoch and Clinton?..wha?

However this movie was made durring the Bush-Kerry campaign. Try to stay current Espectro.

Great line from the movie:

"What they learn about the candidates will be what the media shows them, or tells them, decides not to show, or not to tell."

I guess we won't hear anything about the Clinton's illegal campaign financing or links to InfoUSA.

Won't see this on FOX.

...or this.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Figures, considering Murdoch is now a Hillary Clinton supporter who has given buku bucks to her campaign.

Slime tends to stick together.

Murdoch and Clinton?..wha?

However this movie was made durring the Bush-Kerry campaign. Try to stay current Espectro.

Great line from the movie:

"What they learn about the candidates will be what the media shows them, or tells them, decides not to show, or not to tell."

I guess we won't hear anything about the Clinton's illegal campaign financing or links to InfoUSA.

Won't see this on FOX.

...or this.

I just posted it, as the theme is not out of date, and of a lack of any other thread to post it in. (I'm sure if I made a new topic, it would be closed within minutes).

[Balschoiw 0]

The king of hearts has spoken !

Free Libby !

Sorry, this is so absurd. Talking about justice is nothing

G.W. should do ever again. Nowhere, not in the US nor elsewhere on the planet or in the universe as a whole.

What a gang of criminals.

Bush spares Libby from jail term

Quote[/b] ]US President George W Bush has intervened to prevent Lewis Libby, a convicted former vice-presidential aide, from serving a prison term.

President Bush described as "excessive" the 30-month sentence Libby was facing for obstructing an inquiry into the leaking of a CIA agent's name.

Though no longer required to go to jail, Libby is still due to serve a period of probation and pay a fine.

A leading Democratic politician said Mr Bush's decision was "disgraceful".

History will judge the president "harshly" for using his power to benefit his vice-president's former chief of staff, Harry Reid, the leading Democrat in the US Senate, said.

The BBC's James Westhead in Washington says the president has portrayed his decision as a compromise between pardoning Libby outright and allowing his sentence to stand unchanged.

'Criminal conduct'

Lewis Libby, also known by his nickname, "Scooter" Libby, was found guilty in March of perjury and obstructing justice in a case connected to Washington's decision to invade Iraq.

His trial stemmed from the accusation that the White House had illegally made public the identity of a serving CIA agent, Valerie Plame, in an apparent effort to embarrass her husband.

Ms Plame's husband, a former US diplomat, had publicly criticised the basis for the invasion of Iraq.

Libby was found to have lied to investigators about conversations where he mentioned Ms Plame but he was not convicted of having directly leaked her name.

He was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison, two years of probation and a fine of $250,000 (£125,000).

Democratic leader Harry Reid said the conviction was "the one faint glimmer of accountability for White House efforts to manipulate intelligence and silence critics of the Iraq war".

Responding to President Bush's decision to commute Libby's sentence, he said: "Now, even that small bit of justice has been undone."

Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Speaker in the House of Representatives, said Mr Bush's decision showed he "condones criminal conduct".

The prosecutor who led the case against Libby, Patrick Fitzgerald, challenged Mr Bush's statement that the sentence was "excessive", saying "all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals".

'Forever damaged'

Hours before President Bush's announcement, an appeals court had told Libby he could no longer delay going to jail.

The judge ruled that Libby could not remain free on bail while his lawyer appealed against the sentence.

President Bush said he had until now refrained from intervening in the case, waiting instead for the appeals process to take its course.

"But with the denial of bail being upheld and incarceration imminent, I believe it is now important to react to that decision," he said.

"I respect the jury's verdict," President Bush said. "But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr Libby is excessive," Mr Bush said.

However, he said, Libby's remaining punishments - the probation period and fine - were "harsh" and would leave his reputation "forever damaged"

I´m speechless.

[billybob2002 0]

I´m speechless.

Huh? Libby is still a felon and he is still disbarred from practicing law. He just doesn't have to go jail. Personally, I don't think he deserved 30 months because he wasn't the leaker of Plame's status of being a CIA agent. He just misled about how and when he knew about Plame's status of being a CIA agent. Hell, LiL Kim, a female rapper, got less time for claiming that she did not know some individuals involved in a shooting but she did (conspiracy and perjury).

This isn't like the Nixon pardon. However, the Democrats are trying to make it seem so with their "anger".