Fighting terrorism- Gitmo, torture, no trials, Oh my!
When Guantanamo Bay is brought up these days in the media, it is usually in unison with the words “unconstitutional”, “unlawful”, and “unethical”. Some even say it goes against the Geneva Conventions. As you can see by the photo, the detainees have it really bad with their 12 hours of recreation time. I find this amusing (Yet sad, as always), because a large majority of the people making these claims don’t know the law. Many probably haven’t even read the Constitution nor the Geneva Conventions. So let me say it here and now: waterboarding, the suspension of habeas corpus, and the Guantanamo Bay detention facility are all 100% legal, both under U.S. law and international law.
But how? Why? The all-knowing media and the One tells us that those are all illegal and wrong. Let me start with U.S. law. The most common talk is about how prisoners are held indefinitely. Critics say this goes against the Constitution, as it suspends habeas corpus (Right to a trial by jury). Let us look at the Constitution, Article 1 Section 9:
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.
So if there is rebellion, invasion, or a danger to the public, the government is granted the power to suspend habeas corpus, not just for the unlawful combatants at Gitmo, but for anyone. Interestingly enough, no U.S. citizen has been held at Guantanamo Bay. Moving onto the Military Commissions Act of 2006, we find that unlawful combatant is:
(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al-Qaida, or associated forces); or
(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.
It goes on to mention that this person must be an “alien”, or non-U.S. citizen, to be labeled as an unlawful combatant. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 gave the government the power to suspend habeas corpus. This echoes the Geneva Conventions, which states:
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
By the Geneva Conventions, not only can habeas corpus be suspended for Gitmo detainees, they can be held to a different standard than regular POWs. Yes, they can be waterboarded. Note how waterboarding isn’t listed as torture under the UN provisions nor Geneva. It leaves no lasting physical ailments nor does it cause immense pain. It is simple how to describe waterboarding: fear. It is the pre-existing fear of drowning, implemented in a controlled and harmless fashion.
Of course, this all means nothing if the anti-terrorism tactics don’t work. Do they work? You will often hear the myth that Gitmo is used by terrorists as a recruiting tool and that the information obtained from waterboarded detainees is unreliable. In Arthur Herman’s special preview in Commentary Magazine, The Gitmo Myth and the Torture Canard, he explains how the waterboarding was not only rare (only three detainees were waterboarded), but how the other “enhanced interrogation techniques” were effective:
He [Muhammad el-Qahtani] was subjected to 20-hour interrogation sessions, being tied to a dog leash (no actual dogs were involved), having water poured continually on his head (but no waterboarding), while women’s clothes were dropped on his face and a bra strapped across his clothed chest. These and other humiliations, including turning up the air-conditioning to uncomfortable levels, did result in Qahtani’s brief hospitalization in early December with brachyocardia. However, none remotely approached the definition of torture defined by the OLC’s August 2002 memo as administering physical pain equal to the intensity “accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death,” or psychological harm “lasting for months or even years.” By then, Qahtani had confessed that he worked for al Qaeda. One by one, without hesitation, he picked out pictures of all nineteen of the 9/11 hijackers and called out their names—and admitted that he, not Zacarias Moussaoui, had been slated to be the twentieth hijacker. He also revealed that the true mastermind of the attack was Osama bin Laden’s deputy Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Qahtani also fingered another Saudi al-Qaeda operative, Adnan el-Shukrijumah, who was in the United States organizing another 9/11-style attack for the summer of 2004. Khalid Mohammed’s subsequent capture in Pakistan in March 2003 revealed still more details which, we now know, enabled the Bush administration to foil a second wave of suicide attacks directed at Los Angeles. By any standard, his interrogation had also yielded valuable, actionable intelligence that saved American lives.
So not only were the techniques 100% legal, they were effective in saving American lives. So if they are in accordance with both domestic and international laws, and they are effective in protecting Americans, why is there debate? My guess is because people are still more often than not completely ignorant and would rather reiterate someone else’s talking points rather than be an individual and form their own opinion. Fight the zombie menace, don’t succumb to the social disease that is liberalism.
UPDATE
49% disagree with closing Gitmo while only 38% approve.
Lmao! My short answer: you’re a big-government, liberal coward.
My long answer, which you shied away from when I presented it in a live debate: The U.S. Constitution (which I believe is the rule of law and well beyond “international law’ - i.e. the Geneva Convention) provides for suspension of habeas corpus ONLY in the case of rebellion or invasion. You conveniently didn’t address this point and for good reason, because your argument is blatantly unconstitutional. This is neither a rebellion nor an invasion and be prepared to be laughed at if you call 9/11 an invasion. And since I know you’re defense is that “9/11 was an invasion”, let me offer my preliminary remarks: Hahahahahaha.
40,000 plus people die each year from car accidents, just as many from influenza, and 910,000 each year from heart disease and yet you’re a coward liberal ready to call in the government because you’re scared from one event which killed 3,000.
Lol by the way it’s a good thing you’re not a journalist because your choice of sources is horrendous. This article would be thrown out by my high school journalism teacher and certainly failed by my college professor. You’re quoting a man with a diploma in HISTORY. Word of advice: he doesn’t know a fucking thing about waterboarding. Not to mention your obvious conflict of interest.
“Fighting terrorism”
Bahahahahah! I can’t believe you’re willing to be so scared by a government ploy. I guess you’re ignorant of American history, typical of your posts. You wouldn’t mind if the government arrested your own brother, called him “an unlawful enemy combatant” (which it can do under laws you approve of because you’re a terrified neo-conservative), and held him indefinitely without trial. Oh yeah and waterboarded him which is no big deal to you, a person who has never been waterboarded. My cousin believed in much of the same until he was blindfolded in the middle of the night and waterboarded as part of training for the SEALs. Lol as if I would take you and Cheney’s word for it.
I rather die at the hands of terrorists than give up my freedom. Dare I be so bold as to say “Give me liberty or give my death!”? Of course I would rather die in a free country than live in a fascist one. Maybe you should consider our Founding Fathers before getting on your knees and blowing the Republican Party.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Government is constructed for one reason: to protect the rights of its constituents. Of course you’re willing to give up said rights because you’re terrified. Luckily there are clear-minded libertarians here to show you how erroneous you are.
You’re a small-government “conservative” while it benefits you but when you’re worried about the brown neighbor who prays to a different invisible guy than you, you run to the government and allow for breaks in the Constitution or, even more humorously, justify big-government. At least it provides me with a chuckle or two.
Justin you are rude and vulgar. I hate you
” provides for suspension of habeas corpus ONLY in the case of rebellion or invasion. ”
Did you read Article 1 Section 9? You are using the fallacy of vicious abstraction. It also says “the public safety might require it”. Note how there are Al Qaeda operatives and other terrorist groups in the US, actively planning attacks. Note how we have thwarted dozens of them. If you think the public safety isn’t in danger and that there aren’t enemies on US soil, then your logic would be correct, but all evidence says you are wrong.
