 Life in OUR America, Volume 5, the Livyjr Files |
  |
| Life in OUR America, Volume 5, the Livyjr Files |
 Jul 4 2006, 01:24 PM
Post
#1061
|
|
|
Advanced Member  Group: Subscribing Member Posts: 49,435 Joined: 5-November 04 Member No.: 219  |
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 30 2006, 05:14 PM) "Guantanamo ruling heralds US political showdown" By Patricia Wilson WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The president, who is struggling with the lowest poll ratings of his term mostly because of the unpopular Iraq war, and his political architect Karl Rove have played the national security card to successfully trump Democrats in previous elections. Bush and Rove already have stepped up their attacks on Democrats in the past couple of weeks, accusing some of wanting to "cut and run" and "waving the white flag" in Iraq. "Naturally, the common people don't want war ....." "But they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders ......" "Tell them they are being attacked ....: "And denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism ....." "And endangering the country ......" "It works the same in every country ....." - Herman Goering, Hitler's Reichsmarschall at the Nuremberg trials |
 |
 
|
|
Jul 4 2006, 11:12 PM
Post
#1062
|
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Moderator Posts: 137,617 Joined: 4-November 04 From: Washington D.C. Member No.: 9 |
If the author of the Declaration of Independence were to utter such a sentiment today, the Post Office Department could exclude him from the mail, grand juries could indict him for sedition and criminal syndicalism, legislative committees could seize his private papers ... and United States Senators would be clamoring for his deportation that he ... should be sent back to live with the rest of the terrorists.": -- Frank I. Cobb
(1869-1923) American Journalist -Source: New York World = "No matter who you are or what you believe, you have to understand that some day the worst control-freaks among your bitterest enemies will control the federal government, and you better have restored effective, working constitutional limitations on that government before that time arrives." -- Rick Gaber = "Given the low level of competence among politicians, every American should become a libertarian. The government that governs least is certainly the best choice when fools, opportunists and grafters run it. When power is for sale, then the government power should be severely limited. When power is abused, then the less power the better." -- Charley Reese |
|
|
|
|
Jul 5 2006, 06:38 AM
Post
#1063
|
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Subscribing Member Posts: 49,435 Joined: 5-November 04 Member No.: 219 |
QUOTE(Snuffysmith @ Jul 4 2006, 11:12 PM) "If the author of the Declaration of Independence were to utter such a sentiment today, the Post Office Department could exclude him from the mail, grand juries could indict him for sedition and criminal syndicalism, legislative committees could seize his private papers ... and United States Senators would be clamoring for his deportation that he ... should be sent back to live with the rest of the terrorists." -- Frank I. Cobb (1869-1923) American Journalist -Source: New York World Time is a loop, Snuf .... Time is a loop ... Time is a loop ..... Where nations start ..... Seems to be ... Where they get back to .... When they end .... And so .... |
|
|
|
|
Jul 5 2006, 06:49 AM
Post
#1064
|
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Subscribing Member Posts: 49,435 Joined: 5-November 04 Member No.: 219 |
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 4 2006, 01:24 PM) "Naturally, the common people don't want war ....." "But they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders ......" "Tell them they are being attacked ....: "And denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism ....." "And endangering the country ......" "It works the same in every country ....." - Herman Goering, Hitler's Reichsmarschall at the Nuremberg trials  QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 4 2006, 06:11 AM) According to the REPUBLICANS ..... George W. Bush ... IS GIVING ... THOSE IRAQI WOMEN .... JUST WHAT THEY DESERVE .... And so .... "Ex-GI charged in rape of Iraqi, killings" By TIM WHITMIRE, Associated Press Last updated: 3:42 a.m., Tuesday, July 4, 2006 CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- When U.S. military officials found the bodies of four Iraqis inside a burned house near Mahmoudiya in March, they at first blamed insurgents. Three of the bodies had gunshot wounds, and the body of a woman was burned. Authorities believe she was raped before being shot in the head. But on Monday, federal prosecutors revealed the outcome of a joint military and FBI investigation: the culprits, they now believe, are U.S. soldiers who manned a checkpoint a short distance from the home. end quotes PUNKS ..... IN PARATROOPER SUITS ..... WHO RAPE AND KILL WOMEN ..... FOR GEORGE W. BUSH ... AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY .... ARE NOT REAL AIRBORNE TROOPERS ..... NOR ARE THEY REAL AMERICAN SOLDIERS ...... THEY'RE JUST A BUNCH ..... OF BUSHCOS ... And so .... "In Texas town, few knew ex-soldier charged" By STEVE QUINN, Associated Press Last updated: 5:17 a.m., Wednesday, July 5, 2006 MIDLAND, Texas -- After a former Army private was accused in the horrific rape and killing of a young woman and the execution-style slaying of her family, few in this West Texas town offered details about the 21-year-old's life here. But one resident -- a former Marine -- hoped the accusations against Steven D. Green don't reflect poorly on the soldiers still serving in Iraq. "I don't care where he's from; this gives us a black eye," said Shaun Sanders, who spent 14 months in the Middle East and Africa and now lives in the building by Green's family but did not know him. "To hear a story of something like this happen in this particular region, at this particular time, is not good." Green's father, John, told The Associated Press that attorneys have advised him not to publicly talk about the case against his son, who was charged with rape and four counts of murder Monday in a federal courtroom in Charlotte, N.C. Steven Green, who served in the Fort Campbell, Ky.-based 101st Airborne Division, is being prosecuted in federal rather than military court because he is no longer in the Army. He was honorably discharged this spring because of a "personality disorder." Investigators say Green and other soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division plotted to rape a young Iraqi woman they first saw at a traffic checkpoint in the village of Mahmoudiya. Green is accused of rounding up three family members in a room of the woman's house and shooting them before raping and killing her. Greg Simolke told The Washington Post that his nephew had visited relatives in North Carolina last week on his way to and from a funeral at Arlington National Cemetery for a member of his platoon who was killed in Iraq. "When he was here for this visit, he seemed like the same old Steve," Simolke told The Post. "I don't understand what happens in a war, so I don't know how these things happen." Relatives told the newspaper that Green had grown up in Midland and joined the Army after receiving his GED. He went to Fort Benning, Ga., for infantry training and graduated in June 2005, his family said. "He had found direction in his life, something important and something that he really wanted to do," Simolke told The Post. "He was talking about making the military his career and was ready to go to Iraq." "He thought it was a good thing to be serving his country." Green was arrested Friday at a relative's home in Marion, about 75 miles northwest of Charlotte, but authorities wouldn't disclose the relative's name. Mary Simolke, Green's grandmother who lives near Marion, declined comment. According to an affidavit, the funeral Green was attending in Arlington was for one of the two soldiers whose mutilated bodies were found June 19, three days after they were abducted by insurgents near Youssifiyah, southwest of Baghdad. end quotes "I don't understand what happens in a war, so I don't know how these things happen." Well ..... Having served in another FAUX war in Viet Nam ..... Let me help you out here ..... WARS are places on the face of the earth ..... Where there are no laws ... No rules ... No regulations ..... Just barbarity ..... And so ... Women ... And girls ... BECOME FAVORED TARGETS .... Of those ... Who are ... The BARBARIANS .... Having the war ... And so .... WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT? It is really pretty simple ..... SUSPEND LAW AND ORDER .... As George W. Bush has done ... And is still doing ... AND YOU HAVE LAWLESSNESS .... WHERE WOMEN ... AND GIRLS ... BECOME FAVORED TARGETS .... OF THOSE WHO ARE LAWLESS .... And so ..... |
|
|
|
|
Jul 5 2006, 04:28 PM
Post
#1065
|
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Subscribing Member Posts: 49,435 Joined: 5-November 04 Member No.: 219 |
QUOTE(Livyjr) A MESSAGE TO AMERICA ..... AND ALL THE CANDID WORLD .... FROM GEORGE W. BUSH ..... COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF .... UNITED STATES MILITARY FORCES IN IRAQINAM ..... ZUG ZUG .... OINK OINK .... OOGA BOOGA .... OOGA BOOGA .... BURGER KING .... DICK CHENEY .... I KNEW .... IT WAS LOVE .... AT FIRST SIGHT ...... OINK OINK OINK ..... ZUG ZUG ..... BOOGA BOOGA ..... DURKA DURKA MOHAMMED JIHAD .... SHERPA SHERPA BAK ALLAH .... HADJI GIRL ..... DICK CHENEY .... A LOT OF MONEY .... REPUBLICAN PARTY .... DURKA DURKA MOHAMMED JIHAD .... SHERPA SHERPA BAK ALLAH .... HADJI GIRL ..... I LOVE YOU ANYWAY ..... DURKA DURKA MOHAMMED JIHAD .... SHERPA SHERPA BAK ALLAH ... DURKA DURKA MOHAMMED JIHAD ..... SHERPA SHERPA BAK ALLAH .... LITTLE SISTER .... THE BLOOD SPRAYED FROM BETWEEN HER EYES .... DICK CHENEY .... REPUBLICAN PARTY .... ZUG ZUG ... BOOGA BOOGA ..... AND THEN I LAUGHED MANIACALLY ..... DICK CHENEY .... DONALD RUMSFELD .... CONDOLEEZA RICE .... AND I SAID ..... ZUG ZUG ..... BOOGA BOOGA .... REPUBLICAN PARTY ... KARL ROVE .... DURKA DURKA MOHAMMED JIHAD .... SHERPA SHERPA BAK ALLAH ..... THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN ..... THEY WERE F***ING WITH A MARINE ..... --The lyrics to the "Hadji Girl," sung by a Marine, Cpl. Joshua Belile, who was videotaped during the performance; cited in Thomas Riggins, "The 'Hadji Girl' Debate and the Fog of War" (Political Affairs Magazine/Selves and others, June 21) http://www.selvesandothers.org/article14713.html "Officials: Ex-GI had antisocial disorder" By STEVE QUINN, Associated Press Writer Wed Jul 5, 9:40 AM ET MIDLAND, Texas - A former Army private accused in the horrific rape and killing of a young Iraqi woman and the execution-style slaying of her family had been discharged because of an "antisocial personality disorder," U.S. military officials told The Associated Press. Investigators say Steven D. Green and other soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division plotted to rape a young Iraqi woman they first saw at a traffic checkpoint in the village of Mahmoudiya. Green is accused of rounding up three family members in a room of the woman's house and shooting them before raping and killing her. Previously, in a federal court affidavit, investigators said only that the 21-year-old Green had been given an honorable discharge for a "personality disorder" this spring before the March murder case came to light. But U.S. military officials who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case said late Tuesday it was an "antisocial personality disorder." They did not elaborate. In the West Texas town of Midland where Green grew up, few people offered details of his life. Green's father, John, told the AP that attorneys have advised him not to publicly talk about the case against his son, who was charged with rape and four counts of murder Monday in a federal courtroom in Charlotte, N.C. But one resident — a former Marine — hoped the accusations against Steven D. Green don't reflect poorly on the soldiers still serving in Iraq. "I don't care where he's from; this gives us a black eye," said Shaun Sanders, who spent 14 months in the Middle East and Africa and now lives in the building by Green's family but did not know him. "To hear a story of something like this happen in this particular region, at this particular time, is not good." Greg Simolke told The Washington Post that his nephew had visited relatives in North Carolina last week on his way to and from a funeral at Arlington National Cemetery for a member of his platoon who was killed in Iraq. "When he was here for this visit, he seemed like the same old Steve," Simolke told the Post. "I don't understand what happens in a war, so I don't know how these things happen." Relatives told the newspaper that Green had grown up in Midland and joined the Army after receiving his GED. He went to Fort Benning, Ga., for infantry training and graduated in June 2005, his family said. "He had found direction in his life, something important and something that he really wanted to do," Simolke told the Post. "He was talking about making the military his career and was ready to go to Iraq." "He thought it was a good thing to be serving his country." Green was arrested Friday at a relative's home in Marion, about 75 miles northwest of Charlotte, but authorities wouldn't disclose the relative's name. Mary Simolke, Green's grandmother who lives near Marion, declined comment. According to an affidavit, the funeral Green was attending in Arlington was for one of the two soldiers whose mutilated bodies were found June 19, three days after they were abducted by insurgents near Youssifiyah, southwest of Baghdad. ___ AP Writer Ryan Lenz in Iraq contributed to this report. end quotes The COMMANDER-IN CHIEF ... Of OUR American military forces in IRAQINAM ... Exhibits ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOR .... ALL OF THE TIME .... With all of his talk about COLLATERAL DAMAGE ..... Which is the needless, wanton killing of civilians ..... USUALLY WOMEN AND CHILDREN ... Being not only acceptable .... But desireable as well ...... And so ... WHO IS SURPRISED .... WHEN THE TROOPS EMULATE HIM .... By exhibiting anti-social behavior of their own ... To match his .... And so .... |
|
|
|
|
Jul 5 2006, 04:53 PM
Post
#1066
|
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Subscribing Member Posts: 49,435 Joined: 5-November 04 Member No.: 219 |
THE "FOG" .....
