Bye bye, Miss American Pie....

Email Print posted by MedfordTim 09/28/2006 11:12:55 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
<h3>
</h3>Mark your calenders. Today we, in the form of our elected representation, betrayed all who have come before, every life given for Liberty and American values, every drop of blood shed in defense of the Constitution. Lady Liberty's torch has dropped, Justice took off the blindfold and discarded the scales, and Uncle Sam was last seen hunched over and sobbing.

We have had Black days in our history, too many betrayals by the people we trust. This may prove to be the one which makes others pale by comparison.

With these words, America officially dies...

    SEC. 7. TREATY OBLIGATIONS NOT ESTABLISHING GROUNDS FOR CERTAIN CLAIMS.


    (a) In General- No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions, or any protocols thereto, in any habeas or civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States, is a party, as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories.

    (b) Geneva Conventions Defined- In this section, the term `Geneva Conventions' means--

      (1) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3217);

      (2) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick, and Shipwrecked Members of the Armed Forces at Sea, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3217);

      (3) the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316); and

      (4) the Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3516).
< The Average life of Democracy 300 years. | The "We Have to Win" Myth >
 Display:
Bye bye, Miss American Pie.... | 34 comments (34 topical, 0 hidden)
She died of a broken heart (none / 0)
Welcome to Third World Land

by MedfordTim on 09/28/2006 11:15:13 PM EST

is that the worst part? (none / 0)
I'm not even sure this is the worst part.  What about that part that may allow the President to deem any American citizen an enemy combatant and apprehend him or her without the usual judicial protections?  (I haven't read the bill, just about it.)

by yturks on 09/28/2006 11:39:08 PM EST

the wrost part (none / 0)
"What about that part that may allow the President to deem any American citizen an enemy combatant and apprehend him or her without the usual judicial protections?"

Dave, I've been meaning to discuss this with you. I've been keeping an eye on you lately. Please behave yourself.

by KenTX on 09/29/2006 12:13:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]
KenTX (none / 0)
Judas was a good friend too, ask any real Christian

by LORD FOUL on 09/29/2006 07:07:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]
American citizens or foreigners? (none / 0)


Does the bill apply to American citizens or foreigners?

1) I was under the impression this was all about terrorists and foreigners.

2) The court can and does overrule ANYTHING it wants to.

by acroso on 09/28/2006 11:48:37 PM EST

acroso (none / 0)
What are you gonna do when they come for you. Don't worry though, with your opinions, you will be one of the last they comes for. Dawn of the 4th Reich

by LORD FOUL on 09/29/2006 07:10:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I have not seen this discussed... (none / 0)
As pertains to prosecutions (or immunity given) for war crimes committed by US personnel (either civilian or military), international law provides that if a state is unwilling or unable to prosecute war crimes, those of its citizens and under its jurisdiction who commit such may still be prosecuted in by international tribunal regardless of whether that state has signed onto the ICC.  Just something to chew on with your breakfast. 

by nfc on 09/28/2006 11:55:28 PM EST

Geneva conventions (none / 0)
Terrorists are not part of a state so aren't included under Geneva conventions.

by acroso on 09/29/2006 12:04:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
acroso (none / 0)
How about not capitulating to the terrorists

History teaches us that torture of this type results in little reliable info

This is what they want, this builds sympathy to their cause.

This helps them recruit new members

This also causes us to lose our support from our allies.


In order to win we must turn the world against these criminals and their tactics.


Torture is a terrorists best friend

by LORD FOUL on 09/30/2006 08:35:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]
"Un-American" (none / 0)
"We have had Black days in our history, too many betrayals by the people we trust. This may prove to be the one which makes others pale by comparison. With these words, America officially dies..."
 
Wow, this sounds pretty serious. According to Tim's paragraph, the GOP-dominated government of the 2000 Decade has never committed a worse act.

So let's look more closely at the words highlighted in Section 7. Pat Leahy calls this legislation "Un-A merican", and I think he might be right. We are not offering foreign detainees (who are un-american by definition) the right of Habeas Corpus, or the right to a jury trial.