Seeing as how car accidents are the result of something beneficial to society (the ability to drive cars) and influenza is fought but some people are still bound to die from it (old/young/sick people), those are horrible examples. 9/11 was something that could have been prevented, as shown by how we prevented plenty of other terrorist attacks.
“Word of advice: he doesn’t know a fucking thing about waterboarding.”
Lolz, you didn’t address anything stated because you probably found it to be true and it goes against most of your claims. He is using evidence straight from Congressional and FBI records, and is quoting the FBI and Army field manuals. If you want to discredit my source somehow, address what it says. Apparently he knows more than you because if you knew what he and I know, and were sane (I’m questioning at this point), you’d agree that waterboarding should continue.
“I can’t believe you’re willing to be so scared by a government ploy”
? Isn’t this the reason why we have an army? Taxes? A government? Because we fear for our safety and our rights?
“You wouldn’t mind if the government arrested your own brother, called him “an unlawful enemy combatant” (which it can do under laws you approve of because you’re a terrified neo-conservative), and held him indefinitely without trial. Oh yeah and waterboarded him which is no big deal to you, a person who has never been waterboarded”
Well that would be illegal as under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, only non US citizens can be labeled as “enemy combatants”. So, yes, I would care. Note how they don’t just label people as unlawful combatants, there is a military tribunal determining whether or not the enemy is lawful or not, so they have a sort of trial. And I would like to be waterboarded, just to see what it is like. It has little to no pain, just a bit of pressure. There are no lasting effects. It is fear and fear alone that pushes people over the edge. Note how only 3 people have been waterboarded, out of the total 770 prisoners at Gitmo.
” I guess you’re ignorant of American history, typical of your posts. ”
You never say anything to support this claim. Can I just call it ad hominem and move on?
“I rather die at the hands of terrorists than give up my freedom. Dare I be so bold as to say “Give me liberty or give my death!”?”
Thank goodness George W Bush protected your freedom and made sure only aliens can be labeled as unlawful combatants.
“Maybe you should consider our Founding Fathers before getting on your knees and blowing the Republican Party.”
And you neglect history. Habeas Corpus has been suspended multiple times before, both in case of martial law and by Presidents Grant and Lincoln. Lincoln’s was in the case of rebellion, Grant’s as a way of enforcing civil rights legislation. Might I mention that Johnson v. Eisentrager, where the US supreme court allowed the US to hold non resident aliens in foreign prisons without trial by jury. So really, everything being done is still in accordance with law, and history. There is good reason why our Founding Fathers placed Article 1 Section 9 in the Constitution, because it is necessary for the public safety. Deny this and I will point you to the dozens of thwarted terrorist attacks.
“Government is constructed for one reason: to protect the rights of its constituents. Of course you’re willing to give up said rights because you’re terrified.”
But look, the rights of its constituents aren’t being infringed. The only people housed at Gitmo and held without trial are nonresident aliens.
“Luckily there are clear-minded libertarians here to show you how erroneous you are.”
Yes, THC really clears the mind.
“You’re a small-government “conservative” while it benefits you but when you’re worried about the brown neighbor who prays to a different invisible guy than you, you run to the government and allow for breaks in the Constitution or, even more humorously, justify big-government. At least it provides me with a chuckle or two.”
I could care less if a person is Muslim or not, first off. I ask the government to do its job and protect the American people from vicious attacks on innocent civilians. Note they do not break the Constitution and this isn’t big government, it is just the government doing its job. It humors me that you consider yourself such a scholar on the Constitution but you are so negligent of its contents.
“Did you read Article 1 Section 9? You are using the fallacy of vicious abstraction. It also says “the public safety might require it”.”
[2] 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.
So my point stands: only in certain cases of rebellion or invasion. What don’t you understand about this?
“If you think the public safety isn’t in danger and that there aren’t enemies on US soil, then your logic would be correct, but all evidence says you are wrong.”
You continue to make my point for me. Of course there will always be “bad guys” in the U.S. but we as Americans should not back down from such fears and allow for a power grab by our government. Our Founding Fathers feared exactly that and were terrified by the possibilities after witnessing it first-hand in the colonies. I’m sure the government could always point to an enemy - either real or imaginary - and claim they need such unlimited powers to restrain the threat. It’s neo-McCarthyism and fundamentally un-American.
“Interestingly enough, no U.S. citizen has been held at Guantanamo Bay.”
I’ll give you another lesson in journalism or writing in general, you might want to get your facts straight before posting them, it tends to help credibility. Yader Hamdi and Jose Padilla (I’m sure you’ve heard of Rumsfeld v. Padilla). Although records are lacking concerning where Padilla was held, we know he was held without trial and deemed an “enemy combatant” under legislation you failed to mention (or have never heard of), the 2002 Iraq Resolution. There was also John Walker Lindh and we know how they treated him. But it wouldn’t matter if thousands of Americans were held at Gitmo, you would justify it for as long as the party and your fears continued to control your thinking.
“It leaves no lasting physical ailments”
While not dangerous in the controlled, training-style mode, when given to an unsuspecting person, it can be. People often times call it by the misnomer “simulated drowning” but it is in fact actual drowning. You’re pouring pints of water into someone’s lungs until their gag reflex swells. While it’s not drowning to death, it is in fact drowning.
“you didn’t address anything stated because you probably found it to be true”
Uhm, no. See if you read my comment you would see a common theme: I’m discussing civil liberties, the Constitution, etc while your source is discussing whether or not torture is successful. Since I prefer to stay on topic, I focused little time on the matter.
As for a refutation all I would need to say is that the historian in question is describing one case while you’re somehow expanding it to cover the whole realm of torture. Not to mention I could quote a myriad of opposing viewpoints from people who actually have experience with your beloved “enhanced interrogation techniques”.
“Isn’t this the reason why we have an army? Taxes? A government? Because we fear for our safety and our rights?”
I already claimed we have government in order to protect our rights. There is no other reason and as far as a standing army, it is often a threat to liberty, not protector of. But of course our Founding Fathers knew that as well, if only we would listen.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
“Well that would be illegal as under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, only non US citizens can be labeled as “enemy combatants”.”
But you fail to consider the implications of the term in quotations. An enemy combatant can not challenge this label and once he/she is considered an enemy combatant, he/she has no right to a trial or to face the accusers and evidence against. So under the USA PATRIOT Act and the suspension of habeas corpus you promote, a cop or federal agent could enter your home without a warrant, claim you’re a threat and label you an enemy combatant, and then hold you indefinitely for years. And then maybe you would get your wish and face torture.
“Thank goodness George W Bush protected your freedom and made sure only aliens can be labeled as unlawful combatants.”
GWB unconstitutionally claimed the power to suspend habeas corpus which certainly doesn’t belong to the executive branch even in the cases when it’s acceptable. As for history, consider other power grabs after supposed attacks or insurrections, most notably Hitler’s rising after the burning of the Reichstag. But the point of our Constitution is to limit these powers and in both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist writings were concerns that, during an emergency, such limits could be lost. They now have been and I honestly don’t want to live in a country with lacking civil liberties because it’s not truly America. This country lost its collective mind following 9/11 and the American way of life disappeared.