Of war ..... That phrase .... Is from Von Clausewitz, of course .... And for anybody who does not recognize the name ... That is not surprising .... For he is not an American .... And he is dead ... And quite some time, at that .... And when he was alive .... It was over in Europe .... At a time .... When those nations over there ... Were content to tear themselves apart .... And rend their populations ..... OUT OF MADNESS, I suppose .... Since there is not a rational explanation for it .... But I digress ..... When Von Clausewitz was around .... There was no smokeless powder, as there is today .... And so .... As soon as a battle began .... The smoke from the weapons obscured the battlefield .... So that a commander could not see his own men at times .... Nor could he see the enemy ... And so ... The phrase .... THE FOG OF WAR .... Which meant ... That you could not SEE what was going on ... IN THE PHYSICAL REALM .... NOT THAT YOU NO LONGER KNEW ... RIGHT FROM WRONG ... AS GEORGE W. BUSH .... HAS HIS MILITARY LAWYERS .... TWISTING .... THE MEANING .... OF THAT PHRASE INTO .... TO EXCUSE ... THE WANTON DESTRUCTION .... OF HUMAN BEINGS .... "Oh, pardon me, I just got carried away there, the FOG OF WAR, don't you know, what, what, cheerio-pip-pip!" And so ..... I have been in a "war" ...... Which is simply a place ... Where the law has been suspended ... And human life is worthless ..... And just because you might not always be able to see what is going on .... IT DOES NOT MEAN ... THAT YOU NO LONGER ... CAN TELL ... RIGHT FROM WRONG ... And so ..... It seems to me ..... That everything of OURS ... That is "AMERICAN" ..... Like INTEGRITY .... And HONOR .... BECOMES SOILED .... AND PERVERTED .... BY THE TOUCH .... OF GEORGE W. BUSH'S HANDS .... And so ..... With that the case, here in OUR America today ... WHERE WE HAVE A VALUELESS MAN ..... In there .... As COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF ... Of OUR American military .... WHO REALLY IS SURPRISED ... That these low-level troops ... ARE RAPING ... AND MURDERING WOMEN? And I'll tell you ... It sure is not me ... Because I have been there before ... AND I HAVE SEEN THIS SAME OLD **** .... To the point of where it gags me to think about it ...... And so ..... These troops do this stuff ... BECAUSE OF A FAILURE OF LEADERSHIP .... FROM THE TOP ON DOWN ..... AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND ..... And so ..... THE MAN .... WHO IS RESPONSIBLE .... AND ACCOUNTABLE ..... FOR THOSE RAPES .... AND MURDERS ..... IS THE MAN ... IN THE WHITE HOUSE .... DOWN THERE IN CORRUPT WASHINGTON. D.C. ...... WHO COMMANDS THOSE TROOPS ..... And so ..... |
|
|
|
|
Jul 5 2006, 05:50 PM
Post
#1067
|
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Subscribing Member Posts: 49,435 Joined: 5-November 04 Member No.: 219 |
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 4 2006, 01:24 PM) "Naturally, the common people don't want war ....." "But they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders ......" "Tell them they are being attacked ....: "And denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism ....." "And endangering the country ......" "It works the same in every country ....." - Herman Goering, Hitler's Reichsmarschall at the Nuremberg trials From Soapbox at: http://capwiz.com/congressorg/pyv/electors/ "How the Patriot Act Compares to Hitler's Enabling Act - Why Does Bush Need To Take Away Our Rights To Fight His "War On Terror?" Also: Read Alex Jones' breakdown of the USA Patriot Act on the Rickie Lee Jones website: http://www.rickieleejones.com/political/patriotact.htm 1) How the Patriot Act Compares to Hitler's Ermächtigungsgesetz (Enabling Act) On March 23, 1933, the newly elected members of the Reichstag met in the Kroll Opera House in Berlin to consider passing Hitler's "Ermächtigungsgesetz". The "Enabling Act" was officially called the "Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich." Opponents to the bill argued that if it was passed, it would end democracy in Germany and establish a legal dictatorship of Adolf Hitler. To soften resistance to the passing of the Enabling Act, the Nazis secretly caused confusion in order to create an atmosphere in which the law seem necessary to restore order. On February 27, 1933, Nazis burned the Reichstag building, and a seat of the German government, causing frenzy and outrage. They successfully blamed the fire on the Communists, and claimed it marked the beginning of a widespread terrorism and unrest threatening the safety of the German "Homeland." On the day of the vote, Nazi storm troopers gathered around the opera house chanting, "Full powers - or else!" "We want the bill - or fire and murder!" The Nazis used the opportunity to arrest 4,000 communists. Not only did the Nazis use the incident as a propaganda against communists but they also arrested additional 40,000 members of the opposition. Consequently, the Nazis had achieved their objective of eliminating democracy and ensuring their majority in the parliament. After the fire on February 28, 1933, president Hindenburg and Hitler invoked Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution, which permitted the suspension of civil liberties during national emergencies. Some examples of this Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of the People and State abrogated the following constitutional protections: Freedom of the press, free expression of opinion, individual property rights, right of assembly and association, right to privacy of postal and electronic communications, states´ rights of self-government, and protection against unlawful searches and seizures. Before the vote, Hitler made a speech to the Reichstag in which he pledged to use restraint. He also promised to end unemployment and promote multilateral peace with France, Great Britain and the Soviet Union. In order to accomplish all this, Hitler said, he first needed the Enabling Act. Since this act would alter the German constitution, a two-thirds majority was necessary. Hitler needed 31 non-Nazi votes to pass it. The Center Party provided these votes after Hitler made a false promise to them. Four hundred and forty votes were registered for the Enabling Act, while a mere 84 votes were opposed – the social Democrats. In glory the Nazi Party stood to their feet and sang the Nazi anthem, the Hörst Wessel song. The German Democratic party had finally been eliminated, and Hitler’s dream for Nazi command became closer to reality. The Enabling Act granted Hitler the power he craved and could use without objection from the Reichstag. Shortly after the passing of The Enabling Act all other political parties were dissolved. Trade unions were liquidated and opposition clergy were arrested. The Nazi party had, as Hitler said, become the state. By August 1934, Hitler became commander-in-chief of the armed forces. This was in addition to being President and Führer of the German Reich, to whom every individual in the armed forces pledged unconditional obedience. The Reichstag was no longer a place for debate, but rather a cheering squad in favor of whatever Hitler might say. 2) A 21st Century Comparison of The Enabling Act and The Patriot Act Last September, German Justice Minister Herta Daeubler-Gmelin pointed out that George Bush is using Iraq to distract the American public from his failed domestic policies. She capped her statement by reminding her audience: "That's a popular method." "Even Hitler did that." What was lost in the reactions to Ms. Daeubler-Gmelin's comments was that she wasn't comparing Bush to the Hitler of the late 1930s and early 1940s; but to the Hitler of the late 1920s and early 1930s. Most Americans have forgotten that Hitler came to power legally. He and the Nazi Party were elected democratically in a time of great national turmoil and crisis. They themselves had done much to cause the turmoil, of course, but that's what makes the Bush comparison so compelling. Similar to the Bush administration, the Nazis were funded and ultimately ushered into power by wealthy industrialists looking for government favors in the form of tax breaks, big subsidies, and laws to weaken the rights of workers. When the Reichstag (Germany's Parliament building) was set ablaze in 1933 (probably by Nazis), the Nazis framed their political rivals for it. In the general panic that followed, the German Parliament was purged of all left-wing representatives who might be soft on communists and foreigners, and the few who remained then VOTED to grant Chancellor Hitler dictatorial powers. A long, hideous nightmare had begun. History teaches us that it is shockingly easy to separate reasonable and intelligent people from their rights. A legally elected leader and party can easily manipulate national events to whip up fear, crucify scapegoats, gag dissenters, and convince the masses that their liberties must be suspended (temporarily, of course) in the name of restoring order. Consider the following two statements, and see if you can identify the authors. Statement Number One: "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders." "That is easy." "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." "It works the same way in any country." Statement Number Two: "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve." The first statement is a quote from Hitler's right hand man, Hermann Goering, explaining at his war crimes trial how easily he and his fellow Nazis hijacked Germany's democratic government. The second statement is a quote from Bush's right hand man, John Ashcroft, defending the Patriot Act and explaining why dissent will no longer be tolerated in the age of terrorism. If that doesn't send chills down your spine, nothing will. When the shooting started at Lexington Green in 1775, those calling themselves patriots were the men and women who refused to yield their rights to an increasingly oppressive government. Today, according to John Ashcroft and his Patriot Act of 2001, a patriot is someone who kneels down in fear, and hands over his or her rights to the government in the name of fighting terrorism. Isn't the hypocrisy of this all too obvious? The Bush administration wants us to fight in Afghanistan, to fight in Iraq, and to fight wherever terrorists may be hiding. And what, pray tell, are we fighting for? Well, according to the White House, we're fighting for freedom. Yet freedom is exactly what the White House is demanding that we now SURRENDER in the name of fighting terrorism. So what's really going on? Well, it's all a lie, of course. The Bush administration isn't any more interested in protecting our freedom from terrorists than Hitler was in protecting Germans from communists, Jews, and all the other groups he scapegoated. The Bush administration is fighting only to protect itself and its corporate sponsors. It hides behind a veil of national security and behind non-stop war headlines of its own creation. And behind that smokescreen, Bush, Inc. is pursuing Hitler’s old agenda from the 1920s and 1930s: serving the interests of the corporate industrialists who brought it to power. There is a name for governments that serve the interests of Big Business at the expense of their own citizens: fascist. Here's a short list of the rights we've already surrendered since the September 11 attacks. Most of these abuses are from a single piece of legislation called the Patriot Act of 2001, which was rushed through Congress with no debate in the aftermath of the attacks. Many of the Congressmen who voted for it later admitted that they hadn't even read it at the time. 3) Ten Key Dangers of The Patriot Act That Every American Should Know No. 1: The government can conduct "sneak and peek" searches in which agents enter your home or business and search your belongings without informing you until long after. No. 2: Government agents can force libraries and bookstores to hand over the titles of books that you've purchased or borrowed and can demand the identity of anyone who has purchased or borrowed certain books. The government can also prosecute libraries and bookstores for informing you that the search occurred or even for informing you that an inquiry was made. According to ACLU staff attorney Jameel Jaffer, such "searches could extend to doctors offices, banks and other institutions which, like libraries, were previously off-limits under the law." Chris Finan, President of the American Booksellers group adds: "The refusal of the Justice Department to tell Congress how many times it has used its powers is even more unsettling because it naturally leads to the suspicion that it is using them a lot." No. 3: Federal agents are authorized to use hidden devices to trace the telephone calls or emails of people who are not even suspected of a crime. The FBI is also permitted to use its Magic Lantern technology to monitor everything you do on your computer--recording not just the websites you visit but EVERY SINGLE KEYSTROKE as well. No. 4: Government agents are permitted to arrest and detain individuals "suspected" of terrorist activities and to hold them INDEFINITELY, WITHOUT CHARGE, and WITHOUT an ATTORNEY. (That could be you or me for sending or receiving this Email, by the way) No. 5: Federal agents are permitted to conduct full investigations of