If Bush is unpopular, then why did us Republicans badly defeat the Democrats in 04'?

Parent Cafe
201

<br>

<br>

<p>Hey, if they’re prisoners of war, that’s fine. Then they get treated as prisoners of war, and that’s hunky-dory with me. But the White House DENIES that they are prisoners of war, and refuses to treat them as such. It refuses even to ALLEGE without proof that the Gitmo and secret-jail prisoners were captured in accordance with any of the rules for recognizing prisoners of war (holding weapons, under command, etc.). It says that they’re in a newly invented special third category, where they are NEITHER prisoners of war, with those attendant rights, NOR criminals, with those attendant rights, and thus that no law applies to them.</p>

<p>For illustration, here is some of the current U.S. law regarding prisoners of war:</p>

<p>“Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number…Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.”</p>

<p>“Prisoners shall have opportunities for taking physical exercise, including sports and games, and for being out of doors. Sufficient open spaces shall be provided for this purpose in all camps.”</p>

<p>“Prisoners of war shall be allowed to receive by post or by any other means individual parcels or collective shipments…Mail and parcels addressed to their former camp shall be forwarded to them without delay.”</p>

<p>“The representatives of religious organizations, relief societies, or any other organization assisting prisoners of war, shall receive from the said Powers, for themselves and their duly accredited agents, all necessary facilities for visiting the prisoners, distributing relief supplies and material, from any source.”</p>

<p>If accused of acts other than fighting for the enemy, “The prisoner of war shall be entitled to assistance by one of his prisoner comrades, to defence by a qualified advocate or counsel of his own choice, to the calling of witnesses and, if he deems necessary, to the services of a competent interpreter.”</p>

<p><a href=“unhchr.ch - unhchr Resources and Information.”>unhchr.ch - unhchr Resources and Information.;

<p>Since the White House denies that they are prisoners of war, and has denied some of the above rights in Guantanamo and all of them in the secret prisons, then the detainees are criminals, and they get criminal rights. I do not accept the third possibility, that the executive can single-handedly invent new categories of detainees to whom no existing law pertains.</p>

202

<p>

Hanna,</p>

<p>You clearly assume that the choices are to treat terrorists like POWs or criminals, and that GWB has invented a third approach out of whole cloth. This isn’t an “either-or” choice and GWB hasn’t made up the concept of unlawful combatants. The Geneva Conventions recognize POWs, a term that is generally synonymous with lawful enemy combatants. Our courts have long recognized the existence of that “special third category” - the concept of unlawful combatants - a term that was recognized by the US Supreme Court in Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 30-31 (1942):</p>

<p>

</a>
GWB has not made up the category of unlawful combatants. His decision to try them before military tribunals is not a novel idea. What is new and surprising is that so many Americans object and want to treat them as if they were American citizens.</p>

203

<p>The category “illegal (or unlawful) combatant” was created in 1942 by the SCOTUS, in Quirin, the case of the Nazi saboteurs who were captured on US soil, tried by a military tribunal (essentially, proving to a military court that they were enemy agents), and executed. Bush didn’t create it out of thin air. The choice of POW or criminal is a false one. </p>

<p>The 1949 Geneva accord regarding treatment of prisoners contains definitions for POW status (Article IV), and contemplates the capture of combatants who do not meet those definitions in Article V:

I’m still waiting to hear whether or not interrogation by a woman would constitute humiliating and degrading treatment tantamount to “torture” for a muslim man. Trained jurist that you are, I understand that you recognize a trap when you see one, and I don’t blame you for not stepping into it. Yet it remains the crux of this debate.</p>

<p>Partial double-post with DrJ4, I see.</p>

204

<p>Yes, I’m familiar with Quirin, thank you. I’m not going to throw my credentials around, but I will say I have a solid foundation in constitutional law. In Quirin:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>There was a Congressional declaration of war, and the Quirin court found that there was existing legislation authorizing the commissions;</p></li>
<li><p>The detainees were allowed typical prisoner-of-war privileges such as Red Cross contact;</p></li>
<li><p>The detainees were accused of spying, which has a unique tradition in military law (you’ve generally been able to just shoot spies if you find them behind your lines out of uniform); who knows what they’ll charge these detainees with, but it would have been very hard to spy on Americans from Afghanistan;</p></li>
<li><p>The detainees were CHARGED with specific crimes 16 days after they were taken into custody;</p></li>
</ol>

<p>most importantly, to return to the point I was originally focused on:</p>

<ol>
<li>They had full access to COUNSEL at all times before and during the trial and procedural protections such as the right of cross-examination.</li>
</ol>

<p>Taking Quirin as license to detain people, apparently forever, without charging or trying them, AND without treating them as prisoners of war, is indeed a highly novel and unprecedented action that this administration created out of whole cloth. This is why, not surprisingly, the Supreme Court, with its seven Republican appointees, keeps rejecting W’s arguments to the contrary. See Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2749 (2006).</p>

