newprotest.org: CONTINUED WAR ON CITIZENS

CONTINUED WAR ON CITIZENS

October 01, 2006
by: jovial_cynic
The Bush Administration's continued war on citizens has lead the US Senate to vote 65-34 (pretty much down party lines, mind you) in favor of S.3930, a "A bill to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes."

UPDATE: I misinterpreted some data and need to make a correction. A single Republican voted against S.3930, which led me to believe that this issue was a very Republican/Democrat issue, but in fact, twelve Democrats also supported this bill, which is different than I previously understood.

According to Bruce Ackerman, professor of law and political science at Yale and author of "Before the Next Attack: Preserving Civil Liberties in an Age of Terrorism," the Bush Administration can now seize any citizen as an enemy combatant, preventing the detainee from a trial by their peers or any other legal protection afforded to citizens.

The US is now clear to torture and permanently detain citizens if there's any suspicion that an individual might be linked in some way to terrorism, a term which the Bush Administration constantly redefines to fit their needs.

The United States has certainly drifted away from the ideals set out by this country at its inception. In 1779, Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Thomas Paine said:

"I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
np category: politics
tags:

COMMENTS for CONTINUED WAR ON CITIZENS


Mark Glesne said:
For a man who complains about "polarizing" language as much as you do, you don't seem to have much trouble with headlines like "...continued war on citizens".

=)

Be sure to let me know when the Bush administration/US military swoops in and seizes some random civilian. We're talking about people who slit throats on camera and would gladly do the same to you. Polarizing? Absolutely.

These detainees are not protected by the Geneva Conventions and no amount of blogging will change that.

October 02, 2006


jovial_cynic said:
By "polarizing," I'm specifically referring to the Left/Right split that folks often endorse by making broad sweeping statements about one side or the other. I don't think I did that, any my update reflects that. I think that every individual, left/right/center should be furious at the passing of this bill.

Anyhow, I generally think that a system to prevent the abuse of power is better than letting the abusers swoop and act first, only to fix the problem later. How many random innocent people need to be detained indefinately without a trial-by-peers before you think that there's a problem? When does your "this situation sucks" buzzer go off? Would you feel differently if this was pushed as a Democrat issue, and a Democrat was in office?

October 02, 2006


Mark Glesne said:
"When does your "this situation sucks" buzzer go off?"

When non-uniformed and nationless terrorists receive the same rights as American citizens or true military opponents who fight for opposing nations.

"Would you feel differently if this was pushed as a Democrat issue, and a Democrat was in office?"

Umm, nope. I've openly disagreed with Bush/Republicans on many issues. And for the record, a Democrat would have never pushed this issue because 9/11 would have been treated as a law enforcement issue - not an act of war.

You need to seriously get off this "terrorists deserve the same rights" binge...

They don't play by the rules - so they aren't protected by the rules.

=)

October 02, 2006


jovial_cynic said:
I didn't say that a terrorist deserves the same rights. I think that a proper conviction merits the proper punishment. Having a real court system in place is necessary to keep innocent people from being locked up. Like this guy. Sure, that wasn't the US, but the British version of homeland security is patterned after our own. And it's all fine and good until it's you.
October 02, 2006


Mark Glesne said:
"...that wasn't the US"

Exactly.

October 02, 2006


jovial_cynic said:
Let me rephrase that. The folks involved were the CIA, making it a US activity. But Masri wasn't a US citizen. So... the US is able to capture non-citizens and send them off to CIA sponsored torture camps. We're ok with this?

And now the Bush Administration has free reign to make such things happen to citizens as well. Does that bring things closer to home for you?

October 02, 2006


Mark Glesne said:
Bush doesn't have free reign. The definition of unlawful enemy combatants is clearly defined in section 948a of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 - aka S.3930.

- - - - - -
(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--

(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or

(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.
- - - - - -

You want to make it sound like the government can swoop in and pick you up for whatever it wants, without justification.

As confused as so many Democrats are, I don't think even the evil Bush/Cheney administration (oooohh) could fool 12 Dems into giving Bush "free reign."

October 02, 2006


Mark Glesne said:
Question: have you actually read the bill, or just left-leaning bloggers opinions of the bill?
October 02, 2006


jovial_cynic said:
Yes, I've read it, and I think you're missing my actual concern. My concern is the executive branch's ability to act as judge, jury, and executioner at at once. And in reality, that's exactly what's happened in England. Remember the innocent Brazillian guy in London? That scenario is my concern. I'm not worried about an "evil administration" that's out to get me. I'm not running conspiracy theories here. I'm worried about the lack of balance between the brances of our government, which were established to protect innocent people. The founding fathers thought that a balance in the government was a fantastic idea. I do too.
October 02, 2006


add comments. you are limited to 5,000 characters:

<< your name
<< your email (won't be displayed)
<< your website / location
<< type these numbers: 935516 (plus 0NE)

(html -enabled- / no scripts)

<< Comments temporarily disabled >>

Rules: Don't spam. Don't harrass. Don't be a jerk. Your IP address (54.198.246.116) will be logged.