American citizens and permanent legal residents simply because they have participated in activities protected by the First Amendment, such as writing a letter to the editor or attending a peaceful rally. No. 6: Law enforcement agents are permitted to listen in on discussions between prisoners and their attorneys, thus denying them their Constitutional right to confidential legal counsel. No. 7: Terrorism suspects may be tried in secret military tribunals where defendants have no right to a public trial, no right to trial by jury, no right to confront the evidence, and no right to appeal to an independent court. In short, the Constitution does not apply. No. 8: The CIA is granted authority to spy on American citizens, a power that has previously been denied to this international espionage organization. No. 9: In addition to the Patriot Act, the Bush administration has given us Operations TIPS, a government program that encourages citizens to spy on each other and to report their neighbors activities to the authorities. It's EXACTLY the kind of thing for which we used to fault East Germany and the Soviet Union, and for which we currently fault Red China and North Korea. Fortunately, Operation TIPS (or AmeriSnitch, as it's known to its many detractors) seems to have been recalled to the factory--at least for now. (Incidentally, in a clever variation of "two-can-play-at-that-game”, Brad Templeton has set up a website at http://www.all-the-other-names-were-taken.com/tipstips.html where you can report people you suspect of being informants for Operation TIPS. It's an interesting and amusing site, well worth a look.) No. 10: In the wake of Operation TIPS came something even worse: Total Information Awareness. TIA is a program of the Defense Department that when fully operational will link commercial and government databases so that the DOD can immediately put its finger on any piece of information about you that it wants. New York Times columnist William Safire writes: "Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as a virtual, centralized grand database." And that's not all. Who did our president appoint to head the TIA? Who gets to be Big Brother himself? Why it's none other than John Poindexter, a man convicted in 1990 on five counts of lying to Congress, destroying official documents, and obstructing congressional inquiries into the Iran-contra affair. Another Hermann Goering, if there ever was one. 4) BILL MOYERS' NOW COMMENTS On THE PATRIOT ACT At the same time the Bush administration is probing into your private life, it is shielding itself from all public scrutiny. It has shredded the Freedom of Information Act; it has locked away presidential records not only of the current administration but of administrations going all the way back to Reagan as well; and it has even locked up George W. Bush's gubernatorial records so that the people of Texas can't see what he did to them while serving as their governor. Not surprisingly, the Bush administration is also using anti-terror legislation and executive orders to protect its corporate sponsors from scrutiny and from prosecution. The drug company Eli Lilly, for instance, was recently granted immunity from all cases brought against it-–even those initiated long before the war on terrorism--related to a vaccine it manufactured that turned out to cause autism in many children. (Eli Lilly contributed over $3 million in the last two election campaigns.) The Bush administration also protected the Bayer Corporation's patent on the antibiotic Cipro throughout the anthrax scare, whereas other countries, such as Canada, broke that patent so that other companies could make cheaper versions of the drug in case of emergency. It is interesting to note that during WWII Bayer was part of the I.G. Farben conglomerate, the top financial contributor to the Nazi Party. I.G. Farben produced petrol and rubber for the Nazi war machine and it manufactured the Zyklon B gas that was used to exterminate millions of Jews and other "enemies of the state." In exchange for these services, the Nazis provided Farben (and Bayer) with lucrative government contracts and with slave labor from concentration camps. Under George W. Bush's kinder, gentler fascism, U.S. corporations are now allowed to do business with the Homeland Security Department even if they cheat the government out of vast amounts of tax revenues by setting up offshore business fronts in the Caribbean Islands. It used to be that tax-evaders were tracked down and punished. Now they're rewarded with fat government contracts. Could the slave labor be far behind? If only this were the extent of the Bush administration's ramble down the road to fascism. Way back in November of 2001, William Safire accused the Bush administration of "seizing dictatorial power." Well, Mr. Safire, you ain't seen nothing yet. Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, just when you thought we can't lose any more of our liberties and still call ourselves a "free society," we learn that the Bush administration wants to take away even more of our rights. A secret document was just leaked out of John Ashcroft's Justice Department and turned over to the Center for Public Integrity. Titled the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, this document turns out to be a draft of new anti-terrorism legislation, a vastly more muscular sequel to Patriot Act. If passed, it would grant the executive branch sweeping new powers of domestic surveillance, and it would eliminate most of the few remaining checks and balances that protect us from tyranny. It's the Patriot Act on steroids. Charles Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity shared this document with Bill Moyers, who examined it on NOW, his weekly PBS program. That episode aired Friday, February 7, yet even now no mainstream news broadcaster has picked up this incredible story. Read the NOW transcript and see the document itself online at http://www.pbs.org/now/. You can also read the Center for Public Integrity's analysis of the document at http://www.publicintegrity.org/. Dr. David Cole, a Law professor at Georgetown University and author of Terrorism and the Constitution assessed the document, saying, "I think this is a quite radical proposal." "It authorizes secret arrests." "It would give the Attorney General essentially unchecked authority to deport anyone who he thought was a danger to our economic interests." "It would strip citizenship from people for lawful political associations." "Secret arrests”? Did we hear that right? It seems that the Homeland Security Department (HSD) is about to become the KGB. The first Patriot Act already allows for people to be locked up indefinitely without a lawyer and without being charged with a crime. If Patriot Act II passes, then arrests would also be secret. That means that dissenters (or anyone else, for that matter) could disappear without a trace, just as they did in Nazi Germany, in Stalinist Russia, and in Pinochet's Chile. Patriot Act II would also grant even more immunity to Big Business. A corporation could pour toxins into your local river, for instance, and you wouldn't know about it until all the fish died and your neighbor’s kids were born with missing limbs. And then when you went to court and demanded to know what the company was dumping in your river, the company could deny you that information on the grounds that it's a national security secret. Jim Hightower put it this way: "All a company has to do to shield anything it wants to keep from the public eye--say, an embarrassing chemical spill--is give the documents to the Homeland Security Department and call them 'critical infrastructure information'." Ah, but there's even more to be concerned about here. The document was created back in early January, but so far it appears that the only members of Congress who even know of its existence are House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Vice-president Dick Cheney. (The Vice-president presides over the Senate, which makes him a member of the legislative branch as well as the executive branch.) This raises a troubling question: Why has the White House been sitting on this bill for a month? If the CEOs down at Bush, Inc. really believe that they need these broad new powers to protect us from terrorists, why not roll out that bill and start the debate? The answer is all too plain. In all likelihood, the Bush administration was planning to avoid debate entirely by springing this bill on the American people in the midst of a perceived national crisis. Perhaps during the war with Iraq, for instance. Or perhaps in the aftermath of the next terrorist attack. Or perhaps right after the Reichstag fire. Had some courageous soul not leaked this document out of the Justice Department, the White House might easily have succeeded in passing it through Congress without debate in the midst of our next perceived national crisis, much as it did with the first Patriot Act in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. A thorough debate of this bill right now, under fairly stable circumstances, would defuse it and prevent its passage even under more frightening circumstances later on. There's just one problem. The debate can't begin until more Americans know about this bill, but so far the Washington Post is the only major news outlet to even MENTION this story since Bill Moyers broke it on Friday night. Here's what you can do to help First, forward this email to everyone you know. Second, send an email to the Center for Public Integrity and to the producers of NOW thanking them for breaking this story. Here's a sample message that you can use or modify: I am writing to express my heartfelt thanks and admiration to the Center for Public Integrity, to Bill Moyers, to the producers of NOW, and especially to the brave unnamed patriot who valued the Bill of Rights over his or her own personal well-being and, at great personal risk, leaked a draft of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 out of the Justice Department. Sincerely,(Your name, city, and state.) Center for Public Integity: mailto:feedback@publicintegrity.org. NOW with Bill Moyers: mailto:now@thirteen.org. http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/RL31377.pdf |
|
|
|
|
Jul 6 2006, 06:38 AM
Post
#1068
|
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Subscribing Member Posts: 49,435 Joined: 5-November 04 Member No.: 219 |
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 30 2006, 05:14 PM) "Guantanamo ruling heralds US political showdown" By Patricia Wilson WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats see the Supreme Court's Guantanamo ruling as repudiation of a power-hungry White House. Republicans say it shows how tough President George W. Bush is on terrorists and voters will eat it up. Both parties face a contentious political debate over the decision declaring military tribunals illegal as they look to capitalize on a national security issue ahead of crucial congressional elections in November. In Thursday's ruling, the nation's highest court found the tribunals, which Bush created right after the September 11 attacks for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, violated the Geneva Conventions and U.S. military rules. Bush and Rove already have stepped up their attacks on Democrats in the past couple of weeks, accusing some of wanting to "cut and run" and "waving the white flag" in Iraq. QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 3 2006, 05:37 PM) HAMDAN v. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit No. 05-184. Argued March 28, 2006--Decided June 29, 2006 The military commission, a tribunal neither mentioned in the Constitution nor created by statute, was born of military necessity. Together, the UCMJ, the AUMF, and the DTA at most acknowledge a general Presidential authority to convene military commissions in circumstances where justified under the "Constitution and laws," including the law of war. Absent a more specific congressional authorization, the task of this Court is, as it was in Quirin, to decide whether Hamdan's military commission is so justified. It is to that inquiry we now turn. HAMDAN v. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit No. 05-184. Argued March 28, 2006--Decided June 29, 2006 The common law governing military commissions may be gleaned from past practice and what sparse legal precedent exists. Commissions historically have been used in three situations. See Bradley & Goldsmith, Congressional Authorization and the War on Terrorism, 118 Harv. L. Rev. 2048, 2132-2133 (2005); Winthrop 831-846; Hearings on H. R. 2498 before the Subcommittee of the House Committee on Armed Services, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., 975 (1949). First, they have substituted for civilian courts at times and in places where martial law has been declared. Their use in these circumstances has raised constitutional questions, see Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U. S. 304 (1946); Milligan, 4 Wall., at 121-122, but is well recognized. See Winthrop 822, 836-839. Second, commissions have been established to try civilians "as part of a temporary military government over occupied enemy territory or territory regained from an enemy where civilian government cannot and does not function." Duncan, 327 U. S., at 314; see Milligan, 4 Wall., at 141-142 (Chase, C. J., concurring in judgment) (distinguishing "martial law proper" from "military government" in occupied territory). Illustrative of this second kind of commission is the one that was established, with jurisdiction to apply the German Criminal Code, in occupied Germany following the end of World War II. See Madsen v. Kinsella, 343 U. S. 341, 356 (1952). The third type of commission, convened as an "incident to the conduct of war" when there is a need "to seize and subject to disciplinary measures those enemies who in their attempt to thwart or impede our military effort have violated the law of war," Quirin, 317 U. S., at 28-29, has been described as "utterly different" from the other two. Bickers, Military Commissions are Constitutionally Sound: A Response to Professors Katyal and Tribe, 34 Tex. Tech. L. Rev. 899, 902 (2002-2003). Not only is its jurisdiction limited to offenses cognizable during time of war, but its role is primarily a factfinding one--to determine, typically on the battlefield itself, whether the defendant has violated the law of war. The last time the U. S. Armed Forces used the law-of-war military commission was during World War II. In Quirin, this Court sanctioned President Roosevelt's use of such a tribunal to try Nazi saboteurs captured on American soil during the War. 317 U. S. 1. And in Yamashita, we held that a military commission had jurisdiction to try a Japanese commander for failing to prevent troops under his command from committing atrocities in the Philippines. 327 U. S. 1. Quirin is the model the Government invokes most frequently to defend the commission convened to try Hamdan. That is both appropriate and unsurprising. Since Guantanamo Bay is neither enemy-occupied territory nor under martial law, the law-of-war commission is the only model available. At the same time, no more robust model of executive power exists; Quirin represents the high-water mark of military power to try enemy combatants for war crimes. The classic treatise penned by Colonel William Winthrop, whom we have called "the 'Blackstone of Military Law,' " Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1, 19, n. 38 (1957) (plurality opinion), describes at least four preconditions for exercise of jurisdiction by a tribunal of the type convened to try Hamdan. First, "[a] military commission, (except where otherwise authorized by statute), can legally assume jurisdiction only of offenses committed within the field of the command of the convening commander." Winthrop 836. The "field of command" in these circumstances means the "theatre of war." Ibid. Second, the offense charged "must have been committed within the period of the war." Id., at 837. No jurisdiction exists to try offenses "committed either before or after the war." Ibid. Third, a military commission not established pursuant to martial law or an occupation may try only "[i]ndividuals of the enemy's army who have been guilty of illegitimate warfare or other offences in violation of the laws of war" and members of one's own army "who, in time of war, become chargeable with crimes or offences not cognizable, or triable, by the criminal courts or under the Articles of war." Id., at 838. Finally, a law-of-war commission has jurisdiction to try only two kinds of offense: "Violations of the laws and usages of war cognizable by military tribunals only," and "[b]reaches of military orders or regulations for which offenders are not legally triable by court-martial under the Articles of war." Id., at 839.29 All parties agree that Colonel Winthrop's treatise accurately describes the common law governing military commissions, and that the jurisdictional limitations he identifies were incorporated in Article of War 15 and, later, Article 21 of the UCMJ. It also is undisputed that Hamdan's commission lacks jurisdiction to try him unless the charge "properly set[s] forth, not only the details of the act charged, but the circumstances conferring jurisdiction." Id., at 842 (emphasis in original). The question is whether the preconditions designed to ensure that a military necessity exists to justify the use of this extraordinary tribunal have been satisfied here. The charge against Hamdan, described in detail in Part I, supra, alleges a conspiracy extending over a number of years, from 1996 to November 2001. All but two months of that more than 5-year-long period preceded the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the enactment of the AUMF--the Act of Congress on which the Government relies for exercise of its war powers and thus for its authority to convene military commissions. Neither the purported agreement with Osama bin Laden and others to commit war crimes, nor a single overt act, is alleged to have occurred in a theater of war or on any specified date after September 11, 2001. None of the overt acts that Hamdan is alleged to have committed violates the law of war. These facts alone cast doubt on the legality of the charge and, hence, the commission; as Winthrop makes plain, the offense alleged must have been committed both in a theater of war and during, not before, the relevant conflict. But the deficiencies in the time and place allegations also underscore--indeed are symptomatic of--the most serious defect of this charge: The offense it alleges is not triable by law-of-war military commission. See Yamashita, 327 U. S., at 13 ("Neither congressional action nor the military orders constituting the commission authorized it to place petitioner on trial unless the charge proffered against him is of a violation of the law of war"). There is no suggestion that Congress has, in exercise of its constitutional authority to "define and punish . . . Offences against the Law of Nations," U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 10, positively identified "conspiracy" as a war crime. As we explained in Quirin, that is not necessarily fatal to the Government's claim of authority to try the alleged offense by military commission; Congress, through Article 21 of the UCMJ, has "incorporated by reference" the common law of war, which may render triable by military commission certain offenses not defined by statute. 317 U. S., at 30. When, however, neither the elements of the offense nor the range of permissible punishments is defined by statute or treaty, the precedent must be plain and unambiguous. To demand any less would be to risk concentrating in military hands a degree of adjudicative and punitive power in excess of that contemplated either by statute or by the Constitution. Cf. Loving v. United States, 517 U. S. 748, 771 (1996) (acknowledging that Congress "may not delegate the power to make laws"); Reid, 354 U. S., at 23-24 ("The Founders envisioned the army as a necessary institution, but one dangerous to liberty if not confined within its essential bounds"); The Federalist No. 47, p. 324 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (J. Madison) ("The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands ... may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny"). This high standard was met in Quirin; the violation there alleged was, by "universal agreement and practice" both in this country and internationally, recognized as an offense against the law of war. 317 U. S., at 30; see id., at 35-36 ("This precept of the law of war has been so recognized in practice both here and abroad, and has so generally been accepted as valid by authorities on international law that we think it must be regarded as a rule or principle of the law of war recognized by this Government by its enactment of the Fifteenth Article of War" (footnote omitted)). Although the picture arguably was less clear in Yamashita, compare 327 U. S., at 16 (stating that the provisions of the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907, 36 Stat. 2306, "plainly" required the defendant to control the troops under his command), with 327 U. S., at 35 (Murphy, J., dissenting), the disagreement between the majority and the dissenters in that case concerned whether the historic and textual evidence constituted clear precedent--not whether clear precedent was required to justify trial by law-of-war military commission. At a minimum, the Government must make a substantial showing that the crime for which it seeks to try a defendant by military commission is acknowledged to be an offense against the law of war. That burden is far from satisfied here. The crime of "conspiracy" has rarely if ever been tried as such in this country by any law-of-war military commission not exercising some other form of jurisdiction, and does not appear in either the Geneva Conventions or the Hague Conventions--the major treaties on the law of war. Winthrop explains that under the common law governing military commissions, it is not enough to intend to violate the law of war and commit overt acts in furtherance of that intention unless the overt acts either are themselves offenses against the law of war or constitute steps sufficiently substantial to qualify as an attempt. See Winthrop 841 ("[T]he jurisdiction of the military commission should be restricted to cases of offence consisting in overt acts, i.e., in unlawful commissions or actual attempts to commit, and not in intentions merely" (emphasis in original)). The Government cites three sources that it says show otherwise. First, it points out that the Nazi saboteurs in Quirin were charged with conspiracy. See Brief for Respondents 27. Second, it observes that Winthrop at one point in his treatise identifies conspiracy as an offense "prosecuted by military commissions." Ibid. (citing Winthrop 839, and n. 5). Finally, it notes that another military historian, Charles Roscoe Howland, lists conspiracy " 'to violate the laws of war by destroying life or property in aid of the enemy' " as an offense that was tried as a violation of the law of war during the Civil War. Brief for Respondents 27-28 (citing C. Howland, Digest of Opinions of the Judge Advocates General of the Army 1071 (1912) (hereinafter Howland)). On close analysis, however, these sources at best lend little support to the Government's position and at worst undermine it. By any measure, they fail to satisfy the high standard of clarity required to justify the use of a military commission. That the defendants in Quirin were charged with conspiracy is not persuasive, since the Court declined to address whether the offense actually qualified as a violation of the law of war--let alone one triable by military commission. The Quirin defendants were charged with the following offenses: "[I.] Violation of the law of war. "[II.] Violation of Article 81 of the Articles of War, defining the offense of relieving or attempting to relieve, or corresponding with or giving intelligence to, the enemy. "[III.] Violation of Article 82, defining the offense of spying. "[IV.] Conspiracy to commit the offenses alleged in charges [I, II, and III]." 317 U. S., at 23. The Government, defending its charge, argued that the conspiracy alleged "constitute[d] an additional violation of the law of war." Id., at 15. The saboteurs disagreed; they maintained that "[t]he charge of conspiracy can not stand if the other charges fall." Id., at 8. The Court, however, declined to resolve the dispute. It concluded, first, that the specification supporting Charge I adequately alleged a "violation of the law of war" that was not "merely colorable or without foundation." Id., at 36. The facts the Court deemed sufficient for this purpose were that the defendants, admitted enemy combatants, entered upon U. S. territory in time of war without uniform "for the purpose of destroying property used or useful in prosecuting the war." That act was "a hostile and warlike" one. Id., at 36, 37. The Court was careful in its decision to identify an overt, "complete" act. Responding to the argument that the saboteurs had "not actually committed or attempted to commit any act of depredation or entered the theatre or zone of active military operations" and therefore had not violated the law of war, the Court responded that they had actually "passed our military and naval lines and defenses or went behind those lines, in civilian dress and with hostile purpose." Id., at 38. "The offense was complete when with that purpose they entered--or, having so entered, they remained upon--our territory in time of war without uniform or other appropriate means of identification." Ibid. Turning to the other charges alleged, the Court explained that "[s]ince the first specification of Charge I sets forth a violation of the law of war, we have no occasion to pass on the adequacy of the second specification of Charge I, or to construe the 81st and 82nd Articles of War for the purpose of ascertaining whether the specifications under Charges II and III allege violations of those Articles or whether if so construed they are constitutional." Id., at 46. No mention was made at all of Charge IV--the conspiracy charge. If anything, Quirin supports Hamdan's argument that conspiracy is not a violation of the law of war. Not only did the Court pointedly omit any discussion of the conspiracy charge, but its analysis of Charge I placed