The bill lets the president define what is and what is not a violation of the Geneva conventions. Isn't that clear enough? He can define anything as 'not torture' and still say we are obeying the convention.
Congress has given the president a blank check to torture anyone. Guilt is not relevant. An innocent person picked up by mistake or for political revenge has no course of action left. The 800 year old protection against wrongful imprisonment, Habeas Corpus, does not apply when the president does not want it to apply. Due process, what is that? Good bye, Magna Carta. Goodbye fourth, sixth and eighth amendments.
Kansas Senators Roberts and Brownback and Congressman Dennis Moore voted FOR this horror. The courts have been told they have no roll.
It is time to remember Pastor Niemoller's famous quote, updated.
- When they came for the terrorist suspects, I did not speak out since I was not a terrorist.
- When they came for the Democrats, I did not speak out since I was not a Democrat.
- When they came for the Libertarians, I did not speak out since I was not a Libertarian.
- When they came for the anti-war activists, I did not speak out since I was not an anti-war activist.
- When they came for the atheists, I did not speak out since I was not an atheist.
- When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.
For those who got their history from public schools, the Enabling Acts were a series of laws passed by the German Reichstag (parliment) in 1933-34 that, quite simply, gave the Chancellor, Adolf Hitler, the power to do all the horrible things he did during the Holocaust. The name was given to them in retrospect, of course. The immediate reason was to stop those terrible communists that had burned down the Reichstag building. The Fatherland needed to be protected, you see.
4 comments:
Mike,
I don't recall U.S. Citizens falling under this law. Can you give me a specific reference to go study.
If it is true, then I will be the first to back you on your rant.
If not, I would say you should get onto other things and stop the idealogical fretting.
The Federal Government has the power to conduct foriegn affairs, not regulate internal affairs.
As to your quote, it already applies. Look at how we have let our rights slip away ever so slowly because of FDR and Earl Warren (may they both be exposed for what they have done to this country...and burn in hell for it).
This whole business of government running over our rights is the result of us, the people (those who from, according to our founding fathers, flows authority of the government) have gotten fat, dumb, and lazy and have let our governmental processes slip into disrepair.
You can scream all you want about GW, but he is the product of a messed up system. I don't even hear libertarians beating the drum of local government the way I thought they would.
This is where we stop stupid stuff like the Patriot Act....by getting more engaged at home. The Partiot Act would never have gotten close, as neither would have No Child Left Behind, Roe v. Wade, or other intrusions by the Feds.
Scott
I don't think that my fears are unjustified. The combination of Patriot 1 and 2, and MCA and possibly the NSA wiretapping bill that is pending might just be seen in the future as our version of "The Enabling Acts". In that context, 9-11 will be the equivalent of the Reichstaag fire. Historians will argue forever over whether it was a put up job or a fortuitous event like they still argue over the Reichstaag fire.
In any case, not the definitions in the MCA that an unlawful combatant is anyone they say is one escept a lawful one. There is no exception for US citizens.
Habeas may still apply to US citizens, though definitely not for legal resident aliens or others, but any Habeas case will be decided under this definition of unlawful combatant.
Mike,
At this point, I think you are just guessing. Unless you can produce something that specifically calls it out, then you are working under the problematic umbrella of liberal interpretation.
As Stephen Douglas (may he burn next to Warren and FDR) said, "The Consitution can mean whatever you want it to mean". Without a specfic response on this issue, I don't agree that it will happen.
I agree that it could happen....as it did without this legislation (supposedly in secret places in Europe).
My bigger point is that this is almost an 11th hour kind of argument. To call them on this and to leave it here is to only procrastinate the day we face the complete dissolution of our liberties.
We have ground we must take back....even if these laws had never been passed.
Where is the chorus sounding for local government ? Where is the chorus for reduced federal government ? I am not talking about you in particular....I just wonder where Americans have their heads stuck (in the sand or worse) ?
We would not be dealing with this if it were not for our flabbiness with regard to government.
In context, this does not bother me.
In the absolute, I started getting concerned a long time ago about our lack of regulation on big government.
SLW
Knock Knock....
Post a Comment