The Supreme Court ruled that America is at war, and the detainees should be treated as POWs, in accordance with Geneva. Fine, so compare the rights of detainees in this war with the rights of detainees in WWII, WWI, Korea, and Vietnam. Did North Korean POWs have the right to a jury trial in American courts?

In previous conflicts, did the American military (or their allies) make Japanese, North Vietnamese, North Korean detainees uncomfortable during coerced interrogation?

coerced interrogation

 

by KenTX on 09/29/2006 12:11:15 AM EST

that photo (none / 0)
That photo is seriously disturbing

by acroso on 09/29/2006 12:28:08 AM EST

[ Parent ]
reality check (none / 0)
"That photo is seriously disturbing."

Sorry. Sometimes you have to bring these liberals back to reality.

They're freaking out because detainees are enduring coerced interrogation and no access to American courts.

by KenTX on 09/29/2006 12:50:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Huh? (none / 0)
Ken, Not sure I understand. You show a picture of a South Vietnamese army guy blasting the brains out of a civilian with his hands tied behind his back as an example of...what, exactly?

Oh, and Acroso? We are all terrorists now, feriner and homespun alike. Anyone, anywhere, American, non-American, can be picked up, thrown in jail, and left there to rot without ever having charges brought about and it is illegal to reference Geneva as a defense - if you are ever afforded the opportunity of a defense.

by MedfordTim on 09/29/2006 02:28:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
happy to explain (none / 0)
"Ken, Not sure I understand. You show a picture of a South Vietnamese army guy blasting the brains out of a civilian with his hands tied behind his back as an example of...what, exactly?"

As an early example of "RENDITION". We have always allowed our allies to do the dirty work, and that's what is occuring in the photo. You are invited to challenge the facts.

There will continue to be harsh interrogation procedures. They will be carried out in other countries by other countries, but the information will be acquired nonetheless.

by KenTX on 09/29/2006 02:47:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
watch out for Tim (none / 0)
The "victim" was not a "civilian".

1968 AP PHOTO: Nguyen Ngoc Loan, whose execution of a Viet Cong prisoner in Saigon became one of the most chilling images of the Vietnam War, dies at age 67. Eddie Adams, whose photo of the execution won a Pulitzer Prize for The Associated Press, said the man Loan shot had been seen killing others and that the execution was justified.

SPRINGFIELD, VA (AP) - Nguyen Ngoc Loan, whose execution of a Viet Cong prisoner on the streets of Saigon in 1968 became one of the most chilling images of the Vietnam War, died Tuesday. He was 67. The former South Vietnamese general died of cancer at his home in Burke, a Washington suburb. He fled South Vietnam in 1975, the year the communists overran the country, and moved to Virginia, where he opened a restaurant.

On Feb. 1, 1968, Loan was director of South Vietnam's national police and the North Vietnamese had just begun the Tet Offensive, their huge military push southward. Firefights had broken out all over Saigon, and Loan's police were trying to rid the South Vietnamese capital of Viet Cong guerrillas. Loan led the prisoner, his hands bound, onto a street corner and in front of a group of journalists pulled his pistol and shot the prisoner point-blank in the head. The general told the newsmen that the prisoner was a known Viet Cong captain.


Eddie Adams' photo of the execution won a Pulitzer Prize for The Associated Press. NBC also showed film of the execution. Adams said yesterday that Gen. Loan's actions were misinterpreted because of the picture. "The guy was a hero. America should be crying," said Adams, now a free-lance photographer. "I just hate to see him go this way, without people knowing anything about him." Adams said the man Loan shot had been seen killing others and that Loan was justified in executing him.


The picture was among three that came to symbolize the brutality of the war, said Marco Leepson, spokesman for the Washington-based Vietnam Veterans of America.
 
The Tet Offensive had a powerful effect on U.S. public opinion because it contradicted assurances from the Johnson administration that the United States was winning the war. The photograph "was a part of the media presentation of the Tet Offensive and that had a pretty big negative impact on public opinion," Leepson said.