special emphasis on the completion of an offense; it took seriously the saboteurs' argument that there can be no violation of a law of war--at least not one triable by military commission--without the actual commission of or attempt to commit a "hostile and warlike act." Id., at 37-38. That limitation makes eminent sense when one considers the necessity from whence this kind of military commission grew: The need to dispense swift justice, often in the form of execution, to illegal belligerents captured on the battlefield. See S. Rep. No. 130, 64th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 40 (1916) (testimony of Brig. Gen. Enoch H. Crowder) (observing that Article of War 15 preserves the power of "the military commander in the field in time of war" to use military commissions (emphasis added)). The same urgency would not have been felt vis-À-vis enemies who had done little more than agree to violate the laws of war. Cf. 31 Op. Atty. Gen. 356, 357, 361 (1918) (opining that a German spy could not be tried by military commission because, having been apprehended before entering "any camp, fortification or other military premises of the United States," he had "committed [his offenses] outside of the field of military operations"). The Quirin Court acknowledged as much when it described the President's authority to use law-of-war military commissions as the power to "seize and subject to disciplinary measures those enemies who in their attempt to thwart or impede our military effort have violated the law of war." 317 U. S., at 28-29 (emphasis added). Winthrop and Howland are only superficially more helpful to the Government. Howland, granted, lists "conspiracy by two or more to violate the laws of war by destroying life or property in aid of the enemy" as one of over 20 "offenses against the laws and usages of war" "passed upon and punished by military commissions." Howland 1071. But while the records of cases that Howland cites following his list of offenses against the law of war support inclusion of the other offenses mentioned, they provide no support for the inclusion of conspiracy as a violation of the law of war. See ibid. (citing Record Books of the Judge Advocate General Office, R. 2, 144; R. 3, 401, 589, 649; R. 4, 320; R. 5, 36, 590; R. 6, 20; R. 7, 413; R. 8, 529; R. 9, 149, 202, 225, 481, 524, 535; R. 10, 567; R. 11, 473, 513; R. 13, 125, 675; R. 16, 446; R. 21, 101, 280). Winthrop, apparently recognizing as much, excludes conspiracy of any kind from his own list of offenses against the law of war. See Winthrop 839-840. Winthrop does, unsurprisingly, include "criminal conspiracies" in his list of "[c]rimes and statutory offenses cognizable by State or U. S. courts" and triable by martial law or military government commission. See id., at 839. And, in a footnote, he cites several Civil War examples of "conspiracies of this class, or of the first and second classes combined." Id., at 839, n. 5 (emphasis added). The Government relies on this footnote for its contention that conspiracy was triable both as an ordinary crime (a crime of the "first class") and, independently, as a war crime (a crime of the "second class"). But the footnote will not support the weight the Government places on it. As we have seen, the military commissions convened during the Civil War functioned at once as martial law or military government tribunals and as law-of-war commissions. See n. 27, supra. Accordingly, they regularly tried war crimes and ordinary crimes together. Indeed, as Howland observes, "[n]ot infrequently the crime, as charged and found, was a combination of the two species of offenses." Howland 1071; see also Davis 310, n. 2; Winthrop 842. The example he gives is "'murder in violation of the laws of war.'" Howland 1071-1072. Winthrop's conspiracy "of the first and second classes combined" is, like Howland's example, best understood as a species of compound offense of the type tried by the hybrid military commissions of the Civil War. It is not a stand-alone offense against the law of war. Winthrop confirms this understanding later in his discussion, when he emphasizes that "overt acts" constituting war crimes are the only proper subject at least of those military tribunals not convened to stand in for local courts. Winthrop 841, and nn. 22, 23 (emphasis in original) (citing W. Finlason, Martial Law 130 (1867)). Justice Thomas cites as evidence that conspiracy is a recognized violation of the law of war the Civil War indictment against Henry Wirz, which charged the defendant with " '[m]aliciously, willfully, and traitorously ... combining, confederating, and conspiring [with others] to injure the health and destroy the lives of soldiers in the military service of the United States ... to the end that the armies of the United States might be weakened and impaired, in violation of the laws and customs of war.'" Post, at 24-25 (dissenting opinion) (quoting H. R. Doc. No. 314, 55th Cong., 3d Sess., 785 (1865); emphasis deleted). As shown by the specification supporting that charge, however, Wirz was alleged to have personally committed a number of atrocities against his victims, including torture, injection of prisoners with poison, and use of "ferocious and bloodthirsty dogs" to "seize, tear, mangle, and maim the bodies and limbs" of prisoners, many of whom died as a result. Id., at 789-790. Crucially, Judge Advocate General Holt determined that one of Wirz's alleged co-conspirators, R. B. Winder, should not be tried by military commission because there was as yet insufficient evidence of his own personal involvement in the atrocities: "[I]n the case of R. B. Winder, while the evidence at the trial of Wirz was deemed by the court to implicate him in the conspiracy against the lives of all Federal prisoners in rebel hands, no such specific overt acts of violation of the laws of war are as yet fixed upon him as to make it expedient to prefer formal charges and bring him to trial." Id., at 783 (emphases added). Finally, international sources confirm that the crime charged here is not a recognized violation of the law of war. As observed above, see supra, at 40, none of the major treaties governing the law of war identifies conspiracy as a violation thereof. And the only "conspiracy" crimes that have been recognized by international war crimes tribunals (whose jurisdiction often extends beyond war crimes proper to crimes against humanity and crimes against the peace) are conspiracy to commit genocide and common plan to wage aggressive war, which is a crime against the peace and requires for its commission actual participation in a "concrete plan to wage war." Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal: Nuremberg, 14 November 1945-1 October 1946, p. 225 (1947). The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, over the prosecution's objections, pointedly refused to recognize as a violation of the law of war conspiracy to commit war crimes, see, e.g., 22 id., at 469,39 and convicted only Hitler's most senior associates of conspiracy to wage aggressive war, see S. Pomorski, Conspiracy and Criminal Organization, in the Nuremberg Trial and International Law 213, 233-235 (G. Ginsburgs & V. Kudriavtsev eds. 1990). As one prominent figure from the Nuremberg trials has explained, members of the Tribunal objected to recognition of conspiracy as a violation of the law of war on the ground that "[t]he Anglo-American concept of conspiracy was not part of European legal systems and arguably not an element of the internationally recognized laws of war." T. Taylor, Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir 36 (1992); see also id., at 550 (observing that Francis Biddle, who as Attorney General prosecuted the defendants in Quirin, thought the French judge had made a "'persuasive argument that conspiracy in the truest sense is not known to international law'"). In sum, the sources that the Government and Justice Thomas rely upon to show that conspiracy to violate the law of war is itself a violation of the law of war in fact demonstrate quite the opposite. Far from making the requisite substantial showing, the Government has failed even to offer a "merely colorable" case for inclusion of conspiracy among those offenses cognizable by law-of-war military commission. Cf. Quirin, 317 U. S., at 36. Because the charge does not support the commission's jurisdiction, the commission lacks authority to try Hamdan. The charge's shortcomings are not merely formal, but are indicative of a broader inability on the Executive's part here to satisfy the most basic precondition--at least in the absence of specific congressional authorization--for establishment of military commissions: military necessity. Hamdan's tribunal was appointed not by a military commander in the field of battle, but by a retired major general stationed away from any active hostilities. Cf. Rasul v. Bush, 542 U. S., at 487 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment) (observing that "Guantanamo Bay is ... far removed from any hostilities"). Hamdan is charged not with an overt act for which he was caught redhanded in a theater of war and which military efficiency demands be tried expeditiously, but with an agreement the inception of which long predated the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the AUMF. That may well be a crime, but it is not an offense that "by the law of war may be tried by military commissio[n]." 10 U. S. C. §821. None of the overt acts alleged to have been committed in furtherance of the agreement is itself a war crime, or even necessarily occurred during time of, or in a theater of, war. Any urgent need for imposition or execution of judgment is utterly belied by the record; Hamdan was arrested in November 2001 and he was not charged until mid-2004. These simply are not the circumstances in which, by any stretch of the historical evidence or this Court's precedents, a military commission established by Executive Order under the authority of Article 21 of the UCMJ may lawfully try a person and subject him to punishment. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 6 2006, 06:57 AM
Post
#1069
|
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Subscribing Member Posts: 49,435 Joined: 5-November 04 Member No.: 219 |
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 6 2006, 06:38 AM) HAMDAN v. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit No. 05-184. Argued March 28, 2006--Decided June 29, 2006 None of the overt acts that Hamdan is alleged to have committed violates the law of war. These facts alone cast doubt on the legality of the charge and, hence, the commission; as Winthrop makes plain, the offense alleged must have been committed both in a theater of war and during, not before, the relevant conflict. But the deficiencies in the time and place allegations also underscore--indeed are symptomatic of--the most serious defect of this charge: The offense it alleges is not triable by law-of-war military commission. When, however, neither the elements of the offense nor the range of permissible punishments is defined by statute or treaty, the precedent must be plain and unambiguous. To demand any less would be to risk concentrating in military hands a degree of adjudicative and punitive power in excess of that contemplated either by statute or by the Constitution. Cf. Loving v. United States, 517 U. S. 748, 771 (1996) (acknowledging that Congress "may not delegate the power to make laws"); Reid, 354 U. S., at 23-24 ("The Founders envisioned the army as a necessary institution, but one dangerous to liberty if not confined within its essential bounds"); The Federalist No. 47, p. 324 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (J. Madison) ("The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands ... may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny"). I am not a Democrat .... And being a LOYAL AMERICAN .... Who believes that OUR United States Constitution .... IS AND REMAINS .... The LAW OF THE LAND .... In times both fair ... And foul .... In times of War ... As well as in times of peace .... I SURE AS HELL AM NOT A LAWLESS POWER-HUNGRY REPUBLICAN ..... And so .... I do not see this HAMDEN case ..... Or GUANTANAMO RULING ... As the media calls it ... So much as a repudiation of a power-hungry REPUBLICAN-controlled White House ...... Which it certainly is ..... BUT AS A REPUDIATION ..... OF A LAWLESS MAN ..... Him being George W. Bush .... AS WELL AS ..... A STATEMENT .... TO ALL THE CANDID WORLD ..... THAT JUST BECAUSE A LAWLESS TYRANT ..... HAS COME TO POWER ... BY WHATEVER MEANS ..... HERE IN OUR AMERICA ... WE ARE NOT ALL LAWLESS ..... JUST BECAUSE GEORGE W. BUSH ..... AND THE REPUBLICANS ARE ... And so .... |
|
|
|
|
Jul 6 2006, 04:44 PM
Post
#1070
|
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Subscribing Member Posts: 49,435 Joined: 5-November 04 Member No.: 219 |