205

<p>

Oh, no one did that. It was a simple refutation of your inaccurate assertion that there was no “third category” other than POW/criminal, except for something “single-handedly invent[ed]” by this administration. The category “unlawful combatant” has existed, as you admittedly knew when you stated otherwise, for nearly 65 years.</p>

206

<p>No one did that? Bush is doing that! Read the briefs in Hamdan, Hamdi, Padilla, etc.</p>

207

<p>Quirin simply establishes the “third category” which you said didn’t exist. Now, to the real question: Is interrogation by a female soldier/agent illegal torture pursuant to GC3 Article III if a muslim man finds it to be “humiliating or degrading?”</p>

208

<p>I’m sorry, I should have said that the administration is trying to create a FOURTH category out of whole cloth. My apologies.</p>

<p>However, I’m not going to answer your hypotheticals until someone at least makes a stab at answering my questions from pages ago, which have thus far been ignored, to wit:</p>

<p>“What is your reason for believing that the result of giving this executive more leeway will be along the lines of Waco and not along the lines of Abu Ghraib? Do executives in general, and this administration in particular, have a good track record of restraint and good judgment in their use of power?”</p>

209

<p>Professor Kingsfield: SIT DOWN, Ms. Hanna.</p>

<p>That wasn’t a hypothetical. Interrogation by females has been a constant among the litany of complaints cited by our bearded, robed friends. And, the CIA has said that they do it intentionally, to stress our terrorist pals out. It bears directly and materially on the question at hand (GC3, Article III). Don’t chicken out on me, Counselor.</p>

210

<p>

Hanna,</p>

<p>I read your earlier questions as rhetorical but, if they weren’t, I’ll take a stab at answering them.</p>

<p>“What is your reason for believing that the result of giving this executive more leeway will be along the lines of Waco and not along the lines of Abu Ghraib?”</p>

<p>I don’t really understand your question. I hope we don’t have any more Wacos or Abu Ghraibs but we can’t be sure of that in any case. If your point is “How can we be sure that a future President won’t use his powers to engage in domestic surveillance against innocent civilians?”, we can’t. Past Presidents have illegally done this and future Presidents probably will, too. It’s a risk we take in a democracy that constantly balances individual liberties with national security. You lean more toward the liberty side; I lean more toward security. It may just be a function of age. Thirty years ago, I probably would have felt much as you do now. I see more risk in the world than I used to and I have a family. It’s one thing to risk my life for principle. It’s another to risk my family’s lives.</p>

<p>“Do executives in general, and this administration in particular, have a good track record of restraint and good judgment in their use of power?”</p>

<p>Power corrupts. I’m not a cynic but it’s a fact that powerful people can be corrupted. Admittedly, it’s a risk but when I look at the choices (power-grabbing elected Presidents vs. decapitating Muslim terrorists), I’m going with giving more power to our elected leaders. You don’t. I respect that even if I don’t agree with it.</p>

<p>Now that someone made an honest stab at answering your questions, please answer Driver’s question.</p>

211

<p>For some reason, I can’t shake this idea that the answer to the dilemma might be found at Disney World. Consider: there is a ride there that, if used in continuous loop, would have them screaming to tell us their secrets, and at the same time, hold out some hope of rehabilitating them, so they could be released. We could convince them, perhaps, that it is, after all, “a world of laughter…it’s a small, small, world.” What do you all think?</p>

<p><a href=“http://disneyworld.disney.go.com/wdw/parks/attractionDetail?id=ItsASmallWorldAttractionPage&bhcp=1[/url]”>http://disneyworld.disney.go.com/wdw/parks/attractionDetail?id=ItsASmallWorldAttractionPage&bhcp=1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

212

<p>From the OpinionJournal article linked by Driver:</p>

<p>

Hanna,</p>

<p>The unlawful combatants have been treated fairly under the military tribunal procedures. Why are these procedures so unacceptable to you?</p>

213

<p>Driver,</p>

<p>I give. Forget military tribunals, let’s go all Disney on captured combatants … but make it EuroDisney, okay?</p>

214

<p>This is an interesting article on “The New Evangelicals” which is much more in line with those that I know. I think the author is rather hopeful, indirectly wondering if their kinder, gentler conservatism might push them away from the GOP–fat chance. However, it’s a worthwhile read for those of you who shiver in bed at night about the evangelical boogy-man. I post this especially for my pal TheDad, who, as he’s probably far from home, knocking on doors in Connecticut with the other NedHeads, may not have seen the latest LA Times.</p>

<p><a href=“Meet the new evangelicals”>Meet the new evangelicals;