Leslie Cullen, a military history professor at Texas Tech University who specializes in the Vietnam War, said the man Loan summarily executed was involved in killing a policeman and his family. "Not that such a thing was justified, but people had the impression from press reports that this guy was killing him just to be killing him," Cullen said. "People had a question in their mind, `Do we support people who do this?'"


Loan is survived by his wife, Chinh Mai, and his five children.


by KenTX on 09/29/2006 02:57:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
keeping the conversation going (none / 0)
"Adams said yesterday that Gen. Loan's actions were misinterpreted because of the picture."

How does one "misinterpret" a "lead lynching"?

Adams said the man Loan shot had been seen killing others and that Loan was justified in executing him.

"Not that such a thing was justified, but people had the impression from press reports that this guy was killing him just to be killing him," Cullen said.

(I love your sources, Ken, they're so...consistent?)

Which, of course, he WAS. There was no immediate danger from the bound guy. The top Police Guy says "This is a Viet Cong. He killed a policeman and his family." And Top Police Guy is magically transformed into Top Judge Guy, Top Jury Guy, and Top Executioner Guy." Been a shame to ruin that staged a photo op with any extraneous materials like, say, evidence. He killed him to try and make a point - not further any cause of justice.

A slightly different remembrance...

"The photo (captioned "General Nguyen Ngoc Loan executing a Viet Cong prisoner in Saigon") and film would become two of the most famous images in journalism and started to change the American public's views on their involvement in the Vietnam War.

"Nguyen Van Lem was captured, his hands bound and was brought in front of the journalists. General Nguyen pulled out his revolver and calmly executed the prisoner with a single shot to the right temple. Nguyen claimed that this was justified because the prisoner had been the captain of an NLF platoon that (reportedly) had just executed the wives, children and relatives of several South Vietnamese police officers. Thirty-four bound and murdered civilians were found in one ditch."

And all the prisoners at Abu Ghraib were insurgoterroislamafascists. ..Holes in that story big enough to drive an Earth Mover through. Made the impression, all righty, though. That was in '68, the year the war stopped and flowers started springing up all over Viet Nam...Oh, wait...the war went on for 7 more years. Guess it wasn't all that effective at scaring anyone off, was it? How much intel do you think anyone got from this "guerrilla" after the bullet went through his brain?

And..."Those designated as guerrillas were subject only to the laws of the South Vietnamese government, which was often less willing to protect the human rights of its enemy when compared to the United States."

Yippee! We've shot our level of justice all the way up to the standards of South Viet Nam, circa 1968!


This is, after all, a pretty good example of what America can be like. Now. Gulags, secret police, our own group of "disappeareds" just like South America! I guess we can build up to summary executions of bound people in the middle of the street. Say! Why don't we behead them, so it'll really drive home the message of how just and moral America is?

`Do we support people who do this?'"

Good question, Prof. The answer is(was) "of course we do". A better question is SHOULD we?

Evidently, a majority of our elected representatives in both houses think so and OBVIOUSLY the Administration has no qualms - they harbor all kinds of terrorists, as long as they're our kinds of terrorists.

by MedfordTim on 09/29/2006 04:10:36 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Islamolunaticism (none / 0)
Why don't we behead them, so it'll really drive home the message of how just and moral America is?

How dare you insinuate that the brave freedom fighters who must resort to beheading because they do not have tanks and fighter jets are less moral and just than any other culture, western imperialist pigfooker.

by Twba on 09/29/2006 04:57:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I will attach this Scalia quote (none / 0)
to every thread on the subject of the "Torture Bill".

Because a detainee who is taken prisoner on a battlefield in Afghanistan does not have a constitutional right to a hearing and a jury trial in front of an American court.

Did Japanese or German or Vietnamese of North Korean POWs have the right to Habeas Corpus?

Do you know how fukking stupid you people sound? Well I’ll bring in an expert to tell you, so it will be official.