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 3 2006, 06:39 AM) "Supreme Court ruling troubles GOP senators" By PETE YOST, Associated Press Last updated: 3:21 a.m., Monday, July 3, 2006 WASHINGTON -- Of all the steps the Supreme Court could have taken to undercut President Bush's legal position in the war on terror, applying international law to al-Qaida probably would have been the worst. In an election year, declaring that international law governs the war on terror reminds voters of some of the Republican administration's lowest moments: controversies over Justice Department "torture" memos and allegations of abuse against detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. McConnell, R-Ky., the second-ranking GOP leader in the Senate, said the 5-3 court decision "means that American servicemen potentially could be accused of war crimes." QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 3 2006, 04:49 PM) THE PROBLEM FOR THE REPUBLICANS ..... OF COURSE ... IS THAT THEY ... WANT TO HAVE .... A FOREIGN POLICY ..... THAT ALLOWS THEM .... TO DO THINGS .... THAT WERE CONSIDERED WAR CRIMES ... WHEN DONE BY THE NAZIS ..... AND THE JAPANESE .... DURING WWII .... And so ..... QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 6 2006, 06:38 AM) HAMDAN v. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit No. 05-184. Argued March 28, 2006--Decided June 29, 2006 The last time the U. S. Armed Forces used the law-of-war military commission was during World War II. In Quirin, this Court sanctioned President Roosevelt's use of such a tribunal to try Nazi saboteurs captured on American soil during the War. 317 U. S. 1. And in Yamashita, we held that a military commission had jurisdiction to try a Japanese commander for failing to prevent troops under his command from committing atrocities in the Philippines. 327 U. S. 1. Quirin is the model the Government invokes most frequently to defend the commission convened to try Hamdan. That is both appropriate and unsurprising. Since Guantanamo Bay is neither enemy-occupied territory nor under martial law, the law-of-war commission is the only model available. All parties agree that Colonel Winthrop's treatise accurately describes the common law governing military commissions, and that the jurisdictional limitations he identifies were incorporated in Article of War 15 and, later, Article 21 of the UCMJ. Although the picture arguably was less clear in Yamashita, compare 327 U. S., at 16 (stating that the provisions of the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907, 36 Stat. 2306, "plainly" required the defendant to control the troops under his command), with 327 U. S., at 35 (Murphy, J., dissenting), the disagreement between the majority and the dissenters in that case concerned whether the historic and textual evidence constituted clear precedent--not whether clear precedent was required to justify trial by law-of-war military commission. On close analysis, however, these sources at best lend little support to the Government's position and at worst undermine it. The Quirin defendants were charged with the following offenses: "[I.] Violation of the law of war. "[II.] Violation of Article 81 of the Articles of War, defining the offense of relieving or attempting to relieve, or corresponding with or giving intelligence to, the enemy. "[III.] Violation of Article 82, defining the offense of spying. "[IV.] Conspiracy to commit the offenses alleged in charges [I, II, and III]." 317 U. S., at 23. The Government, defending its charge, argued that the conspiracy alleged "constitute[d] an additional violation of the law of war." Id., at 15. The saboteurs disagreed; they maintained that "[t]he charge of conspiracy can not stand if the other charges fall." Id., at 8. The Court, however, declined to resolve the dispute. It concluded, first, that the specification supporting Charge I adequately alleged a "violation of the law of war" that was not "merely colorable or without foundation." Id., at 36. The facts the Court deemed sufficient for this purpose were that the defendants, admitted enemy combatants, entered upon U. S. territory in time of war without uniform "for the purpose of destroying property used or useful in prosecuting the war." That act was "a hostile and warlike" one. Id., at 36, 37. The Court was careful in its decision to identify an overt, "complete" act. Responding to the argument that the saboteurs had "not actually committed or attempted to commit any act of depredation or entered the theatre or zone of active military operations" and therefore had not violated the law of war, the Court responded that they had actually "passed our military and naval lines and defenses or went behind those lines, in civilian dress and with hostile purpose." Id., at 38. "The offense was complete when with that purpose they entered--or, having so entered, they remained upon--our territory in time of war without uniform or other appropriate means of identification." Ibid. Not only did the Court pointedly omit any discussion of the conspiracy charge, but its analysis of Charge I placed special emphasis on the completion of an offense; it took seriously the saboteurs' argument that there can be no violation of a law of war--at least not one triable by military commission--without the actual commission of or attempt to commit a "hostile and warlike act." Id., at 37-38. That limitation makes eminent sense when one considers the necessity from whence this kind of military commission grew: The need to dispense swift justice, often in the form of execution, to illegal belligerents captured on the battlefield. Justice Thomas cites as evidence that conspiracy is a recognized violation of the law of war the Civil War indictment against Henry Wirz, which charged the defendant with " '[m]aliciously, willfully, and traitorously ... combining, confederating, and conspiring [with others] to injure the health and destroy the lives of soldiers in the military service of the United States ... to the end that the armies of the United States might be weakened and impaired, in violation of the laws and customs of war.'" Post, at 24-25 (dissenting opinion) (quoting H. R. Doc. No. 314, 55th Cong., 3d Sess., 785 (1865); emphasis deleted). As shown by the specification supporting that charge, however, Wirz was alleged to have personally committed a number of atrocities against his victims, including torture, injection of prisoners with poison, and use of "ferocious and bloodthirsty dogs" to "seize, tear, mangle, and maim the bodies and limbs" of prisoners, many of whom died as a result. "Bloodthirsty dogs ..." Shades of abu Graib ...... And so ..... We have here ... What I think .... Old Tom Jefferson ... Would call .... A DELICIOUS IRONY ...... Where George W. Bush's FANCY LAWYERS ..... Seem to have ...... LAID A REAL GOOD FOUNDATION ..... For a war crimes prosecution .... Of George ... And his TOP ADVISERS ..... Based on ..... GEORGE W. BUSH's MILITARY STRATEGIES ..... WHICH WERE APPROVED .... AFTER CONSULTATION ..... WITH THE REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED ..... UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ... AND THE REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED .... UNITED STATES SENATE ..... AND SO ..... IF WHAT WAS CONSULTED ON ... AND APPROVED .... WAS IN FACT TANTAMOUNT .... TO A CONSPIRACY TO WAGE AGGRESSIVE WAR .... And to commit war crimes .... WELL ..... THAT MAKES LIFE REAL INTERESTING ..... Heading into this election season .... With this RAPE-MURDER ATROCITY ... Just committed by some of George W. Bush's troops ..... Who he has responsibility for .... Pursuant to his own precedents ... Hanging out there ..... FRONT AND CENTER ..... AS A CENTERPIECE ..... OF THE FRUITS .... OF GEORGE'S NOW THOROUGHLY DISCREDITED "WAR" POLICIES ..... AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF .... And so ...... I honestly believe ..... That if he were here right now ... Old Tom Jefferson ..... Would be rolling on the floor .... Howling in laughter ... At the position .... Yea, PREDICAMENT .... THAT THE REPUBLICANS HAVE GOT THEMSELVES ... AND OUR TROOPS IN .... WITH THIS LEGITIMATE CONCERN ..... THAT THIS REPUBLICAN MITCH McCONNELL HAS ..... WITH OUR TROOPS BEING CHARGED WITH WAR CRIMES ..... FOR DOING WHAT GEORGE W. BUSH .... AND THE REPUBLICANS .... TOLD THEM TO DO .... And so .... This, to me, has got to be ..... ONE OF THE MOST BIZARRE EPISODES ..... Associated with the interminably long reign ..... Of this CLOWN PRINCE George ..... And his GOVERNMENT ... WHICH HAS JUST BLOWN ... A BIG WAD ... OF OUR TAX DOLLARS ..... ON SOME FANCY LAWYERS .... Who have just argued ... George W. Bush ... And the REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED CONGRESS ..... A whole step closer ..... To a WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL ..... By a COMMISSION ...... FOR THEM .... TO TRY THEM ...... FOR THEIR APPARENT SELF-ADMITTED CONDUCT .... IN ALLEGED VIOLATION ... OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ..... And so ... TO ME ..... AN OLDER AMERICAN .... I THINK THAT WOULD BE A REAL GOOD THING .... TO YANK THIS LAWLESS GEORGE W. BUSH UP SHORT ..... LIKE THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JUST DID ..... WITH THIS GUANTANAMO BAY RULING ..... Where it was made real clear ... To all the candid world ... In very simple langauge ... Easy to comprehend ... And understand ... That George W. Bush .... IS WAY OFF THE RESERVATION ..... With his method ... Of conduct .... Of these wars of agression of his ... And so ... Delicious irony, indeed, Tom Jefferson .... And so ... |
|
|
|
|
Jul 6 2006, 05:58 PM
Post
#1071
|
|
 Advanced Member Group: Subscribing Member Posts: 9,802 Joined: 5-November 04 From: Los Angeles Member No.: 539 |
Reminds me:
Years ago, back in the 60s, some reporter asked Robert S McNamara, the world's smartest whiz kid, why we were in Vietnam. "We are in Vietnam," he replied, " to prove to the world that aggression does not pay." Like I said, he was the world's smartest whiz kid. -------------------- “From a multitude of tongues comes the truth" - Judge Learned Hand
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 7 2006, 04:21 AM
Post
#1072
|
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Subscribing Member Posts: 49,435 Joined: 5-November 04 Member No.: 219 |
QUOTE(jeffmoskin @ Jul 6 2006, 05:58 PM) Reminds me: Years ago, back in the 60s, some reporter asked Robert S McNamara, the world's smartest whiz kid, why we were in Vietnam. "We are in Vietnam," he replied, " to prove to the world that aggression does not pay." Like I said, he was the world's smartest whiz kid. Back in the 60's ..... Boy, that is a lifetime ago, now, jeffmoskin ..... And so .... That lesson got lost ... In the mists of time, I suppose .... Which always seems to be the case in the affairs of human beings ... So now ... George W. Bush ... Is going to prove that all again ..... In spades this time, most likely ..... Since he is a much bigger ****-up than McNamara was ..... And so ..... |
|
|
|
|
Jul 7 2006, 04:41 AM
Post
#1073
|
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Subscribing Member Posts: 49,435 Joined: 5-November 04 Member No.: 219 |
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 30 2006, 05:14 PM) "Guantanamo ruling heralds US political showdown" By Patricia Wilson WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In Thursday's ruling, the nation's highest court found the tribunals, which Bush created right after the September 11 attacks for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, violated the Geneva Conventions and U.S. military rules. Republicans say it shows how tough President George W. Bush is on terrorists and voters will eat it up. The White House has been accused of using the war against terrorism to grab executive power at the expense of the U.S. Congress. Vice President Dick Cheney has spoken publicly about restoring the powers of the presidency after what he saw as "an erosion"' in the aftermath of the Vietnam War and the Watergate sandal. The president, who is struggling with the lowest poll ratings of his term mostly because of the unpopular Iraq war, and his political architect Karl Rove have played the national security card to successfully trump Democrats in previous elections. Bush and Rove already have stepped up their attacks on Democrats in the past couple of weeks, accusing some of wanting to "cut and run" and "waving the white flag" in Iraq. QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 6 2006, 04:44 PM) And so .... This, to me, has got to be ..... ONE OF THE MOST BIZARRE EPISODES ..... Associated with the interminably long reign ..... Of this CLOWN PRINCE George ..... And his GOVERNMENT ... WHICH HAS JUST BLOWN ... A BIG WAD ... OF OUR TAX DOLLARS ..... ON SOME FANCY LAWYERS .... Who have just argued ... George W. Bush ... And the REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED CONGRESS ..... A whole step closer ..... To a WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL ..... By a COMMISSION ...... FOR THEM .... TO TRY THEM ...... FOR THEIR APPARENT SELF-ADMITTED CONDUCT .... IN ALLEGED VIOLATION ... OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ..... And so ... TO ME ..... AN OLDER AMERICAN .... I THINK THAT WOULD BE A REAL GOOD THING .... TO YANK THIS LAWLESS GEORGE W. BUSH UP SHORT ..... LIKE THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JUST DID ..... WITH THIS GUANTANAMO BAY RULING ..... Where it was made real clear ... To all the candid world ... In very simple langauge ... Easy to comprehend ... And understand ... That George W. Bush .... IS WAY OFF THE RESERVATION ..... With his method ... Of conduct .... Of these wars of agression of his ... And so ... Delicious irony, indeed, Tom Jefferson .... And so ... HAMDAN v. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, et al. continued certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit No. 05-184. Argued March 28, 2006--Decided June 29, 2006 Whether or not the Government has charged Hamdan with an offense against the law of war cognizable by military commission, the commission lacks power to proceed. The UCMJ conditions the President's use of military commissions on compliance not only with the American common law of war, but also with the rest of the UCMJ itself, insofar as applicable, and with the "rules and precepts of the law of nations," Quirin, 317 U. S., at 28--including, inter alia, the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949. See Yamashita, 327 U. S., at 20-21, 23-24. The procedures that the Government has decreed will govern Hamdan's trial by commission violate these laws. The commission's procedures are set forth in Commission Order No. 1, which was amended most recently on August 31, 2005--after Hamdan's trial had already begun. Every commission established pursuant to Commission Order No. 1 must have a presiding officer and at least three other members, all of whom must be commissioned officers. §4(A)(1). The presiding officer's job is to rule on questions of law and other evidentiary and interlocutory issues; the other members make findings and, if applicable, sentencing decisions. §4(A)(5). The accused is entitled to appointed military counsel and may hire civilian counsel at his own expense so long as such counsel is a U. S. citizen with security clearance "at the level SECRET or higher." §§4©(2)-(3). The accused also is entitled to a copy of the charge(s) against him, both in English and his own language (if different), to a presumption of innocence, and to certain other rights typically afforded criminal defendants in civilian courts and courts-martial. See §§5(A)-(P). These rights are subject, however, to one glaring condition: The accused and his civilian counsel may be excluded from, and precluded from ever learning what evidence was presented during, any part of the proceeding that either the Appointing Authority or the presiding officer decides to "close." Grounds for such closure "include the protection of information classified or classifiable ... ; information protected by law or rule from unauthorized disclosure; the physical safety of participants in Commission proceedings, including prospective witnesses; intelligence and law enforcement sources, methods, or activities; and other national security interests." §6(B)(3). Appointed military defense counsel must be privy to these closed sessions, but may, at the presiding officer's discretion, be forbidden to reveal to his or her client what took place therein. Ibid. Another striking feature of the rules governing Hamdan's commission is that they permit the admission of any evidence that, in the opinion of the presiding officer, "would have probative value to a reasonable person." §6(D)(1). Under this test, not only is testimonial hearsay and evidence obtained through coercion fully admissible, but neither live testimony nor witnesses' written statements need be sworn. See §§6(D)(2)(b), (3). Moreover, the accused and his civilian counsel may be denied access to evidence in the form of "protected information" (which includes classified information as well as "information protected by law or rule from unauthorized disclosure" and "information concerning other national security interests," §§6(B)(3), 6(D)(5)(a)(v)), so long as the presiding officer concludes that the evidence is "probative" under §6(D)(1) and that its admission without the accused's knowledge would not "result in the denial of a full and fair trial." §6(D)(5)(b). Finally, a presiding officer's determination that evidence "would not have probative value to a reasonable person" may be overridden by a majority of the other commission members. §6(D)(1). Once all the evidence is in, the commission members (not including the presiding officer) must vote on the accused's guilt. A two-thirds vote will suffice for both a verdict of guilty and for imposition of any sentence not including death (the imposition of which requires a unanimous vote). §6(F). Any appeal is taken to a three-member review panel composed of military officers and designated by the Secretary of Defense, only one member of which need have experience as a judge. §6(H)(4). The review panel is directed to "disregard any variance from procedures specified in this Order or elsewhere that would not materially have affected the outcome of the trial before the Commission." Ibid. Once the panel makes its recommendation to the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary can either remand for further proceedings or forward the record to the President with his recommendation as to final disposition. §6(H)(5). The President then, unless he has delegated the task to the Secretary, makes the "final decision." §6(H)(6). He may change the commission's findings or sentence only in a manner favorable to the accused. Ibid. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 7 2006, 04:50 AM
Post
#1074
|
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Subscribing Member Posts: 49,435 Joined: 5-November 04 Member No.: 219 |
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 7 2006, 04:41 AM) HAMDAN v. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit No. 05-184. Argued March 28, 2006--Decided June 29, 2006 Whether or not the Government has charged Hamdan with an offense against the law of war cognizable by military commission, the commission lacks power to proceed. The UCMJ conditions the President's use of military commissions on compliance not only with the American common law of war, but also with the rest of the UCMJ itself, insofar as applicable, and with the "rules and precepts of the law of nations," Quirin, 317 U. S., at 28--including, inter alia, the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949. See Yamashita, 327 U. S., at 20-21, 23-24. The procedures that the Government has decreed will govern Hamdan's trial by commission violate these laws. "Bush seeks to build standing with public" By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer 36 minutes ago CHICAGO - The president who loves to get home to his own bed is planning more nights on the road. It's part of a public-relations effort aimed at boosting President Bush's low standing in polls and bolstering the chances of the Republican Party he leads in this fall's midterm elections. The idea is to place Bush in more freewheeling settings where he comes across best and before local media that tend to give softer coverage. "I'm doing a lot of campaigning," Bush told CNN's Larry King during an interview aired Thursday night. "We're going to do just fine in '06." Throughout his presidency, Bush has been known for extensive travels outside Washington that most often feature quick fly-in, drive-by stops. But in recent months that has begun to change with more overnight trips. He spent several days traveling California and Nevada in April, went to Florida for three days in May and hopped through New Mexico, Texas and Nebraska over a couple of days last month. Thursday and Friday were finding Bush in and around Chicago — even spending the evening of his 60th birthday away from home. The visit began after a day of telephone diplomacy to try to build consensus among other countries over a response to North Korea's missile tests. Bush expressed support for a draft U.N. Security Council resolution, offered by Japan, to impose sanctions on North Korea for its seven missile tests Tuesday, which included a long-range Taepodong-2 believed capable of reaching U.S. soil. China, the North's closest ally, and Russia, which has been trying to re-establish Soviet-era ties with Pyongyang, are pushing for diplomacy alone to resolve the dispute. During an interview broadcast Thursday night on CNN's "Larry King Live," Bush was asked whether he had been prepared to shoot down the long-range missile. The president replied, "If it headed to the United States we've got a missile defense system that will defend our country." Pentagon officials said Thursday that the very brief flight of the Taepodong-2 missile made it difficult to collect useful technical data, such as its intended target, its payload and even whether it was a two-stage or three-stage missile. At this point, U.S. officials are leaning toward the theory that it was configured as a space launch to deliver a satellite into orbit, rather than as a flight test of a ballistic missile. Trips like the one to Chicago were being planned for Bush throughout the summer, White House counselor Dan Bartlett said, with the president spending more time in communities to "really sink his teeth into the local market." "Oftentimes when you fly into a community, you're in and out within 55 minutes and you talk about one subject," Bartlett said. "This gives him an opportunity to cover a broader range of subjects in the local community." The highlight of Bush's Illinois journey is a unique heartland news conference, which will find the president standing for an hour of questioning at Chicago's stately Museum of Science and Industry, from not only the national media but their local counterparts as well. "We're going to mix it up," said White House press secretary Tony Snow. The packed schedule of events in Illinois began with dinner Thursday night with Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley and seven heavy-hitters from the local business community. Over a private breakfast Friday, he was to listen to the concerns of local business leaders again. After the news conference, Bush was raising campaign cash for Republican gubernatorial candidate Judy Baar Topinka, the state treasurer who is running to unseat Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich, and touting his plan to boost America's global competitiveness during a tour and speech in the district of House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. The president was talking up his so-called American Competitiveness Initiative at Cabot Microelectronics Corp., a supplier of chip-manufacturing materials and products used in making semiconductors headquartered in Aurora, Ill., in Chicago's exurbs. The initiative proposes to double government funding for basic research in the physical sciences, train thousands of new science and math teachers and extend a popular tax credit businesses can receive for investing in research and development. The president's approval numbers have been slowly rebounding from an all-time low this spring, but White House aides don't want to leave anything to chance. If Democrats win control of either the House or Senate this November, a lame-duck Bush would face even more resistance to his agenda during his last two years in office. In addition to spending more time in local communities, Bush has been making more impromptu stops along his travel route in hopes of benefiting from public exposure to his folksier side. Last week in Ohio, for instance, the president's motorcade pulled over at a lemonade stand across the street from a Republican fundraiser where he helped bring in $1.3 million. He's also stopped unannounced to shake hands with people waving to his limousine outside an elementary school in Laredo, Texas, and then popped into a nearby Mexican barbecue restaurant. ___ Associated Press writer Nedra Pickler contributed to this story. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 7 2006, 08:16 AM
Post
#1075
|
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Moderator Posts: 137,617 Joined: 4-November 04 From: Washington D.C. Member No.: 9 |
Some links for American Real Estate:
http://www.dollarcollapse.com/iNP/view.asp?ID=33 http://globalhouseprices.blogspot.com/2006...nd-figures.html http://globalhouseprices.blogspot.com/2006...investment.html http://thehousingbubbleblog.com/?p=966 http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com...andon-ship.html |
|
|
|
|
Jul 7 2006, 05:31 PM
Post
#1076
|
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Subscribing Member Posts: 49,435 Joined: 5-November 04 Member No.: 219 |
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 3 2006, 06:39 AM) "Supreme Court ruling troubles GOP senators" By PETE YOST, Associated Press Last updated: 3:21 a.m., Monday, July 3, 2006 WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court said Bush's military commissions violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949. end quotes IT ELUDES ME ..... HOW ... THE REPUBLICANS ... CAN EQUATE .... GEORGE W. BUSH ... ACTING ... IN A LAWLESS MANNER .... AS THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT .... HAS JUST MADE CLEAR .... WITH BEING TOUGH ON ANYTHING .... OTHER THAN ... THE RULE OF LAW ... AND OUR UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION .... BOTH OF WHICH ... GEORGE W. BUSH ... AND THE LAWLESS REPUBLICANS ... DISDAIN .... And so ... IT MUST BE ... SOME TYPE .... OF "NEW MATH" .... THAT THESE LAWLESS REPUBLICANS .... ARE USING ... TO "BALANCE" .... THEIR FAULTY LOGIC ... IN THEIR "EQUATION" ..... TO HAVE US THINK .... THAT ACTING ... IN A LAWLESS MANNER ... MAKES GEORGE W. BUSH ... "TOUGH" ..... ON TAY-RIZM .... WHEN ALL GEORGE IS REALLY DOING .... IS OPENLY MOCKING ... US .... THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION .... AND THE CONCEPT ... OF RULE OF LAW ... HERE IN OUR AMERICA ... And so ..... WHO WANTS ... MANIPULATORS ..... AND LAWBREAKERS .... AND OATH FORSAKERS ..... IN CHARGE ... OF OUR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT? BESIDES KARL ROVE .... AND THE REPUBLICANS, THAT IS .... And so ..... QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 6 2006, 06:38 AM) HAMDAN v. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit No. 05-184. Argued March 28, 2006--Decided June 29, 2006 In sum, the sources that the Government and Justice Thomas rely upon to show that conspiracy to violate the law of war is itself a violation of the law of war in fact demonstrate quite the opposite. Far from making the requisite substantial showing, the Government has failed even to offer a "merely colorable" case for inclusion of conspiracy among those offenses cognizable by law-of-war military commission. Cf. Quirin, 317 U. S., at 36. Because the charge does not support the commission's jurisdiction, the commission lacks authority to try Hamdan. The charge's shortcomings are not merely formal, but are indicative of a broader inability on the Executive's part here to satisfy the most basic precondition--at least in the absence of specific congressional authorization--for establishment of military commissions: military necessity. Hamdan's tribunal was appointed not by a military commander in the field of battle, but by a retired major general stationed away from any active hostilities. Cf. Rasul v. Bush, 542 U. S., at 487 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment) (observing that "Guantanamo Bay is ... far removed from any hostilities"). Hamdan is charged not with an overt act for which he was caught redhanded in a theater of war and which military efficiency demands be tried expeditiously, but with an agreement the inception of which long predated the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the AUMF. That may well be a crime, but it is not an offense that "by the law of war may be tried by military commissio[n]." 10 U. S. C. §821. None of the overt acts alleged to have been committed in furtherance of the agreement is itself a war crime, or even necessarily occurred during time of, or in a theater of, war. Any urgent need for imposition or execution of judgment is utterly belied by the record; Hamdan was arrested in November 2001 and he was not charged until mid-2004. These simply are not the circumstances in which, by any stretch of the historical evidence or this Court's precedents, a military commission established by Executive Order under the authority of Article 21 of the UCMJ may lawfully try a person and subject him to punishment. IF ...... George W. Bush ... Really wanted to show OUR America ..... And the candid world ..... THAT HE WAS TOUGH ..... On these alleged TAY-RISTS ....... HE WOULD HAVE PUT THIS HAMDEN ..... ON TRIAL ..... PUBLICY ...... FOR ALL THE WORLD TO SEE ..... RIGHT AS SOON .... AS THE BUSHCO PRIME .... HAD HIM IN CUSTODY .... LIKE IS HAPPENING ... WITH SADDAM HUSSEIN ... Over there in Iraqinam .... BUT ... George W. Bush .... NEVER DID THAT ..... According to the United States Supreme Court ..... BASED UPON THE VERY EVIDENCE ..... That the BUSHCO FANCY LAWYERS ..... Presented to the United States Supreme Court ... And so .... WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE, AMERICA? Besides everything ..... And so .... |
|
|
|
|
Jul 7 2006, 05:39 PM
Post
#1077
|
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Subscribing Member Posts: 49,435 Joined: 5-November 04 Member No.: 219 |
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 5 2006, 04:28 PM) The COMMANDER-IN CHIEF ... Of OUR American military forces in IRAQINAM ... Exhibits ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOR .... ALL OF THE TIME .... With all of his talk about COLLATERAL DAMAGE ..... Which is the needless, wanton killing of civilians ..... USUALLY WOMEN AND CHILDREN ... Being not only acceptable .... But desireable as well ...... And so ... WHO IS SURPRISED .... WHEN THE TROOPS EMULATE HIM .... By exhibiting anti-social behavior of their own ... To match his .... And so .... QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 7 2006, 05:31 PM) WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE, AMERICA? Besides everything ..... And so .... "US soldier subdued on Florida flight" By Robert Green 1 hour, 9 minutes ago TAMPA, Florida (Reuters) - A U.S. soldier recently returned from Iraq tried to force his way into the cockpit of a Tampa-bound Delta Air Lines jet and was subdued by other passengers, Tampa International Airport officials said on Friday. The 24-year-old man was undergoing mental evaluation at a Tampa hospital and the FBI was investigating whether charges should be filed, airport spokeswoman Brenda Geoghagan said. The man, Neftali Alexander Laimendez, was flying with his brother to see their mother in Tampa and to seek medical attention, Geoghagan said. As the flight from New York's LaGuardia Airport approached Tampa on Thursday night, he ignored flight attendants' instructions to sit down and fasten his seat belt, and ran up the aisle of the plane and into the first class cabin, Geoghagan said. "As he is running, he is ramming the cockpit door, falling on the aisle, getting up and repeatedly doing this," she said. "Three or four of the passengers restrained him and held him on the floor." Airport police arrested him after the McDonnell Douglas MD-88 landed. Laimendez was unarmed and wearing civilian clothes, according to investigators who said his intent was unclear. He was taken to a hospital for evaluation under a law that allows people to be held involuntarily for 72 hours if they are considered a threat to themselves or others, Geoghagan said. Laimendez is a U.S. soldier who had recently returned to the United States from Iraq, and his term of service was to end on July 12, Geoghagan said. Cockpit doors on all U.S. airliners have been reinforced and locked since the September 11 hijackings. "The hardening of the cockpit door worked," said airport Executive Director Louis Miller, who praised the passengers who tackled and subdued Laimendez. "They're absolute heroes," he said in a teleconference with reporters. "They got this incident under control." "No one overreacted, no one was hurt." (Additional reporting by Jane Sutton in Miami) |
|
|
|
|
Jul 7 2006, 05:50 PM
Post
#1078
|
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Subscribing Member Posts: 49,435 Joined: 5-November 04 Member No.: 219 |
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 7 2006, 04:50 AM) "Bush seeks to build standing with public" By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer CHICAGO - Trips like the one to Chicago were being planned for Bush throughout the summer, White House counselor Dan Bartlett said, with the president spending more time in communities to "really sink his teeth into the local market." The packed schedule of events in Illinois began with dinner Thursday night with Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley and seven heavy-hitters from the local business community. Over a private breakfast Friday, he was to listen to the concerns of local business leaders again. After the news conference, Bush was raising campaign cash for Republican gubernatorial candidate Judy Baar Topinka, the state treasurer who is running to unseat Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich, and touting his plan to boost America's global competitiveness during a tour and speech in the district of House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. The president's approval numbers have been slowly rebounding from an all-time low this spring, but White House aides don't want to leave anything to chance. Last week in Ohio, for instance, the president's motorcade pulled over at a lemonade stand across the street from a Republican fundraiser where he helped bring in $1.3 million. "Bush: Lay was generous, but betrayed trust" Thu Jul 6, 10:21 PM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush on Thursday called convicted Enron Corp. founder Ken Lay, who died this week, a "generous person," but said he had betrayed the trust of shareholders. Lay died of heart disease on Wednesday while on vacation in Colorado, six weeks after being convicted of fraud and conspiracy in the financial scandal that brought down the energy conglomerate. Lay, a former confidant of Bush's father, and called "Kenny boy" by the current president, was once a major contributor to the Bushes' political campaigns. Bush, speaking in an interview with CNN's "Larry King Live," said he knew Lay "pretty well" and called him a "good guy" he had gotten to know while governor of Texas. "One of the things I respected him for was he was such a contributor to Houston's civil society." "He was a generous person," Bush said. "I'm disappointed that he betrayed the trust of shareholders." The president said he had not contacted Lay's wife yet, but planned to write her a letter. Lay, 64, was facing decades in prison in connection with Enron's 2001 bankruptcy. Lay and another former Enron chief executive, Jeffrey Skilling, were found guilty of hiding the financial ruin at Enron, which they had built into the seventh largest company in the United States. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 7 2006, 07:09 PM
Post
#1079
|
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Subscribing Member Posts: 9,802 Joined: 5-November 04 From: Los Angeles Member No.: 539 |
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 7 2006, 03:50 PM) The president said he had not contacted Lay's wife yet, but planned to write her a letter. Just as soon as he learns how to write. -------------------- “From a multitude of tongues comes the truth" - Judge Learned Hand
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 8 2006, 06:01 AM
Post
#1080
|
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Subscribing Member Posts: 49,435 Joined: 5-November 04 Member No.: 219 |
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jul 7 2006, 04:50 AM) "Bush seeks to build standing with public" By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer CHICAGO - The president who loves to get home to his own bed is planning more nights on the road. It's part of a public-relations effort aimed at boosting President Bush's low standing in polls and bolstering the chances of the Republican Party he leads in this fall's midterm elections. The idea is to place Bush in more freewheeling settings where he comes across best and before local media that tend to give softer coverage. And as George seeks to make himself more likeable ..... With us common folks ... Who George has absolutely nothing in common with .... He is having BARDS ..... And TUNESMITHS ..... Wite some songs about him ..... To make him seem more countrified ..... And down to earth ... LIKE US .... And so .... Here is one of the better efforts ... In that regard .... Right now ... Off my radio ... As I speak these words .... And so ... Make the Pie Higher As a child, he was not all that special. Not a hint of a great destiny. Not the worst, not the best, sort of average, I guess, but still blessed with the name of his daddy. As a youth, he had no clear direction. He just moseyed along down the trail, to a college career, where he majored in beer, cutting classes, he was proud not to fail. He preferred not to fight for his country. As an oil man, his well came up dry. He was feeling no pain, as he stayed entertained, he was known for his jokes and effrontery. Then one day, someone said, “You’re not ugly. You have fingers and eyeballs and hair. You should get in the game. They will vote for your name.” So he said, “What the heck? Dude, I’m there!” (Chorus) He said, “We should make the pie higher. Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream. Well, when you say that you’re gonna do something, and then you don’t do it, that is trustworthiness. You know that is trustworthiness.” The campaign was intense, as expected. Full of slander, distortions, and lies. He held on for the ride, and he soon turned the tide, for his message brought tears to our eyes. (Chorus)He said, “We should make the pie higher. Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream. Well, when you say that you’re gonna do something, and then you don’t do it, that is trustworthiness. You know that is trustworthiness.” Some may say the election was stolen. But I feel that perhaps that’s too strong. Call it luck. It was fate. He was meant to be “great,” to be feted in story and song, like this one called... (Chorus)He said, “We should make the pie higher. Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream. Well, when you say that you’re gonna do something, and then you don’t do it, that is trustworthiness. You know that is trustworthiness.” The Happytones PO Box 28448 Austin, Texas, 78755-8448. E-mail: mail@thehappytones.com |
|
|
|
|
| Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 21st November 2009 - 07:41 AM |
