<p>But you people are wrong. It really is not unconstitutional. These are not your typical crimminals. These are enemies of war. Furthermore these are not legal combatants, as defined by the international community many times especially in the geneva convention. These are terrorists, illegal combatants and they must be handled as such. A special way to try them must be set up similar to how a special trial was set up for the Nazis. You cannot possibly expect to afford a terrorist the same legal rights and privelages that a common crimminals recieves for many reasons. One of them being the completely different nature of the two and the fact that evidence and investigation on the terrorist is carried out much different than on the common crimminal. It is carried out by different agencies. Do you understand what can happen if these laws are not enacted. This has nothing to do with republican or democrat because both parties voted for this bill. This has everything to do with security. If any of you could propose a solution that is better than this I will be very happy, but its not gonna happen. </p>
<p>Its like the torture argument. Those against torture or even coercive interrogation, or even rough handling, are sparing a terrorist the pain and suffering he will inflict on a hundred people, given the opportunity to no be tortured. Why dont u think about the innocent civillians in america and the world instead of thinking about some scum</p>
<p>First they came… is a poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group. What happened is an extreme example of what can take place when governments get to decide that certain classes of people are a threat to the Country. Sure, right now the only class of people this law impacts is “unlawful combatants”, but I am not certain who that leaves out.</p>
<p>This version inscribed at the New England Holocaust Memorial in Boston, Massachusetts reads:</p>
<p>They came first for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.</p>
<p>You are a bit selective in your use of quotes and materials. My comments are not just about the legislation just passed.</p>
<p>Golani,</p>
<p>I don’t know from what rock you crawled out, but branding folks who criticize infringement of OUR rights and the rights of EVERYONE as supporting terrorists is just plain wrong. </p>
<p>I and others am not commenting on, or concerned with, the rights of terrorists, although they too are human, a fact that the Bush administration seems to ignore. </p>
<p>The fact is, the trampling of rights undertaken by the Bush administration affects, directly, a lot of folks that are not terrorists, and threatens all of us.</p>
<p>And, golani, if you think every person whose rights have been trampled on by this administration, including a good number of folks still rotting in Gitmo, are terrorists, then I suggest you go find that rock you seem to have come from, and go back to sleep.</p>
<p>Geesh, it’s scary to think some folks actually believe the PR lines that come out of DC.</p>
<p>Driver, not everyone agrees that the term “unlawful combatants” is perfectly clear and complies with the Geneva Conventions. Below is an excerpt from today’s Boston Globe with the link to the complete article at the end.</p>
<p>GENEVA – The international Red Cross said yesterday it has ``concerns and questions" over whether a new US antiterror law signed by President Bush complies with the Geneva Conventions on the conduct of war.
``Our preliminary reading of the new legislation raises certain concerns and questions," said Jakob Kellenberger, president of the Red Cross.
`<code>The very broad definition of who is an</code>unlawful enemy combatant' and the fact that there is not an explicit prohibition on the admission of evidence attained by coercion are examples," he said.</p>
<p>The (highly anti-American) International Red Cross and the (nearly as anti-American) AP would do well to educate themselves by visiting our CC debates more often. The “If Bush is unpopular, then why did us Republicans badly defeat the Democrats in 04’?” thread would help them sort things out. Roughly pages 12-16.</p>
<p>Driver said:“Which word is unclear? The term has specific, defined meaning under the Geneva conventions, as we have discussed before.” and “The (highly anti-American) International Red Cross and the (nearly as anti-American) AP would do well to educate themselves by visiting our CC debates more often.”</p>
<p>Driver, the ICRC is charged with monitoring compliance to the Geneva Conventions and I brought their concerns into the argument in response to your statement. It seems you want it both ways. Do you support the Geneva Conventions but are against the ICRC.? Since they are pretty much one and the same, I don’t see how that is logically possible. Below is from Wikipedia.org.</p>
<p>"The mission of the ICRC and its responsibilities within the Movement</p>
<p>Emblem of the ICRC.The official mission of the ICRC as an impartial, neutral, and independent organization is to stand for the protection of the life and dignity of victims of international and internal armed conflicts. According to the 1997 Seville Agreement, it is the “Lead Agency” of the Movement in conflicts. The core tasks of the Committee, which are derived from the Geneva Conventions and its own statutes, are the following:</p>
<p>to monitor compliance of warring parties with the Geneva Conventions
to organize nursing and care for those who are wounded on the battlefield
to supervise the treatment of prisoners of war
to help with the search for missing persons in an armed conflict (tracing service)
to organize protection and care for civil populations
to arbitrate between warring parties in an armed conflict"</p>
<p>“The fact is, the trampling of rights undertaken by the Bush administration affects, directly, a lot of folks that are not terrorists, and threatens all of us.”</p>
<p>You are asking me to ‘prove’ what was obviously a figure of speech to drive home a point? Point being that he has repeatedly abused 911 to grab more power, and now he has the power to grab anyone off the street that he doesn’t like and throw them in jail…or worse. He has lied numerous times and the only reason he hasn’t been impeached 100 times over is because both the Senate and the Congress are controlled by the same party.</p>
<p>The ‘balance of power’ so thoughtfully designed into our system has failed for a variety of reasons, most notably apathy, slick propaganda capitalizing on 911, corruption, and Diebold machines. </p>
<p>(uh-oh, now I’ve opened up a can of worms, haven’t I?)</p>
No, it just indicates that you and NMD have both graduated with honors in the art of unfounded hyperbole. Supporting facts to indicate that your hyperbole is even within the realm of the possibility would be welcome.</p>
<p>Is this conservative enough a source? The New American.</p>
<p>About THE NEW AMERICAN</p>
<p>"THE NEW AMERICAN was formed in 1985 with the merging of American Opinion and The Review of The News. THE NEW AMERICAN’s premier issue (Volume I, Number I) was dated September 30, 1985. Initially published as a weekly magazine, THE NEW AMERICAN changed to bi-weekly to provide more in-depth reporting.</p>
<p>THE NEW AMERICAN magazine is a valuable tool in confronting the liberal, mainstream media. Stories in the news are often used to appeal to our emotions and convince us to gradually surrender our freedoms. For example, another shooting occurs in the nation. Are more gun control measures the best solution to this all-too-common occurrence? You would think so if your only source of information was the nightly news. But what about our Constitution? What exactly was the Founding Fathers’ intent when they recognized our right to bear arms?</p>
<p>Presenting truthful, well-researched answers to issues like these is the heartbeat of THE NEW AMERICAN. With founding principles as guides, issues are covered from a conservative, non-partisan perspective."</p>
<p>From the New American: " The Military Commissions Act of 2006 allows the executive branch to circumvent the Constitution, endangering the due process of law for all Americans, not just terrorists.</p>
<p>Get real. This is not a debating society. “Prove it”? </p>
<p>I have not idea what “Proof” is in your world, on your planet.</p>
<p>Where I come from the few records that have become public regarding former (or current) GITMO prisoners show that this admin uses the flimsiest of pretexts to keep people locked up that it swept up in its hysteria. </p>
<p>So, IMHO, that covers “the trampling of rights undertaken by the Bush administration affects, directly, a lot of folks that are not terrorists”</p>
<p>Hyperbole? Hardly. </p>
<p>Threat to the rest of us? How about the incarceration of US citizens and labelling of same enemy combatants by this admin, until the courts stepped in and said “NO!” How about folks labelled “suspect” in various investigations, never charged, but lives/careers ruined? Example: Hatfill.</p>
<p>Geesh, I’d need a book to give you all the examples. </p>
<p>I’m amazed that someone as apparently intelligent as you, FF, would even ask for examples. What rock have YOU been under? Getting crowded with golani under that rock?</p>
<p>Excert from the above link to a recent article in the New American.</p>
<p>“Those who fail to see the dire gravity of this legislation and who prefer to take refuge in the naive partisan belief that President Bush and the Republican Congress would never abuse this tremendous power, should contemplate well the fact that both the White House and Congress may very possibly change to Democrat control in the near future. Then will the supporters of the Bush administration’s grasp for power have a leg to stand on to even protest, let alone stop, dictatorial exercise of the same power under a Democrat regime run by Clinton, Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi, Schumer, and the like?”</p>
<p>Couldn’t resist posting this. Personally, I am not any more entralled by the idea that this power can be wielded by the Democrats than I am by the thought of Republicans with that power.</p>
<p>This is not an issue of conservatism or liberalism, but one of safety. So its irrelevant what the political orientation is of the group you quote. Bush is ismply looking out for America.</p>
<p>Safety? Incarcerate first, ask questions later (and no “sorry” if you guessed wrong?) is about safety?</p>
<p>You gotta be kidding. </p>
<p>Where does one stop, then? China, in the pre-reform days, was VERY safe. So was the former Soviet Union. </p>
<p>Ah, now the light goes on… </p>
<p>golani advocates for totalitarianism? If that’s what you want, OK. You are entitled to it, and maybe should consider relocating to a more “hospitable” regime, although options are increasingly limited. Maybe N. Korea? I hear they don’t have much in the way of terrorist threats.</p>
<p>One fact that comes with living in ANY society with laws that govern how we are to behave within that society is that ANY of these laws can be abused by those in power. However, that, in and of itself, is not an argument that can be used against having the laws to begin with. </p>
<p>A very current case in point is the Duke rape case. No clear minded person believes that the 3 LAX players are guilty of rape and conversely that Nifong is not abusing his power in the continued prosecution of these individuals. In so doing he has ruined the lives of the students and inflicted an incredible financial penalty on their families. Yet, despite this apparent abuse of power, would anyone claim that we should abolish the laws that are being used to inflict this abuse? </p>
<p>Likewise, the MCA is a valuable tool to be used in saving lives. If it is ultimately abused, we have a right to hold those which abuse it responsible. But to throw out the law to avoid this possibility makes as much sense as throwing out rape laws - which are just as likely to be abused.</p>
<p>Its useless talking to you. Whats the pt you are so convinced that AMerica is so bad and dangerous and violating your rights and that you are afraid to post for fear of Bush retribution</p>