Antonin Scalia dismissed the idea that the detainees have rights under the U.S. Constitution or international conventions, adding he was "astounded" at the "hypocritical" reaction in Europe to Gitmo. "War is war, and it has never been the case that when you captured a combatant you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts," he says on a tape of the talk reviewed by NEWSWEEK. "Give me a break." Challenged by one audience member about whether the Gitmo detainees don't have protections under the Geneva or human-rights conventions, Scalia shot back: "If he was captured by my army on a battlefield, that is where he belongs. I had a son on that battlefield and they were shooting at my son and I'm not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it's crazy." Scalia was apparently referring to his son Matthew, who served with the U.S. Army in Iraq.

by KenTX on 09/29/2006 03:25:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
ambiguity (none / 0)
I think a lot of the problem comes in how to define this new "threat".  We are no longer at "War" in the traditional sense.  We have toppled the Taliban in Afganistan and Saddam in Iraq and set up new governments, therefore the "wars" are over.  

What we face now is a two pronged threat.  There are international "terrorists" who's goal is to harm American interests and could probably be characterized as "barbarians" or "thugs".  Thre are also the "insergents" who are natives of the invaded countries who now want to regain power and influence over their home contries. 

Under current laws you can treat these two groups in one of two ways.  You can define them as POW's in which case you can hold them legally until the conflict is over, but at which point you are obligated to release them back to their homeland or charge them with war crimes.  This does not seem to be a very good option since there is no garuntee that they will not pick up arms again.  Also, since they are not fighting for a specific nation with treaty power there is no reasonable way to define the end of the conflict which whould trigger their release.  The other option and the one that makes most sense to me it that you can treat them as civillian criminals.  In this case you must afford them the same legal recourse as any other criminal in the appropriate jurisdiction. 

Right now however we are holding them in a kindof legal pergatory where their status is ill defined.  We need to come to a reasonable concensus on how we want to handle these non-traditional combatants that is consistent with the rule of law and preserves our moral standing as a nation. 

by alphasigmookie on 09/29/2006 04:12:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Kens final solution for detainees.... (none / 0)

by DeCee on 09/29/2006 07:40:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
KenTX (none / 0)
Torture is a terrorist best friend.

Each one you torture results in hundreds more in their stead while causing us to lose the moral authority we once had

Didn't Christ teach you the uselessness of torture?

by LORD FOUL on 09/30/2006 08:38:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
overlooked this...tch! (none / 0)
"the right of Habeas Corpus, or the right to a jury trial."

I don't want to get your meaning wrong - are those two separate thoughts or are you describing Habeas as the right to a jury trial?

by MedfordTim on 09/29/2006 02:36:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yet Another Closet Case Conservatve .. (none / 0)

Republican congressman Mark Foley of Florida resigned Friday, effective immediately, in the wake of questions about e-mails he sent to an underage male former page. ''I am deeply sorry and I apologize for letting down my family and the people of Florida I have had the privilege to represent,'' he said

In this case though I guess he is a pedophile and not a closeted gay.  

by LoneStarLiberal on 09/29/2006 04:31:47 PM EST

Foley (none / 0)
Wouldn't that make him both a closet gay and a pedophile?

Now after Delay waiting to long to retire and then this joker, we've basically given up two solid seats for free.

by acroso on 09/29/2006 09:28:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Foley2 (none / 0)
Let me take some of that back. Maybe he's not a pedophile and just a homosexual? He's also not married so he's not an adulterator


Drudge report says "im not 18 till feb 23"
from the victim.

Also
"Age for Sexual Consent: 16
D.C. Code § 22-3001; D.C. Code § 22-3102"

So the guy was 17 he was sending messenges to..

by acroso on 09/29/2006 09:40:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
man-on-man-congressman (none / 0)
Everyone knew Mark Foley is a gay guy. It was common knowledge in DC, and as a matter of fact, here is a post from a couple of weeks ago discussing the issue.

Democrat Congressgayman Gary Studds admitted having sex with a male intern, back when they were 16 years old. Nothing happened to him. 