215

<p>LOL! Your pal, AbuTheDad?</p>

<p>I suspect that Santorum, Frist, et al, are still catering to their base in the “old Evangelicals”, which is still a considerable force, even if not any boogyman.</p>

216

<p>My pal, Abu-al-TheDad. How I would love to put him through a few runs on big roller coaster…and then put him in the Comfy Chair. I could make him talk.</p>

217

<p>I have to remember the “al”. My rendition loses something in the translation.</p>

218

<p>DRJ4, among other things the current proposed standards do not require that defendants be presented with the evidence against them. Doing anything in the name of expediency and citing “state security” is a road that leads to Hell, the justification of secret police systems everywhere. We did not win the Cold War only so that we could turn ourselves into the former Soviet Union. Though I understand that there’s a fashion war among some of the administration’s adherents, thinking that the long leather jackets worn by the Gestapo are more appealing than the stodgy KGB garb, you know what I mean?</p>

219

<p>TheDad,</p>

<p>National security measures are not the road to Hell. The road to Hell is any ideology that celebrates the gruesome deaths of Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, and the men on the bridge in Fallujah.</p>

220

<p>Hanna (and TheDad, to the extent you are concerned about these issues):</p>

<p>In comment #204, you listed 5 facts from Ex Parte Quirin that you assert distinguish the treatment of WWII combatants from today’s treatment of Guantanamo detainees. Let’s compare your distinguishing factors (bolded below) to generally known facts and/or facts set forth in the OpinionJournal article linked by Driver:</p>

<p>1. There was a Congressional declaration of war, and the Quirin court found that there was existing legislation authorizing the commissions;</p>

<p>Congress authorized military action in Afghanistan and Iraq. As I understand Hamdan, the Court has left open whether military tribunals are authorized.</p>

<p>2. The detainees were allowed typical prisoner-of-war privileges such as Red Cross contact;</p>

<p>"Likewise, it is nonsense to say the detainees are “completely cut off from the world.” There is no solitary confinement at Guantanamo; even at maximum-security Camp 5, the cells have outside light and openings in the doors through which detainees can communicate with one another. They have ample contact with the world beyond the camp, too. “Over 40,000 pieces of mail have come in and out of here,” Adm. Harris says. "If you chose to write one of them a letter, all you’d need to do is put their name on it, say ‘Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,’ put our ZIP code on it, and they will get that letter.</p>

<hr>

<p>Representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross “come down for almost a month at a time, four times a year, and then [for shorter periods] at other times, and they have unfettered access to any detainee they want to see, whenever they want to see them.”</p>

<p>3. The detainees were accused of spying, which has a unique tradition in military law (you’ve generally been able to just shoot spies if you find them behind your lines out of uniform); who knows what they’ll charge these detainees with, but it would have been very hard to spy on Americans from Afghanistan;</p>

<p>Combatants don’t have to come to America to threaten, maim, kill or spy on Americans, nor did the Quirin Court accept the fine point you place on being a spy vs a terrorist:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>**4. The detainees were CHARGED with specific crimes 16 days after they were taken into custody; and most importantly, to return to the point I was originally focused on:</p>

<ol>
<li>They had full access to COUNSEL at all times before and during the trial and procedural protections such as the right of cross-examination.**</li>
</ol>

<p>It is true that detainees are not charged 16 days after they are captured but they have lawyers (2 apiece!) and procedural protections:</p>

<p>"… the detainees here enjoy a panoply of procedural protections. All except the 14 recent arrivals have gone before Combatant Status Review Tribunals to re-examine their designation as enemy combatants–even though these “Article V” hearings are required under international law only if that designation is in doubt, and under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2004 Hamdi v. Rumsfeld ruling if the detainee is a U.S. citizen. (Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told me last week that the newly arrived detainees had not yet received Article V hearings but would.) In addition, each detainee annually goes before an Administrative Review Board, analogous to a parole hearing, which determines whether he can be released without harming U.S. security.</p>

<p>These processes are not mere window dressing. As President Bush noted in a speech last week, some 315 of 770 Guantanamo detainees have been released from U.S. custody, either through one of these proceedings or through informal processes that predated them. More than a dozen of the freed detainees, Mr. Bush added, are known to have returned to the battlefield, suggesting that the procedures are, if anything, too lenient.</p>

<p>Many detainees also have petitioned for habeas corpus since the Supreme Court’s 2004 Rasul v. Bush ruling; and of course trials for the four detainees who’ve been charged with war crimes have been delayed only because Osama bin Laden’s bodyguard was able to avail himself of our appellate courts to challenge the legality of the proceedings.</p>

<hr>

<p>“Most of the detainees have lawyers,” the admiral adds. “There are over 900 habeas lawyers representing less than 450 detainees,” and the lawyers are free to visit their clients."</p>

<p>Two lawyers per detainee. These guys are lawyered up.</p>