The terrorists have won.
“of course there will always be “bad guys” in the U.S. but we as Americans should not back down from such fears and allow for a power grab by our government.”
Bad guys is an ambiguous term. If there are individuals who have unlawfully waged war on American citizens and succeeded in killing thousands of innocent civilians, it is clearly an invasion. Not only that, but had the other attacks not been thwarted, what would the number be? Ten thousand? A hundred thousand? At what point are you willing to let the government suspend habeas corpus for UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS? These are innocent civilians. These are the worst of the worst of POWs. You are acting as if their rights are being infringed upon, but you neglect that the law says they receive little to no rights.
“and claim they need such unlimited powers to restrain the threat.”
Thank God this isn’t the case. You are seriously over-estimating the government’s power in the situation. The writ of habeas corpus was suspended for unlawful combatants and unlawful combatants only. Also, they receive a military tribunal, which in my eyes, is more than enough.
“Yader Hamdi and Jose Padilla”
I think you mean Yaser, and he was a former US citizen. Padilla was labeled as an illegal enemy combatant, and given a military tribunal. So again, no US citizen has been held at Gitmo. Under current law, and as the US supreme court ruled, Padilla had to be given a proper trial.
“John Walker Lindh”
They had no way of knowing if he was a US citizen, as he told them that he was Irish. Fail on his part.
“and your fears continued to control your thinking.”
Logic controls it. The benefits outweigh the costs.
“While it’s not drowning to death, it is in fact drowning. ”
Only in the final stage of waterboarding, and most of the water goes in a persons nose typically. It still leaves no lasting effect. Punching someone in the stomach does more damage.
“I’m discussing civil liberties, the Constitution, etc while your source is discussing whether or not torture is successful.”
So I never bring up the Constitution nor legal documents? That’s fubar. Notice how all of my logic is based in the Constitution and other law. The success of the techniques is just the kicker.
“As for a refutation all I would need to say is that the historian in question is describing one case while you’re somehow expanding it to cover the whole realm of torture.”
One of the three instances, and because we allow waterboarding and other enhanced interrogations to occur, it gave us extremely valuable information. Note how waterboarding isn’t defined as torture under any resolution. You can call it torture all you want, but it isn’t torture. Scary, but not torture.
“I already claimed we have government in order to protect our rights.”
Oh so you are afraid someone will take away your rights? Enslave you, rape you, take your property, force you to resort to archaic forms of defense in order to protect yourself. This is the same reasoning as why I believe we should allow the suspension of habeas corpus for unlawful combatants.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”
I’m not giving up anything
“An enemy combatant can not challenge this label and once he/she is considered an enemy combatant, he/she has no right to a trial or to face the accusers and evidence against.”
They receive a military tribunal.
“a cop or federal agent could enter your home without a warrant, claim you’re a threat and label you an enemy combatant, and then hold you indefinitely for years. And then maybe you would get your wish and face torture.”
But they can’t. Reread the quote that you were responding to lol.
“As for history, consider other power grabs after supposed attacks or insurrections, most notably Hitler’s rising after the burning of the Reichstag.”
Godwin’s law, and a poor example. The Nazi’s used a false flag attack, and unless you are a 9/11 conspiracy theorists, you can obviously see why this examples is horrible. Bush’s “powergrab” as you call it, isn’t much of a powergrab first off, secondly he did it legally.
“The terrorists have won.”
Lolz, RP would be proud to have such an indoctrinated follower. The terrorists didn’t want America to suspend the writ of habeas corpus for them. They don’t want to be waterboarded, or have bras put on them, or have their beards shaved. Your thinking is backward, if you are even thinking at all.
“Derek is lying, as usual. Waterboarding can indeed cause physical injury or death. In testimony before the Senate in 2007,”
Great, meatbrain has found my site. For those of you who don’t know him, he is the king of trolls.
What meatbrain failed to mention in his spiel (if only Becca had time to read my site), was that there are many different kinds of waterboarding. The methods used by the FBI and Army both are harmless. If you know a bit of history, I’m sure you can recall how we prosecuted Japanese officers for warcrimes because they waterboarded US POWs during WWII. Of course, they were forcing them to pass out and forcing them to swallow great amounts of water. When they could not ingest any more water, they would hit their stomach, forcing them to purge the liquid that they had taken in. Yes, that is torture. In the most extreme cases they would force feed POWs dry rice and then force them to drink water until their bowels exploded. Torture? Damn right. 27% of American POWs held by the Japanese were killed.
The stages range from dripping water on the detainee’s head to placing a cloth on their face and pouring water on their mouth and nose. Notice no forcing, no death, no extreme pain.
“Derek is also eagerly spreading the fantasy that torture is effective.”
You compared this to Vietnam and US soldiers, completely ignoring the facts I present of how the interrogation techniques worked on the Gitmo detainees thus preventing various terrorist attacks.
“In Derek’s case, the terrorists have won. ”
Clever, you quoted Justin.
“he is terrified of being the victim of a terrorist attack, despite the fact that the odds of being killed by terrorists is vanishingly small.”
I’m not terrified. This isn’t about me, this is about the US government doing its job and protecting innocent life.
“all principles are discarded.”
Yet you fail to mention which ones I discarded specifically. Notice how I base all of my reasoning on the Constitution and its effectiveness. If anything, I am relying on principle.
“All he and his fellow milquetoasts want is to be safe, at any cost”
Nope, sorry strawman, you have know idea what I want.
Maybe you are on a quest to turn the country into ignorant whiners like you? Seriously, the zombie pandemic is continuing due to ghouls like meatbrain.
“If there are individuals who have unlawfully waged war on American citizens and succeeded in killing thousands of innocent civilians, it is clearly an invasion.”
You will literally go to any lengths to justify this bastardization of the U.S. Constitution and limits of power. Ignoring the smaller matters, this is really the only one that matters because of Article 1, Section 9, [2]. An invasion? Seriously? You sound absolutely ridiculous and cowardly. Even our big-government Supreme Court acknowledged that habeas corpus can’t be suspended in Boumediene v. Bush.
There has been one constitutional suspension of habeas corpus, Lincoln’s in Maryland and the Midwest states. That was truly a rebellion. As for invasion, consider the burning of Washington in the War of 1812. Madison, who I believe knew a thing or two about the Constitution, saw no need to suspend habeas corpus then. I’m sure he’s rolling in his grave listening to neoconservatives like yourself justify this clearly unconstitutional act.
“but you neglect that the law says they receive little to no rights.”
Boumediene v. Bush. They have plenty of rights, the fact that they don’t receive said rights is the problem. I always error on the side of liberty and rights for all rather than government power and some false sense of security. If they’re guilty of a crime and you’re holding them on an American base (American property), then try them in a court. If they’re guilty then this shouldn’t be a problem, of course the problem is that 95% of those in Gitmo are innocent.
“The writ of habeas corpus was suspended for unlawful combatants and unlawful combatants only.”
Naivety is a beautiful thing. You’re ahistorical in believing that the government, given a great expansion of power, will quietly remain within these limits. And yes, a suspension of habeas corpus IS an expansion of power and fundamentally unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court and a majority of constitutional law professors I have talked to and read.
“So again, no US citizen has been held at Gitmo. Under current law, and as the US supreme court ruled, Padilla had to be given a proper trial.”
Yaser Hamdi was a U.S. citizen when he was taken to Gitmo, he later (conveniently) abandoned his citizenship and was labeled an enemy combatant. So once again you should have fact-checked.
“Oh so you are afraid someone will take away your rights? Enslave you, rape you, take your property, force you to resort to archaic forms of defense in order to protect yourself. This is the same reasoning as why I believe we should allow the suspension of habeas corpus for unlawful combatants.”
Lmao. I guess you’re more terrified than I first realized. I’ll worry about government expansion and personal liberties, you go ahead and worry about the evil brown guys in the caves. I’ll worry about a $4 trillion/year bureaucracy, you worry about some unorganized civilians. I’ll worry about the government, the great destroyer of liberty and you can worry about…well you get my point.
“I’m not giving up anything :)”
Just keep thinking it’s always the other guy, only the guilty ones. Ha, such a moronic and short-sighted mindset.
“But they can’t. Reread the quote that you were responding to lol.”
I’m kind of tired of making this point over and over so listen closely. If you’re designated an enemy combatant, you have NO DEFENSE against it. Keep in mind that you don’t have rights unless you have protection against them being taken from you. Since that fascist term “enemy combatant” came into use, you’re not promised protection for your 4th amendment rights. Since you’re not promised protection, you essentially have no right to a speedy trial.
“They receive a military tribunal.”
Military tribunals against civilians (especially Americans civilians such as Padilla) are unconstitutional as decided in Ex Parte Milligan (1866). So once again this is an unconstitutional expansion of power according to the Supreme Court. Just admit you want to expand government power because it’s evidently what you’re arguing for, whether you realize it or not.
“Bush’s “powergrab” as you call it, isn’t much of a powergrab first off, secondly he did it legally.”
He greatly expanded executive power and went above Supreme Court precedents (and therefore Constitutional law) by suspending habeas corpus.
The terrorists, according to some, wanted to ruin this nation’s values and its economy. By giving our government more and more power at the expense of personal liberty, we’ve abandoned the “American way”. By bloating the budget, causing inflation and an enormous debt, we’ve hurt our economic future. This country has recovered from 3,000 deaths but the reaction to that one act was far more disastrous than the act itself.
“Derek, like all lying wingnuts, invents facts as needed. The experts contradict Derek’s fantasy, and what is his response? Ignore the facts, and continue to pimp his fantasy world.”
Point me in the direction of said FBI and Army experts meatbrain, then maybe I’ll consider your opinion at the same level I consider a rock’s opinion. Note how the experts, including Cheney, CIA and FBI officials, and even ABC correspondents. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was one of the three prisoners who were waterboarded and he provided valuable information. You can say that it is harmful (note how all three who were waterboarded are perfectly fine) and that it didn’t provide valuable information (it did), but this would be neglecting the truth. but of course, as a crazy wingnut (yes meathead, you are a wingnut) I wouldn’t expect you to know truth.
“Nothing, no crime, is too heinous tom commit as long as his gutless chickenhawk ass is kept safe.’
Except: 1] it isn’t a crime 2] my ass is probably fairly safe in Columbus Ohio either way, I’m worried about other Americans 3] you call me gutless but I see as the one who is copping out, not willing to do what is necessary to prevent another attack on innocent civilians.
“An invasion? Seriously? You sound absolutely ridiculous and cowardly. Even our big-government Supreme Court acknowledged that habeas corpus can’t be suspended in Boumediene v. Bush.”
The decision was 5 to 4 first off, so close, second, Kennedy’s decision came because he said they didn’t provide a good enough substitute to a normal court. Basically he said the military tribunals didn’t have a good enough method to go back and double-check evidence. Understandable. So really, Kennedy and others didn’t think that the suspension of habeas corpus was bad, it was that there was no adequate substitute. Also, they allowed the detention of other prisoners, this was just five prisoners that they released.
At what point is it an invasion? Please define invasion. How much life has to be lost before you are willing to say the public safety requires it? Five thousand? Ten thousand? One Hundred Thousand? Seeing as how there have been dozens of thwarted terrorist attacks, thus hundreds, thousands, possibly even tens of thousands of lives saved by just the waterboarding of three individuals, and the detention of seven hundred others (I don’t know what I am writing out these numbers), I would say it is clearly justified. What wrong has come of it? Nothing! Not only that, but it can legally be called an invasion as the attacks are on US soil.
“Boumediene v. Bush”
Five prisoners, all of whom were from Bosnia and the the CIA/Army had little to no evidence. If there was sufficient evidence, they would still be in Gitmo. The allegations were insane, and had little supporting evidence. Note how the other 770 detainees still don’t get habeas corpus. This was a special case.
“some false sense of security’
Yes because we never receive valuable information from the detainees nor have we thwarted any terrorist attacks with said information.
“of course the problem is that 95% of those in Gitmo are innocent. ”
This statement smells, I bet I can guess where you pulled it from.
“given a great expansion of power, will quietly remain within these limits. ”
Legally they have to. Their power wasn’t really expanded much, and it wasn’t expanded over US citizens, just unlawful combatants.
“And yes, a suspension of habeas corpus IS an expansion of power and fundamentally unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court”
That all depends on WHO it is and WHEN it is suspended and WHAT evidence they have. If they aren’t given a competent tribunal then I would say it is unconstitutional, however, a large majority receive competent tribunals and the ones who don’t have been released or are in the process of being released.
“Yaser Hamdi”
He was detained there when they still thought he was a non-citizen. Of course, when they found this out, they transferred him to the mainland. And what happened? They heard his case and was allowed to be released so long as he renounced his citizenship.
“I’ll worry about the government, the great destroyer of liberty and you can worry about…well you get my point. ”
Nice dodge. You neglect that the entire reason for government is fear. Whether it be rights, freedom, or life it matters not. You can call me scared but I think it is only sensible for us to legally protect innocent life whenever possible. I feel that it is the duty of the government to protect its citizens, with the courts, the police, and the armed forces.
“Just keep thinking it’s always the other guy, only the guilty ones. Ha, such a moronic and short-sighted mindset.”
Yes, our entire criminal court system is moronic and short-sighted. Ad hominem.
“If you’re designated an enemy combatant, you have NO DEFENSE against it.”
Legally they must be given a substitute, aka a military tribunal. That is their defense. Should the prosecutors have enough information to classify them as an unlawful combatant then legally they can be detained without specific charge. Again, my rights can’t be taken away, as I am neither an unlawful combatant nor non-US citizen. Your rights can’t be either.
“Military tribunals against civilians”
How many times do I have to tell you that non-US citizens are the only ones labeled as unlawful combatants? Note how combatant is built into the term, so they aren’t civilians. Nice try
“He greatly expanded executive power and went above Supreme Court precedents”
Nuh uh. Provide an argument, don’t just contradict me.
“By bloating the budget, causing inflation and an enormous debt, we’ve hurt our economic future.”
Agreed! Finally.
“This country has recovered from 3,000 deaths but the reaction to that one act was far more disastrous than the act itself.”
I question this. Our reaction prevented subsequent acts of destruction, thus you need to include them in the net negative. I vote that our acts, while not always just, largely have protected citizens around the world and made the US safer. Of course, you will come back saying “nope” but I’ll let you respond.
In an attempt to make my argument clear, with hopes that you will address it instead of focusing on smaller matters, I’ll shorten up this post and present to you the two major Constitutional barriers against your argument:
1) Article 1, Section 9. Whether or not you and I believe this is an invasion is inconsequential, the Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that our current situation does NOT constitute a suspension of habeas corpus. Also in Rasul v. Bush (2004), the Supreme Court ruled that detainees are protected under habeas corpus. So to put two and two together: detainees are protected under habeas corpus and the U.S. government cannot constitutionally suspend habeas corpus at this time. Therefore the U.S. government cannot suspend habeas corpus for detainees and the Military Commissions Act is unconstitutional.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=06-1195
2) A likely defense to this would be to claim that military tribunals can be arranged and therefore detainees are being given a “trial”. Yet you’re blocked once again by the Constitution and Supreme Court. This time it’s “Ex parte Milligan” (1866). The Supreme Court then held that trials of civilians by presidentially created military commissions are unconstitutional. Martial law cannot exist where the civil courts are operating. So even in the case of martial law and suspension of habeas corpus as occurred during the Civil War, if civil courts are operating then they must be used and military tribunals are therefore unconstitutional.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=71&invol=2
“Many probably haven’t even read the Constitution”
I have. And I know not only the ideas behind it but the rulings that have stemmed from it.
“Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that our current situation does NOT constitute a suspension of habeas corpus.”
No, it ruled that Boumediene and five others’ situations didn’t constitute a suspension of habeas corpus.
“Rasul v. Bush”
Again, another petition for habeas corpus. This wasn’t a broad decision, this was a situational case, just like Boumediene.
The source even notes that they can be held indefinitely but they can petition the court to hear their case.
“The Supreme Court then held that trials of civilians by presidentially created military commissions are unconstitutional.”
They aren’t civilians, but nice try. And Congress created the commissions.
Again, you are simply taking one court decision (one that doesn’t even support your argument) and saying it is correct. The point isn’t to argue with the decision but to argue with me. You didn’t define invasion and you didn’t explain at what point the public safety becomes in danger.
Answer the questions and then we can move on.
“No, it ruled that Boumediene and five others’ situations didn’t constitute a suspension of habeas corpus.”
…are you serious? It’s impossible to debate you when you fail to acknowledge damning facts. While the case was filed by the 6 plaintiffs, its ruling was much larger. The Supreme Court would never rule that only the plaintiffs from one trial are being given their rights, by definition the Court’s rulings are broad and all-encompassing. Boumediene v. Bush ruled that the parts of the MCA and Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 which suspended habeas corpus are unconstitutional. Along with some further rulings on extraterritoriality, Boumediene v. Bush effectively gave the right to file for the “Great Writ” to ALL at Gitmo. Once again it did this by ruling parts of the MCA and DTA are unconstitutional, a ruling that would obviously have a bigger effect than just 6 prisoners.
“Again, another petition for habeas corpus. This wasn’t a broad decision, this was a situational case, just like Boumediene.”
Are you just desperate now to justify this outrage to Constitutional law? Of course it was a broad decision. The Supreme Court lays down precedents and rulings of constitutionality, it doesn’t deal with individual matters. Should we assume by your logic that only Roe (Norma L. McCorvey) was given permission by the Supreme Court to get an abortion in Roe v. Wade? Lol of course not because the rulings of the Court are precedents and, in the case of Boumediene and Roe, ruled legislation to be unconstitutional. It actually amazes me that you believe a Supreme Court ruling of unconstitutionality only applies to those that filed for the writ. You’re credibility is slipping.
“They aren’t civilians, but nice try. And Congress created the commissions.”
They’re not American civilians however they are civilians of some nation. Ex parte Milligan stands and for a more recent ruling, take Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.
“In the fall of 2006, following a second momentous decision in the Supreme Court, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, in which the justices ruled that the proposed trials by Military Commission for those held at Guantánamo (which also relied on the use of secret evidence) were illegal under domestic and international law…”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-worthington/the-supreme-courts-guanta_b_106993.html
And part of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld acknowledged that the executive branch had established the commissions. Unless you’re claiming the Court doesn’t know the legislation it ruled unconstitutional, you got it wrong.
I am debating you however we’re debating Constitutional law. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and therefore the only thing really worth debating. Since the Supreme Court is the authority on the Constitution, I can, and have, used Supreme Court rulings and the Constitution to show you how illegal these acts are. If you still believe they’re the best thing for this nation, fine however admit that you’re opposing the Constitution in doing so. I, for one, will not bastardize the Constitution anymore than it has already been bastardized.
“he Supreme Court would never rule that only the plaintiffs from one trial are being given their rights, by definition the Court’s rulings are broad and all-encompassing.”
Unless specified. In this case, they noted that the plaintiffs should be released. Of course, the plaintiffs had to petition the Supreme Court, as other unlawful combatants have to as well.
“Boumediene v. Bush ruled that the parts of the MCA and Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 which suspended habeas corpus are unconstitutional.”
For those few, because the government didn’t not meet the requirements to have those rights stripped, aka they didn’t have enough evidence.
“Boumediene v. Bush effectively gave the right to file for the “Great Writ” to ALL at Gitmo”
Yep, like I said, they can petition the Supreme Court to hear their case. Of course, this doesn’t mean the Supreme Court has to hear their case, and even if they do, they can decide to keep their ass in Gitmo.
“The Supreme Court lays down precedents and rulings of constitutionality, it doesn’t deal with individual matters.”
Note how I didn’t say individuals, I said situations. Different situations, different case. Should there be reason to believe the detainee is an unlawful combatant and is a threat to US security, and they are classified so by a competent military tribunal, then it is perfectly legally for them to be held indefinitely. They can petition the Supreme Court to grant them habeas, but should they have received what is deemed as a competent substitute to habeas corpus, then they get to sit in Gitmo. Apparently you don’t understand law. This is the equivalent of you saying that because we have a law that says you can’t shoot someone that you can never shoot someone. There are situations when it is perfectly legal to do so.
“you believe a Supreme Court ruling of unconstitutionality only applies to those that filed for the writ. You’re credibility is slipping.”
It doesn’t, it applies to everyone in that situation. In this case, there wasn’t enough evidence to classify the detainees as unlawful combatants and therefore the Supreme Court mandated that they be given the writ of habeas corpus and a fair trial to determine their sentence, if any. This applies to all detainees who were labeled as unlawful combatants when there was not enough evidence to do so, hence why they can petition the Supreme Court to grant them habeas. This does not mean that all detainees must have a trial by their peers, this means that the Supreme Court can decide that certain cases aren’t substantial enough to deny a detainee habeas.
“You’re credibility is slipping.”
Hardly. I am a rock
“however they are civilians of some nation. ”
A civilian is a term given to persons of a nation who are not part of a police or military organization. These individuals who are detained are part of the Taliban, Al Qaeda or other groups who carry out attacks. Ergo, they aren’t civilians.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld is an outdated ruling because of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which defined an unlawful combatant. This goes back to my previous statement about how the Supreme Court Justices had a problem with the tribunals, not the suspension of the writ. Should there be competent tribunals, legally the suspension of the writ is allowed. Detainees again must petition the Supreme Court to review their case. Should the Supreme Court determine that they did not receive a competent tribunal, they are granted the writ. However, if they had a competent tribunal, they sit in Gitmo.
I feel like I am repeating myself.
Define “invasion” and “public safety”, for the third time now.
Meathead, you do realize that you addressed nothing I said, even though you wrote 1300 words in three separate comments?
Under all provisions, the US method of waterboarding isn’t torture. Period. Deal with it.
Your sources sucked, and I already pointed out why.
2004? Seriously? Note how the other memo’s weren’t released. I already showed how later interrogations provided valuable information that saved lived.
Waterboarding, along with the suspension of habeas corpus for unlawful combatants is 100% legal, in both domestic and international law. If you think otherwise you are either 1) not taking into account provisions that state unlawful combatants can be denied habeas corpus 2) ignoring article 1 section 9 of the Constitution or 3) blatantly ignoring known facts.
Did you know that we could legally execute them on the battle field under Geneva IV article V meathead? Because they don’t wear uniforms, they can be labeled as saboteurs or spies, and therefore they forfeit all rights granted by Geneva. Gitmo’s facilities are wonderful and are far better than most US facilities.
http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/john-ensign-club-gitmo-detainees-health
Meathead, before you come back, make sure you know what you are talking about. I don’t care if you have a petty blog where you arrogantly hold yourself higher than all others, but on my blog, you are still nothing more than a whiny child who has nothing better to do but rack up my traffic and spew inane BS on a blog.
Don’t feed the trolls.
“I have, for instance, addressed his contention that waterboarding is legal ”
Yet you neglect my support for its legality, instead citing decades old documents in an attempt to refute my less than year old reasoning and my citing of the Constitution. You didn’t address anything I stated.
“BECAUSE! DEREK! SAYS! SO!”
Meathead’s famed “I have nothing to refute the claim and I know it has already been proven so I am going to ad hominem the crap out of this argument”
I already proved its legality, it is your job as a dissenter to go to my argument and show where it is wrong. Note how this is not possible as my argument is based in fact and logic.
“Convention Against Torture”
Doesn’t define waterboarding as torture, note how I addressed this when I said US’s methods of waterboarding aren’t defined as torture under any charter or provision.
“The Convention’s definition of “torture” does not include all acts of
mistreatment causing mental or physical suffering, but only those of a severe nature.
According to the State Department’s section-by-section analysis of CAT included in
President Reagan’s transmittal of the Convention to the Senate for its advice and
consent, the Convention’s definition of torture was intended to be interpreted in a
“relatively limited fashion, corresponding to the common understanding of torture
as an extreme practice which is universally condemned.”4 For example, the State
Department suggested that rough treatment falling into the category of police
brutality, “while deplorable, does not amount to ‘torture’” for purposes of the
Convention, which is “usually reserved for extreme, deliberate, and unusually cruel practices … [such as] sustained systematic beating, application of electric currents to sensitive parts of the body, and tying up or hanging in positions that cause extreme pain.”5″
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/101750.pdf
Note how waterboarding of any kind isn’t described. The US method of waterboarding uses fear, not pain, to withdraw information. Before you say “because derek says so!”, go ahead and go back and look at the evidence I have provided showing that the US method does not leave physical ailments nor does it cause pain.
“Baby Derek has yet to cite any domestic laws under which waterboarding is legal.”
Military Commissions Act of 2006. Read my post before you blather BS.
“Baby Derek has yet to cite any international laws under which waterboarding is legal.”
Geneva IV Article V, and thanks to you, CAT Article I. It is really easy when you give me evidence meathead, you might want to try a different tactic.
“Baby Derek is lying yet again. All he did was make thr claim. He has failed to provide any factual information to back up his infantile claim.”
You didn’t provide any facts for this claim. I’ll go back and quote what I said (note how this is a concrete fact) to refute your claim:
ME: You compared this to Vietnam and US soldiers, completely ignoring the facts I present of how the interrogation techniques worked on the Gitmo detainees thus preventing various terrorist attacks.
ME: What meatbrain failed to mention in his spiel (if only Becca had time to read my site), was that there are many different kinds of waterboarding. The methods used by the FBI and Army both are harmless. If you know a bit of history, I’m sure you can recall how we prosecuted Japanese officers for warcrimes because they waterboarded US POWs during WWII. Of course, they were forcing them to pass out and forcing them to swallow great amounts of water. When they could not ingest any more water, they would hit their stomach, forcing them to purge the liquid that they had taken in. Yes, that is torture. In the most extreme cases they would force feed POWs dry rice and then force them to drink water until their bowels exploded. Torture? Damn right. 27% of American POWs held by the Japanese were killed.
The stages range from dripping water on the detainee’s head to placing a cloth on their face and pouring water on their mouth and nose. Notice no forcing, no death, no extreme pain.
Hey look, I destroyed both of meathead’s so called sources. The content was either incorrect or applied incorrectly.
Nice try meathead. Come back when you grow a spine.
“Hilariously, Baby Derek asks us to believe that simply because his lies are newer than the laws he is lying about, he must be telling the truth. Simply because he mentioned the Constitution, he must be telling the truth. This is the sort of ‘thinking’ that the lying wingnuts prize above all else.”
I was noting how you didn’t address the legal arguments I presented. You were using information that was outdated, circa the 1960’s and 70’s. Then you cited a memo from 2004. I am citing information from 2006 on up to present day, and I have shown how it contradicts all of the inane claims you have made. I have a feeling you will dance around this issue further.
“False. Baby Derek has already lied repeatedly about the laws regarding torture. Oh lookie, he’s lying it again:”
Claiming that it is a lie gets us no where. Point out specifically what I “lied” about and then maybe we can make some progress. Note how you expect me to jump through hoops to prove a point, and then say I am “lying” when I do while simultaneously providing proof, yet you make claims with no reference. That makes you a hypocrite, but I’ll give you another chance to go ahead and cite specifically what is wrong with my argument then explain why while providing proof.
“inflict severe pain or suffering, ”
The US version does not inflict pain or suffering. Note how I provided a legal reference for how it does not apply as well. Waterboarding doesn’t cause pain, it causes panic and fear, which is perfectly legal.
Those who are subjected to it have also said that it isn’t torture, just fear. You can’t pick and choose so I am going with the experts on this one: It doesn’t cause pain. If applied correctly, aka don’t pour the water longer than 30 seconds or so, there should be no pain, no suffering, just fear. It is uncomfortable, but then again I would assume that being related to meathead would be uncomfortable as well, and that means under meathead’s definition, being related to him is torture.
“Baby Derek is lying again. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 makes no mention whatsoever of waterboarding. It therefore cannot define it as legal.”
Read for understanding meathead.
Sec. 948r c,d
“(c) Statements Obtained Before Enactment of Detainee Treatment Act of 2005- A statement obtained before December 30, 2005 (the date of the enactment of the Defense Treatment Act of 2005) in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the military judge finds that–
(1) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value; and
(2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.
(d) Statements Obtained After Enactment of Detainee Treatment Act of 2005- A statement obtained on or after December 30, 2005 (the date of the enactment of the Defense Treatment Act of 2005) in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the military judge finds that–
(1) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value;
(2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence; and
(3) the interrogation methods used to obtain the statement do not amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment prohibited by section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.”
“Baby Derek is lying again. Neither the Fourth Geneva Convention nor the Convention Against Torture define waterboarding as legal, as anyone who has actually read those documents know.”
Yes it does, for unlawful combatants. Because they are unlawful combatants, they forfeit all rights granted by the Conventions, ergo, we can do whatever we want to them and it would still be legal under the Conventions.
”
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.”
So how much do I have to spoon feed you logic and information before you shut up?
“He provided no factual evidence whatsoever that torture was successful in “preventing various terrorist attacks”. We are supposed to accept this as gospel simply BECAUSE! DEREK! SAYS! SO!”
ME:Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was one of the three prisoners who were waterboarded and he provided valuable information.
ME: He also revealed that the true mastermind of the attack was Osama bin Laden’s deputy Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Qahtani also fingered another Saudi al-Qaeda operative, Adnan el-Shukrijumah, who was in the United States organizing another 9/11-style attack for the summer of 2004. Khalid Mohammed’s subsequent capture in Pakistan in March 2003 revealed still more details which, we now know, enabled the Bush administration to foil a second wave of suicide attacks directed at Los Angeles.
Maybe if you actually read the post you would have found my claims and evidence.
““The methods used by the FBI and Army both are harmless.””
They are, as I have already addressed this in a comment a few above.
“The interrogations were closely monitored and medical personnel were present for each. The entire procedure lasted seconds. Was the procedure stressful and harsh? Yes. Did it injure or harm the subject? No. Do our own military personnel undergo similar activities during their SERE (Survive, Evade, Resist, Escape) training? Yes.”
Hell, we do it to our own cadets even.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/may/24/waterboarding-does-not-fit-torture-criteria/
“Um, nope. That’s not what habeas corpus means. Baby Derek has spent all this time pretending to be a razor-sharp legal eagle, gracing us with his sober and incisive analyses of the law — and it turns out he’s a complete ignoramus on the subject.”
Habeas Corpus: a writ ordering a prisoner to be brought before a judge
Ergo trial.
Meathead needs to stop lying.
“Notice that Baby Derek cannot tell us what specific information is “outdated”, nor why. The lying little shitstain still thinks it has some shred of credibility left.”
Me: You compared this to Vietnam and US soldiers, completely ignoring the facts I present of how the interrogation techniques worked on the Gitmo detainees thus preventing various terrorist attacks.
Before I go on, I ask that you do not swear on my blog. Any more swearing or derogatory language will result in me deleting all of your comments on my blog.
“You are lying when you claim that waterboarding “leaves no lasting physical ailments nor does it cause immense pain”. We know that it does.”
No, the evidence I have presented shows that the US method of waterboarding leaves no lasting physical ailments and is not painful. Before you say “because derek says so” go back and quote my evidence and what I said and contradict it in some manner.
“You are lying when you claim that torture isn’t a crime. The laws of the United States make it very clear that torture is a crime.’
Now we loop back into the debate whether waterboarding is torture, which I have show that by all definitions it is not torture.
““there have been dozens of thwarted terrorist attacks, thus hundreds, thousands, possibly even tens of thousands of lives saved by just the waterboarding of three individuals…”. There is no substantive evidence that any such attacks were revealed under torture.”
Oh but they did, aka the Los Angeles attacks.
“You are lying when you claim that “domestic and international law” legalizes torture. There are no such laws.”
Except the ones I presented, and waterboarding isn’t torture.
“SERE instructors such as Malcolm Nance confirm that it does.”
Yet the thousands of American soldiers along with intelligence analysts who say it doesn’t cause pain are irrelevant right?
“The section of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 does not mention waterboarding, and therefore does not declare waterboarding to be legal. Baby Derek is still a lying shitstain.”
Waterboarding falls under this category, so it does not need to be mentioned specifically. The 2nd amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Does that mean that because it specifically doesn’t say “knife” or “AR15″ or “spear” that the government can outlaw these weapons? No, because they fall under the term “arms”.
“The Geneva Conventions do not mention waterboarding, and therefore does not declare waterboarding to be legal. Baby Derek is still a lying shitstain.’
Lolz, you neglected everything I said. Meathead: LISTEN. Under Geneva IV, we are allowed to do WHATEVER WE WANT TO UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS. PERIOD. We can kill them, beat them and we can sure as hell waterboard them, as they forfeited their rights.
Los Angeles attacks:
http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=46949
http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/2009/04/22/waterboarding-saved-los-angeles-from-terrorist-attack-per-released-cia-memos/
http://macsmind.com/wordpress/2009/04/21/cia-confirms-that-waterboarding-khalid-sheik-mohammad-stopped-los-angeles-attacks/
“SERE instructors such as Malcolm Nance confirm that waterboarding is painful and can cause death.”
You are using one opinion against the thousands I have presented. Let alone the actual practice of waterboarding which I have spelled out for you.
“The lying shitstain thinks that every appearance before a judge is automatically a jury trial. it isn’t.”
Not a trial by jury, you’re right, for once in a lifetime, but it is still a trial, often times being a trial by jury.
“Which clause of the US Constitution guarantees the right of habeas corpus?”
Article 1 Section 9, it is the blog post. Again, you need to read it.
“Which clause of the US Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial?”
6th Amendment, but I don’t see what you are trying to do here other than waste my time.
“I’m going to enjoy shoving the fact of your ignorance down your lying throat for a looooong, looooong time, moron.”
I find this amusing because the general consensus of the people who have heard of you is that you are an ignorant little baby who has nothing better to do but spew profanity and BS on other peoples’ blogs.
“when it is used by someone who agrees with you.”
Really? Show one place where someone who agrees with me swore and I let it slide. Usually the people who agree with me don’t swear.
“Lying pukeworm Derek Foley has presented no such “facts”. It merely repeats the claim over and over again.”
I gave you THREE LINKS. What more do you want? If you’d give me your address I’d be happy to bring you the printed out articles.
“News flash for lying pukeworm Derek Foley: repeating the same crap over and over again isn’t “evidence”. ”
I do believe the crap you are referring to is evidence. The fact that I keep explaining it over and over and over and over doesn’t mean it isn’t evidence, it just means you are thick.
“Lying pukeworm Derek Foley isn’t just dishonest — it is also ignoramnt. The facts prove conclusively that the US broke up the Library Tower plot to which is refers months before Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured:”
I am not ignoramnt, I am truthful and use something called evidence. You should try it sometime. The editorial you presented has two reasons why waterboarding shouldn’t have been used.
1) because the attack wouldn’t have been successful because citizens would crash the plane prior to it hitting the tower and
2) because an unnamed FBI official (no mention of rank) says the attack was foiled in 2002, prior to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s capture.
Here are its main problems: It assumes that citizens would take action and it neglects that there would be considerable life lost simply by crashing the planes, AND, it uses an unnamed, unranked, unknown source from a newspaper that says the Bush administration was lying and manipulating info.
For all we know, this could have been a low level agent that had some beef with the administration, or someone who disagreed with the tactics, or made up entirely. It isn’t definitive proof. Again, you are choosing to believe not the option that is likely to be truth, but rather the rare possibility that supports your views. You decided the policy prior to finding the information, thus you are building the foundation above the pillars. This is the key to understand why you are so wrong.
“These “thousands” of opinions exist only in its puerile imagination.”
I didn’t realize that I am the only one to say waterboarding doesn’t cause pain or leave lasting ailments.
“The right to habeas corpus is not the right to a trial of any kind.”
“A prisoner files a petition for writ of habeas corpus in order to challenge the authority of the prison or jail warden to continue to hold him. If the judge orders a hearing after reading the writ, the prisoner gets to argue that his confinement is illegal.”
Hey look. A court. An argument against detention. Sounds like a trial to me.
“It managed to stumble through Wikipedia long enough to find one of several places where a trial by jury is guaranteed in the Constitution. ”
Or I know and understand the Constitution. Don’t make me ask you how you feel about the 2nd Amendment. Or how about article 1 section 8?
“invent a multitude of imaginary non-persons, all of whom conveniently agree with it.”
Notice how I never used the fact that people agree with me as an argument for waterboarding except when providing credence to that waterboarding doesn’t cause pain nor does it leave lasting ailments. So no meathead, you a liar.
I like how you went through the whole argument, yet skipped all of the legal arguments.
“dimwitted asshat”
Terri Bisson, aka meatbrain (Meathead for many), is a science fiction writer who currently lives in the cesspool that is California.
I have warned him about swearing, but the thickheaded troll doesn’t like to listen. Hence, I follow through on my promise.
Wish I could say I am sorry Terry.
Kid,
You really need to reconsider your career as a blogger. You’re not up to it, in intelligence or comedic talent. Really, I mean this in the kindest way.
Keep your day job. I understand that consists of being a freshman at a mediocre state university. That’s just about what I would have guessed.
Tough love, youngster. Deal with it. Don’t make me have to come back.
Seeing as how I am an Honors student at one of the highest ranked public schools in the nation, I’ll take your review as mislead or ignorant.
Maybe you are just trying to stir the pot but honestly, how can your site be considered better? After reading a number of your posts, I found no new information, no points, no arguments, absolutely nothing profound. There were quips here and there, jesting towards other blogs and quotes, usually adding inane questions mocking the author’s integrity, sanity, and of course, intelligence.
My blog is meant to be a platform for my ideas and my perspective of today’s events. Why you would think this is a “career” I do not know, as I have no ads nor have I eluded to my blog being my life. If you noticed how there are significant time periods between my posts, you might have caught on that this is a hobby, not a career.
For someone who lists the daily kos and crooks and liars on their blogroll, I am going to assume you are on the other side of the spectrum.
If you are willing to have a civil discussion about the issues on hand, I would be more than glad to share my perspective. However, I doubt that someone from the left has the intelligence nor cunning to prove any of my arguments invalid.
Best of luck parrot, keep repeating those talking points.
I’m glad you are an honors student. Seriously, your effort is admirable.
My graduate degree is from Harvard, and I was also a research student at Cambridge. I do not think for a second that where I went to school lends one shred of credibility to what I have to say. It would be just as true or false if I were a third grader in a one room schoolhouse.
I grew up in Ohio, and, really, I have nothing against Ohio State except in regard to their football team being unable to win the big one. Don’t worry, I don’t blame that on you.
As to my site, if I took it that seriously, I wouldn’t have named it after my parrot. In my opinion, the internet is a pretty deranged place, and should be seen more as an entertainment vehicle than anything else. When you post comments like you do at Mr. Meaty’s site, I assume you feel the same, and don’t mind taking a few cheap shots in return, knowing that nobody means them that seriously.
No, what I take exception with is your argument. To give a single example, you say, “The most common talk is about how prisoners are held indefinitely. Critics say this goes against the Constitution, as it suspends habeas corpus (Right to a trial by jury).”
First, may I point out that Habeas Corpus has nothing to do with the right to trial by jury; rather it refers to the right of the defendant to have the authorities demonstrate that they have sufficient reason to detain him. A few seconds with teh Google will uncover multiple sources to confirm this.
Second, the argument against indefinite detention has nothing to do with the Constitutional passage you quote, but rather stems from this passage in the sixth amendment: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial…” Whatever speedy and public” means (and these words have formed the basis for endless litigation,) by no stretch of the imagination can it be stretched to include seven years in prison without charges.
I could go on to several other assertions of yours which are equally specious; for now, I think this one example will suffice.
“I do not think for a second that where I went to school lends one shred of credibility to what I have to say.”
That is what you were eluding to when you said “mediocre state college”.
“knowing that nobody means them that seriously.”
Except Terry of course
“First, may I point out that Habeas Corpus has nothing to do with the right to trial by jury; rather it refers to the right of the defendant to have the authorities demonstrate that they have sufficient reason to detain him. A few seconds with teh Google will uncover multiple sources to confirm this.”
I corrected this in a comment, but it doesn’t remove the legality of my argument. To nit pick at side notes (it was in parentheses even) takes away from the debate. Correct me, by all means, when I slip up, but to make these a focus of discussion is a waste of time.
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial…”
The funny thing is that this implies that the writ of habeas was granted. Note how they aren’t being “accused” nor is it a criminal matter to be handled by local courts. It is a national security matter that falls under the jurisdiction of military tribunals. The suspension of habeas corpus is the issue, not that they aren’t receiving a trial by jury (funny how it all intermingles).
“by no stretch of the imagination can it be stretched to include seven years in prison without charges”
That is habeas corpus. To be held without charge is the suspension of habeas corpus. Article 1 Section 9 allows for the unlawful combatants to be held indefinitely without charge as the public safety requires it and it is very much so an invasion.
“I could go on to several other assertions of yours which are equally specious; for now, I think this one example will suffice.”
As long as you keep it civil, unlike Mr. Bisson, then I’ll gladly answer any questions or defend my argument.