Democrat Congressgayman Barney "My-Boy-Lollipop" Franks admitted to working with his boyfriend to manage a house of male prostitution from his residence.  

by KenTX on 09/29/2006 11:01:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
he was 16 (none / 0)
The kid was 16 and I doubt if he cared if he would have been 12. Drudge by the way is a self loathing gay that used to cruise the gay bars in Miami. What a piece of work he is.

by LoneStarLiberal on 09/30/2006 03:13:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Curious... (none / 0)
...why do you think a person can't be a Gay Pedophile?

by MedfordTim on 09/30/2006 02:43:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
what difference does it make (none / 0)
A closet case gay man that has a healthy intrest in men is one thing. A man that seems to only be interested in pursuing young boys is another. I make a distinction between being merely gay and being a pedophile. I have no idea if a pedophile can be gay or not and frankly I dont care.

by LoneStarLiberal on 09/30/2006 03:07:08 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Doesn't make any difference to me (none / 0)
I just wondered why you thought it had to be separate.

From my perspective, I refuse to refer to ANYONE as a pedophile when the "underage" person is over the age of 14. Wasn't all that long ago that 14 & up was "marryin'" age (true, true - mainly girls, but boys were gettin' hitched regularly at 16). How we can go to "perfectly acceptable" to "horrible sickness" in only a couple of generations is beyond me. (any guy over the age of 18 who says they have never seen a girl in the 14-17 range that didn't make them say "Damn!" is either blind or a liar.)

I also make a distinction between a pedophile and a predator. A person can go their whole life being attracted sexually to pre-teens without ever acting on their desires. I have no problem with them whatsoever. Predators, I have a BIG problem with.

by MedfordTim on 09/30/2006 03:49:08 AM EST

[ Parent ]
my preferences (none / 0)
"From my perspective, I refuse to refer to ANYONE as a pedophile when the "underage" person is over the age of 14."

That's because whenever your ship made port in Thailand or the Philippines, you were the first guy off the boat in pursuit of some of that 15-16 year old stuff.

I'm not sayin' it was illegal, because those countries are more open minded on issues of amour.

“healthy interest in men”

Since AIDS and other sexually communicable diseases are rampant in the homosexual community, how can interest in men ever be healthy?

I’ve gotta take Tim’s side on this issue. Strictly female. Strictly legal.

by KenTX on 09/30/2006 04:47:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
KenTx (none / 0)
Typical Republican, any crime is o.k. if you're a Republican, any moral depravity is o.k. if you're a Republican

If he was a Dem all you would hear about is how this fag took advantage of his position to lure young boys into his homo-sexual perversion. They would be ranting about how he wasn't maried, which would be proof that he was really queer

by LORD FOUL on 09/30/2006 07:58:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
the sanctity of marriage (none / 0)
I never understood that.  Isn't getting married the perfect way to avoid ever having sex with a woman ever again (while simultaneously enjoying a tax break and reduced auto insurance premiums)?

by jessejace on 09/30/2006 08:34:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh, if you only knew the truth... (none / 0)
Never been to Thailand...sigh...

I was the complete stereotype of the moron who falls in love with the bar girl. First time getting laid (got close one time before, but that's a story better told when everyone's half drunk...embarrassing then, funny as hell now...), fell head over heels, eventually married her. She was 16 when I met her, but I had just turned 18 three months before. And she was the only sexual partner I had until I was 23 and we had split up. The full details would make you wretch in disgust at the wasted opportunities...

Quite pathetic, actually. One of the side effects of being a Romantic Idealist. "Romantic" in the literary sense - chivalrous, dedicated, faithful...basically all the traits found in a good dog.

No, the book on My Sexual Adventures While In The Service would be a very fast read. Wouldn't even be enough pages to have any stuck together.

I’ve gotta take Tim’s side on this issue. Strictly female. Strictly legal.

That's my "side"? I said that? Must've had more to drink than I thought. I certainly don't care about the gender preferences of an office holder, but I rather they be honest about it.

And "legal" is so ambiguous (in regards to "sex" laws), I don't know that I could define what "strictly" means.

I DO wish that politicians - Presidents, Congresspeople, elected Dog Catchers, whatever - would stop pooping where they eat and leave the damn subordinates alone.

But, thanks for the support...I think...maybe...huh?

by MedfordTim on 09/30/2006 10:54:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Bye bye, Miss American Pie.... | 34 comments (34 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: