After The 'Spinal Cord-ectomy'

What sort of press coverage might a person expect if they show no sign at all of possessing a backbone?  If you are a Senate Democrat, the NY Times will be kind - here we go with the Times coverage of Bush's push to pass legislation to allow warrantless eavesdropping and to create new military tribunals for terrorists.

Panel in Senate Backs Bush Plan for Eavesdropping

By ERIC LICHTBLAU  and KATE ZERNIKE

WASHINGTON, Sept. 13 — The White House took a critical step on Wednesday in its effort to get Congressional blessing for President Bush’s domestic eavesdropping program, but it ran into increasingly fierce resistance from leading Republicans over its plan to try terror suspects being held in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

The mixed results signaled the tough road the White House faces in trying to sell the two key planks in its national security agenda to sometimes skeptical Congressional Republicans less than two months before the midterm elections.

Democrats have allowed Republicans to fight among themselves over the issues, and appear willing to allow the issues to come to a vote rather than risk charges of political obstructionism in an election season.

    So, Democrats finally appear in the third paragraph, with a bold strategy for demonstrating their readiness to lead the nation in war-time - let the Republicans sort it out.  We get more after a big skip:

But negotiations between Capitol Hill and the White House [on the military tribunals] broke down as three Republican senators crucial to passage of the legislation hardened their stance against a White House plan that would reinterpret a main provision of the Geneva Conventions.

...

The White House political strategy in the past week has been twofold: first, putting Mr. Bush in the public spotlight with a string of national security speeches, and now, trying to put Democrats in a box by forcing them to take a stand and vote on Mr. Bush’s authority to run two of his most controversial antiterror programs.

But Senators Warner, McCain and Graham appeared to be providing cover for the Democrats, allowing them to stay on the sidelines while the three senators, respected Republicans with distinguished military records, take on the White House.

“We think that this is a sincere effort, based on principle, by Senators Warner, McCain and Graham, to come up with the best legislation they can,” said Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island and a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Asked whether Democrats were worried that the Republicans might yield to the White House, Mr. Reed said: “I haven’t seen any evidence of that yet. What I’ve seen is that they’re approaching this looking at the substance, not just over weeks and months, but what’s in the best interests of the United States, what’s in the best interests of American military personnel who might years from now be held.”

That is a strong message from Mr. Reed - Democrats are willing to be led by these Republicans but not those Republicans.

The administration had also faced resistance over the N.S.A. wiretapping program. The Democrats had bottled up the administration’s proposals, saying Congress was being forced to legislate “in the dark” about a secret program that few members had been briefed on. They have repeatedly used procedural maneuvers to block the proposals from coming to a vote in the Judiciary Committee, drawing accusations of obstructionism from Republicans.

But Democrats, who appeared to realize the risk of being accused of thwarting debate on national security matters, did not stand in the way of the committee vote on Wednesday.

There may have been a deal here, although the Times does not state that:

Democrats claimed a partial victory on the wiretapping issue when they won Judiciary Committee approval of another measure that could effectively ban the security agency’s eavesdropping program.

That plan, drafted by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, would affirm that the foreign intelligence law passed by Congress in 1978, requiring court approval for eavesdropping, as the “exclusive” means of authorizing wiretaps in the United States against suspected terrorists and spies.

Democrats succeeded in getting two Republican moderates, Mr. Specter and Mr. Graham, both of whom had voiced concerns over the legal aspects of the wiretapping program, to vote in favor of the proposal and send it to the full Senate.

That set the stage for the unusual spectacle of the Judiciary Committee — and its chairman — supporting two proposals that many lawmakers said would effectively nullify each other if passed.

The fundamental problem faced by the Dems is obvious - their base supports positions that are not electable, or at least, the Dems are afraid to find out.

Evidently, Reps are not concerned that support for warrantless eavesdropping will carry an electoral penalty.

Comments

[P]

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/
opedcolumnists/a_deadly_kindness_
opedcolumnists_richard_miniter.htm

[lurker]

P's link

[PeterUK]

Connor,
I have spoken to more military officers and NCOs than you can shake a stick at,their service covers Arnhem to Northern Ireland.
One interesting statement emerges,"We could have sorted oit out,but they wouldn't let us".the eternal betrayal of the military by the political.

A bit of advice kid,if you are going to post you are going to have to provide evidence.

[Connor]

Peter, why don't you provide statements of American military officers supporting your position? And I don't mean anonymous postings to military websites. You say they support your position. The burden of proof is with you.

[boris]

Since Peter has a military background, you just made a fool of yourself.

[Connor]

Why do so many people who claim to have a military background always support the politicians (especially those who avoided military service)?

[boris]

is there not a way we can use McCain's position to our advantage?

Spell something out.

Certainly it's impossible to say one thing and do another in the current BDS climate of leak and publish.

So isn't it going to be a tradeoff between less intel, more casualties and Euro approval? Like they are going to overlook their opposition to the war on terror because we're conducting it so very very "morally".

[PeterUK]

Connor,
You fail to provide any examples yourself,a very pathetic piece of trollery.It looks like you are les concerned about the welfare of either troops or terrorists but belong to one of these categories:-

There are different subsets who promote this PC agenda,
Those who wish to end war,losing will do nicely.
Those who see a career opportunity.
Transnational progressives building one world government,and /or socialism
Those who are simply one the other side.
Finally the vast well of political partisans who arre so insular they cannot see beyond domestic politics.

..and it is Mr UK to you sunbeam!

[lurker]

may actually address partially Connor's issues:

"Senior judge advocates general had publicly questioned many aspects of the administration’s position, especially any reinterpreting of the Geneva Conventions. The White House and GOP lawmakers seized on what appeared to be a change of heart to say that they now have military lawyers on their side.

But the letter was signed only after an extraordinary round of negotiations Wednesday between the judge advocates and William J. Haynes II, the Defense Department’s general counsel, according to Republican opponents of Bush’s proposal. The military lawyers refused to sign a letter of endorsement. But after hours of cajoling, they assented to write that they “do not object,” according to three Senate GOP sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were divulging private negotiations."

Glad to see that the military lawyers now stand by Bush. To me that's democracy in work. Learning that the democrats refused to actively participate in this discussion by staring into space with the intent of a block vote is most definitely NOT democracy in work.

I do not agree with Rick Moran's comments about McCain and Graham. If they had any objections, then they should have tried to work out their issues in advance with the committee before the bill went up for a vote.

McCain and Graham's actions and gobbleygook of yesterday confirmed my already-made decision not to vote for them in '08.

Peter, were you US military or Britain military?

[lurker]

Oops on the link. Sorry!!

[PeterUK]

Who are these nations to whom a moral ascendancy has to be demonstrated,
France? Oil for food,Hell, Louis the XIV even triangulated with the Ottoman Turks against te rest of Europe.
China? Liberators of Tibet,slaughters of the Cultural Revolution,seller of body parts,
Germany,whose long humanitarian history is commom knowledge?
The glorious democratic nations of the Middle East?
Venezuela or Cuba, who hate your guts anyway?
The UN,a wholly owned subsidiary of the Arab League and Tryrants R'Us?
Moreover Countries to which extradition is prohibited by Human Rights laws.
The only thing that will impress any of these,is winning.

[Jane]

Spell something out.

Well I'd let them define (or not) anything they want, and then do exactly what I thought was appropriate, which is really McCain's position from awhile ago, when he said we should outlaw torture, but do what is necessary.

If we can give them what they want, and get what we want I'm all for it. That's where the whole Machiavellian thing comes in - and Bush's lack of it. While his opponants believe that Bush's problem is that he is too secretive and sneaky, I'm not sure he is sneaky enough.

There are some laws worth breaking, and the consequences be damned.

Now I understand the perils of that position. And the perils should go up the ladder not down it. But assuming the propaganda battle is worth fighting and winning - and it is clear we have not done a great job on propaganda, we need smart minds to figure out a way to avert the associated risks. The obvious way is to get the public to go along, but I have no hope for that given the moonbats.

I think we have to get smarter and a lot more cunning about this war. We have to outsmart the NY Times to start with. We've made some progress in that regard, but not enough.

(And frankly a big part of me cannot believe I'm advocating this position, but it is a clear reflection of what I few as the seriousness of this threat.)

[Martin]

Well, on behalf of Connor, I'll cite General Vessey and General Powell, two ex-chairmen of the joint chiefs.

[Jane]

Who are these nations to whom a moral ascendancy has to be demonstrated

PUK,

There is no list of nations. It's the rest of the world because we simply have no clue who will be our ally in the future.

[lurker]

A DEADLY KINDNESS, AT GITMO, PC RULES LET QAEDAS PLOT ON, by Rick Miniter

Politically Correctness has not changed the opinions of Gitmos. Not one iota. If they are released, they will still kill us, behead us, torture us. They will not change their minds because of our higher moral levels.

Ex-General Powell...is that Colin Powell that's working for McCain?

Forget it.

[PeterUK]

Lurker,
Neither,I have just been fortunate to meet a large number of military personel.

[lurker]

The "attorney-client" privilege will allow these Gitmos to pass US classified information IF McCain and Graham get their way.

[lurker]

Since When Has Geneva Protected Our Troops?

Captain's Quarter's answer is that the Geneva has yet to protect our troops!!

[PeterUK]

Field Marshal Earl Douglas Haig,architect of the Somme,

"The way to capture machine guns is by grit and determination."
Haig - 1915

"The machine gun is a much over rated weapon.."
Haig - 1915

Needless to say, this high ranking officer was wrong as well.

[boris]

Now I understand the perils of that position.

Don't think you really do.

That's exactly how Rumsfeld gets blamed for Abu Graib.

[lurker]

Good point, PUK.

Drudge just reported that Bush has a press conference at 11:15 am ET.

[Connor]

"The United States' commitment to the Geneva Conventions - the laws of war - flows not only from field experience, but also from the moral principles on which this country was founded, and by which we all continue to be guided. We have learned first hand the value of adhering to the Geneva Conventions and practicing what we preach on the international stage" Signed,

Brigadier General David M. Brahms (Ret. USMC); Brigadier General James Cullen (Ret. USA); Brigadier General Evelyn P. Foote (Ret. USA); Lieutenant General Robert Gard (Ret. USA);Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn (Ret. USN; Admiral Don Guter (Ret. USN); General Joseph Hoar (Ret. USMC; Rear Admiral John D. Hutson (Ret. USN); Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy (Ret. USA); General Merrill McPeak (Ret. USAF); Major General Melvyn Montano (Ret. USAF Nat. Guard); General John Shalikashvili (Ret. USA)

01/11/05

[boris]

we have not done a great job on propaganda

Yes, opposition from the propaganda party has definately hurt that effort.

[boris]

When we nest go to war with another signatory to the GC that fine sounding sentiment will be relevant.

[lurker]

These generals just might change their minds after a visit to Gitmo....

[clarice]

Let me suggest that at the heart of the Military's reluctance to ignore the GC is not the purely idiotic notion that to do so places our troops at greater risk from the enemy (are people who say that about the present enemy stupid?) . Rather, I think it is from the recognition of all good warriors that without a code of honorable conduct there is no discipline, just the road to moral squalor , and in such squalor the military is indisciplined and ungovernable on everything.

[boris]

Good reason to remove the current ambiguity for the military. Congress is the designated party to determine how the GC applies to non GC terrorists.

[lurker]

Clarice,

Marc Sheppard's article, "How Do You Solve a Problem Like Sharia?" shows that the soldiers of Islam will view themselves as one of high morals, governable, and well-disciplined.

By their own interpretations of the Koran and their own view that their Allah is the only God on earth.

Regardless of their beheadings of their enemies and infidels, stonings of their own women as property, hacking of wrists of theives of minor, petty charges, etc.

Their interpretations of these horrofic actions are that these horrific actions are normal as per their own Koran. It's normal to them but horrific to us.

Therefore, their own human rights watch organizations will determine that those actions are...normal.

[lurker]

"Good reason to remove the current ambiguity for the military. Congress is the designated party to determine how the GC applies to non GC terrorists."

Only if those non-GC terrorists are fighting us and our allies. Don't apply to the rest of the world.

But I agree with Bob Weir that Torture Must Be an Option

To protect the national security of our own country, torture must be an option.

[clarice]

I agree with you Boris.

The GC is an antique impediment to the war unless we further spell out what was not a problem when it was written--asymmetrical warfare and how a soldier may behave in it.

[PeterUK]

Connor,
Oddly the Geneva Conventions were not extended to McCain,there do not seem to have been any examples of the GC staying the hand of the Jihad,in fact they don't even seem to be signatories.
Further, agreeing to the GC would seem to run contrary to the teachings of the Koran,being a human construct.
Like Haig,they are fighting an old war against new weapons.
Extending the rights of the Geneva Conventions to members of a millinarian death cult will not gain any form of reciprocity,the only options are submission, death or slavery.
So tell me,the Jihad is breaking all the GC rules,fighting without uniform,wearing the uniforms of the opposing side,targeting and using civilians as shields,taking hostages,torturing and murdering prisoners,do you wish to extend the protection of the GC to these unlawful combatants? Is this really what those you quote are demanding?

[Cecil Turner]

When we nest go to war with another signatory to the GC that fine sounding sentiment will be relevant.

There's nothing wrong with the GC's, it's just that most people who refer to them usually haven't bothered to read them. In particular, they tend to cite non-pertinent GC articles which only apply to POWs, whilst ignoring the bulk of applicable law. As Hamdan recently reaffirmed, the Conventions are part of "the law of war", which includes a centuries-old body of agreements. That law includes numerous examples of draconian treatment for those who violate them, including provisions for summary judgment for unlawful combatants. For example (Lieber code, 1863):

Men . . . who commit hostilities . . . without being part and portion of the organized hostile army . . . are not entitled to the privileges of prisoners of war, but shall be treated summarily as highway robbers or pirates. [emphasis added]

Similarly, egregious law of war violations were prone to summary judgment, a procedure which only changed fairly recently (WWII) for fear of reprisal:

In order to insure effective military operation, the field forces from time immemorial have dealt with such offenses on the spot. Authorization of this prompt procedure, however, had been withdrawn because of the fear of stimulating retaliation through execution of captured Americans on trumped-up charges.

But the idea that unlawful combatants rate the same sort protections as found in a criminal trial (or full POW protections) is a uniquely modern position, that ignores literally centuries of precedent.

The reason to punish law of war violations is to reduce their occurrence. In particular, hiding amongst civilians and attacking undefended targets are violations that must be dealt with severely to ensure they don't prosper. The alternative is to continue the trend toward systematic flouting of the conventions by irregular forces. And there's absolutely nothing in either the GC's or pertinent precedent that precludes us from doing so.

[lurker]

OT:

Foregoing the stock options ain't gonna help NYT:

An implied mea culpa from Pinch: what's next?

I personally think that the GC should be left alone and Congress comes up with their own "laws" on how to treat terrorists but they should consider that torture is option and should be used when necessary. I don't like McCain's bill on torture.

Any attempt to modify the GC for all signatories, especially with growing Sharia law and the fact that USA's supremacy may be weakening, could lead to something that we don't want.

[boris]

modify the GC for all signatories

Not what I would suggest. Congress can explicitly spell out how the GC "applies" to the current situation. If other signatories wish to support real world experience in the area, fine.

In the current situation GC does not actually apply but certain groups advocate bestowing some aspect of GC inappropriately to either gain approval of euro ninnies and/or impede the administration.

My POV, make elected officials put their votes on the table and take the consequences of whatever results follow.

[lurker]

What brought down the Ottoman Empire after its 400 years of reign and its attempt of establishing a worldwide Islam Caliphate?

Appeasement?

[PeterUK]

The problem is that our little liberals do not wish to apply the Geneva Conventions symmetrically,only the West is to observe the conditions,at no time has there been a call for the Jihad to observe the humanitarian restrictions therein.
When it comes to the cold bloodedly barbaric actions of the Jihad our little liberals are tatally silent,dismissive,"Screw 'em" or vicariously thrilled that the west id getting its comeuppance.
That is why I have nothing but contempt for the little liberals who ooze onto this board parading their sensitivity.

[Specter]

PUK,

Quit using such big words. Connor is barely old enough to read, let alone use a dictionary....LOL

CT - Interesting stuff on the Law of War. I did not know such a body of law existed.

All - No GC for terrorists. Ask the Jersey Girls, or even the families of innocents whose heads have been chopped off. simple.

[TexasToast]

Remember Khaled el-Masri? He was a German shoe salesman of Lebanese decent taken off a bus in Macedonia in south-central Europe while on holiday on Dec. 31, 2003, and not released until 5 months later after the intervention of Condaleeza Rice herself. Was he an “unlawful combatant”? How is a poor slob riding on a bus an “unlawful combatant”?

How many other detainees were “rounded up” by other governments or bounty hunters and turned over to us? Are all these folks “unlawful combatants” against the US?

Apparently not.

We have already released or returned to their home countries about 320 detainees and still hold about 455 at Gitmo. On the spot justice against “unlawful combatants” would have been about half right. Is that an acceptable percentage?

[freaknik]

Yes TT, in a bizarre turn of events, torture and summary executions are now vital to the defense of civilization.

[Sue]

I have an idea. In all of the classified data on who a confidential informant is, remove the name of the real informant and replace it with Senator John McCain and/or Texas Toast. Let's see how quickly they change their minds on whether or not classified data should be given to KSM.

[Cecil Turner]

Yes TT, in a bizarre turn of events, torture and summary executions are now vital to the defense of civilization.

Seems to me the proposals on treatment of enemy combatants are somewhere between trials in federal court (with full civil due process protections) and military commissions (tribunals). And since any unlawful combatant convictions will undoubtedly be reviewed by SCOTUS, the specter of mistaken conviction is less than compelling.

Similarly, what the bleeding hearts call "torture" is awfully close to the things we call "training" when we do it to thousands of US Servicemen at SERE training. Oh, the inhumanity!

[Specter]

CT - don't take away from freaknik's vision. He is picturing the rack from the dark ages as torture.

TT - Guess what? Innocent people are detained for questioning all the time here in the states. They get let go too.

[TexasToast]

TT - Guess what? Innocent people are detained for questioning all the time here in the states. They get let go too.

Yep - and they also have a right to a habeas corpus writ so they can obtain a hearing to prove it - something to be denied these detainees.

[Connor]

"Retired Major General John Batiste says that redefining the legal definitions in the Geneva Convention Common Article 3 to allow for "harsh interrogations" will set a standard that puts captured American troops in danager. Additional, Batiste is concerned that America will be "giving up the morale high ground" which has allowed stronger foreign policy positions for securing a peace in the world." CNN-Sept 15

[boris]

captured American troops

Are not covered by Geneva Convention Common Article 3.

[freaknik]

How the hell do you know what techniques we used(d)? In his recent interview with Lauer, Pres. Bush specifically refused to go into "techniques" claiming he didn't want to tip off the terrorists.

In today's presser, he again refused to go into any specifics. Since he's the one complaining things are so "vague", his refusal to get specific is a little weird; then again, he's a moron.

For example, Bush says this a.m. that "outrages upon human dignity" is just too vague.

Two questions later, he says we must treat immigrants "with dignity."

How does he know when we're not treating an immigrant with dignity. Isn't that a little vague?

[clarice]

Yeah,freaknik--the dope. He should have told them exactly what we use so the enemy can prepare for those techniques ..like Ahmed when you are captured and you think you are in a Saudi prison, fergettaboutit, you're really in Kansas..And those moans of torture you hear at night--those are just tape recordings designed to scare you.

HONESTLY!

[PeterUK]

Texas Taqiya,
Is a perfect example of one 2simply on the other side",not a murmour about real atrocities committed by Jihadists and the eternal whine o about those wrongfully arrested,not a word about those rightfully detained.
There is an easy solution,an ancient convention allows those who swear never to bear arms against their captors again can go free.

Freaknik seems to have made the leap from terrorists to immigrants very quickly,a Freudian lapse perhaps?

[freaknik]

Clarice-Turner upthread is claiming our techniques are no more than what we do to our own serviceman. But, as you point out-Bush says the techniques are all hush-hush and wants to keep it secret. Only one of you can be right. Fight amongst yourselves.

Nothing Freudian, PeterUK. If terrorists are going to come in to the U.S., I'm sure it will be as an illegal alien.

So, just to keep the scoreboard straight: The Republican House is to be praised for defying Bush on immigration-since they see it as connected to the war on terror. But the Republican Senate is to be condemned for opposing Bush on the war on terror. Makes perfect sense.

[clarice]

Do we post Seal training regimes online to be forwarded to JihadiCutthroats online.com? I don't think so.

[PeterUK]

"Nothing Freudian, PeterUK. If terrorists are going to come in to the U.S., I'm sure it will be as an illegal alien."

You mean like Mohammed Atta? Or Abu Hamza in the UK?

[PeterUK]

Clarice,
I think Freaknik is conducting an internal dialogue with himself,other viewpoints are superfluous.

[Specter]

freaky,

The same can be said of what you are posting. You don't know what techniques are being used either, do you? So how can you say that they are actually "torture"? You can't. But you've already decided it is. You've prejudged our people. So be it.

[freaknik]

Specter-the argument is over what techniques will be used in the future. Those who say "nothing but what we already use" are full of bs, as they know nothing.

Looking forward, all opinions are valid. I'd prefer not to use techniques that constitute torture. If Bush wants to torture people, he needs to just come out and talk specific techniques. He won't. The inference is obvious.

You're right PeterUk-there's always a chance Bush will grant a terrorist a visa. I hear there's plan to let 15,000 Saudi students come to the U.S. Another stroke of genius.

[danking70]

Specter,

freaky saw it in GI Jane.

[TexasToast]

PUK

Why waste time defending people who chop off heads or drive airplanes into buildings? They should be hunted down and punished to the full extent of the law - but our system of justice has due process protections so that we actually punish the guilty - at least that is their intent. Why are we denying these detainees the rights we take for granted - other than a "certain knowledge" of guilt before trial?

The “illegal combatant” status is a handy one in the context of indefinite detentions of “suspects”. The rhetoric of a “war” on terror has significant legal consequences. I think that we are holding many people who should be put on trial for their alleged acts against us and the rest of humanity. I would like the trials to have credibility, however, and the more we depart for our traditions of due process and fundamental fairness, the less credibility any such trials will have.

The whole purpose of the “clarification” of Common Article 3 is to allow the use of coerced testimony. If the administration thought the testimony would be allowed under the rules of due process, why the fuss? The answer seems to be that convictions have a higher value then justice.

I’m all for being tough on terrorists – but I also want us to keep the moral high ground. If asking us to follow our own rules is tantamount to being on the "other side" - I guess you have already determined my guilt as well.

[freaknik]

Look if you want to torture people you can't be so pussified as to use euphemisms. If we're going to do this, do it right.

In Stalin's day, Beria would attend Kremlin meetings with fresh blood on his shirt from that morning's torture sessions.

Let's see Cheney get some actual terrorist blood on him, and not just his best friends.

[Pofarmer]

TT

The problem with your arguments, well there are lots, but one fundamental problems is that the intel methods used to collect these suspects will be in use for some time to come. Revealing them because of some kind of due process is just stupid.

Connor

Wow, you got 11 signatures from retired officers from over a year ago. Do you have any idea how many retired General Officers there are?

[boris]

get some actual terrorist blood on him

Don't you mean some actual water on him from a waterboarding session?

Oooooh eeeeeeeeev i i i i i i i l !!!

[Cecil Turner]

Those who say "nothing but what we already use" are full of bs, as they know nothing.

Yeah, right. Best kept secret in the world.

The CIA sources described a list of six "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" instituted in mid-March 2002 and used, they said, on a dozen top al Qaeda targets incarcerated in isolation at secret locations on military bases in regions from Asia to Eastern Europe. According to the sources, only a handful of CIA interrogators are trained and authorized to use the techniques:
1. The Attention Grab . . .
2. Attention Slap . . .
3. The Belly Slap . . .
4. Long Time Standing . . .
5. The Cold Cell . . .
6. Water Boarding . . .

The whole purpose of the “clarification” of Common Article 3 is to allow the use of coerced testimony.

Per Hamdan, the main issue with Common Article 3 was whether it precludes a Quirin-like tribunal.

[PeterUK]

"They should be hunted down and punished to the full extent of the law - but our system of justice has due process protections so that we actually punish the guilty -"

This is classic,these people are armed to the teeth,they are not running they are coming for you,they glorify death,they blow themselves up rather than surrender,this isn't a law and order issue, it is war.
You need to understand Texas Taqiya,that it isn't a matter of punishing the guilty,it is about stopping terrorism,dead.

[PeterUK]

Cecil,
You forgot the lewd naked dancers.

[PeterUK]

"In Stalin's day, Beria would attend Kremlin meetings with fresh blood on his shirt from that morning's torture sessions.

Let's see Cheney get some actual terrorist blood on him, and not just his best friends".

Beria was also a child molester who was finally killed,how far do want to take the analogy.

[clarice]

Or the sexy female interrogators. And then there's the danger to health:If they cooperate they get cigarettes. *faint*

[PeterUK]

Clarice,
The one which gave me most amusment were the British Jihadis from Birmingham,Birmingham the Babylon of the Midlands,thy would have gone to school with teenage girls who wore less than that.

BTW,Is it not time we started a discussion about this strange conflation of the Law and morality.It might be useful to bring up the fact that the Jihadi believe their actions are not only moral and lawful but ordained by Allah,thus any man made law is irrelevant.

[TexasToast]

Well Cecil, since one couldn't use coerced evidence in federal court, and since the contemplated tribunals change this rule of evidence (among many other changes), I'd say that this distiction is of no moment.

Pofarmer - no one is talking about forcing the government to reveal sources and methods - the government doesn't hae to reveal anything - it just has to find untainted proof.

[PeterUK]

"Well Cecil, since one couldn't use coerced evidence in federal court"

Texas Taqiya,You still don't get it do you,they don;t want to try them and punish them,they just want them to talk so that further terrorist attacks can be prevented.
It isn't law and order,it is war.

[clarice]

I've been hearing from inside the Pentagon about the deleterious role the super legalistic JAG corps has been playing and Powerline has a good piece on it today.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015285.php

[Pofarmer]

"It isn't law and order,it is war."

Exactly.

So.

Why is Bush pushing the military tribunals?

To make the Libs happy who don't want to see em held without trial?

What? I don't get it. Currently, they are treated within the Law as Illegal Comabatants. What changes really do need to be made? And, if this is just being done to appease the Libs, or international groups, what chance oes it have of working?

[Syl]

YY

Yep - and they also have a right to a habeas corpus writ so they can obtain a hearing to prove it - something to be denied these detainees.

Hmmmm...then how the heck did all those 'innocents' at gitmo get their freedom?

Quite a few of them have actually been recaptured on the battlefield shooting at our guys. Others have been identified in photos doing the same, and are still out there.

Seems to me for all your fears, we've actually been overzealous about assuring that only the bad guys remain locked up.

[PeterUK]

Clarice's link to Powerline

[lurker]

Americans Should Not Die For Article 3, Geneva Conventions

And I agree.

[lurker]

Texas Taqiya's post really hones in on the democrats' arguments, which focuses on law and order and views these terrorists as criminals.

These arguments allowed 9/11 to happen.

Really.

[lurker]

These detainees do not qualify for habeas corpus writ. They are not prisoners of war.

We already have proof that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed planned 9/11.

"He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives [sic {planes)]went off at a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping."

[Syl]

TT

Well Cecil, since one couldn't use coerced evidence in federal court, and since the contemplated tribunals change this rule of evidence (among many other changes), I'd say that this distiction is of no moment.

You are conflating two DIFFERENT THINGS.

"Coerced evidence" is not used in court, it is used to thwart terrorist attacks.

It's the SECRET evidence on how we know the guy is a terrorist that we do not want to reveal to him.

TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

[freaknik]

Secret prisons, secret evidence, secret interrogation techniques...

So you're saying the Commies had the right methods but the wrong goal, is that it?

[lurker]

Oh, come on, freaknik, there is a HUGE difference between what the Commies did and what we are doing with these terrorists.

The Commies subjected any and all of its civilians to secret prisons, secret camps, secret evidence, secret interrogation methods, etc.

The Communist government want control over its civilians.

We are NOT subjecting any and all of our civilians to these things. Only the terrorists.

Why?

To thwart future terrorist attacks.

[lurker]

And the answer is no. Our government, and yes, the Bush adm, is not interested in controlling its civilians.

[clarice]

freaknik, it the imperial Bushhitler program is so terrible, why have none of the leading Dem contenders for the 2008 nomination promised--or even been asked to promise--to undo the NSA and banking surveillance programs, the Patriot Act, and to introduce criminal trials for terrorist combatants offering them the full panopoly of protections of the US Constitution and Fed Rules of Civil Procedure?

[lurker]

Bonjour France!

What did France do to piss Al Qaeda off?

And now it appears that AQ is pissed off at the Pope.

[freaknik]

Jose Padilla is a U.S. civilian, fool.

And you ought to brush up on your Commie history. They always started small-scale too, and worked up from there.

Oh- that can never happen here, you say?

Ever think we'd be debating if we should sanction torture in the Congress???

Hell, look at all the potential capos in this thread.

[PeterUK]

Freaknik,
Nothing would have to be secret if the Democrats didn't behave like the political wing of al Qaeda.
Like the average criminal your down home Jihadi is likely to re-offend when out on bail,unfortunately his odea of re=offending is strapping on an explosive vest in a crowded public place.

Is it possible to get this into your skull? The Jihad does not believe in ether your laws or your morality.Your beliefs are abhorrent to it,you are an infidel,it despises your culture and every liberal thing you stand for.

[freaknik]

Clarice, that'd be because nobody has a problem fighting terrorism.

Fighting it like a goddamn honest American or a sneakly little bloodstained commie is what we're (unbelievably) arguing about.

[lurker]

Islam For Dhimmies - How To Protect Oneself From Restrooms

This is bizarre.

The New Direction brochure describe the details to undo the Patriot Act, undo NSA and SWIFT, introduce criminal trials for terrorists?

Anyone ask the democrats these questions and what kind of answers did you get?

Never a direct answer. Only a "Beat around the bush" type answer.

[freaknik]

"The Jihad does not believe in ether your laws or your morality."

That's okay Puk-neither does my own President!

[lurker]

"Clarice, that'd be because nobody has a problem fighting terrorism.

Fighting it like a goddamn honest American or a sneakly little bloodstained commie is what we're (unbelievably) arguing about."

What? That is not what the democrats are saying. They have a serious problem fighing terrorism. Why? Because they don't think terrorism exist.

[lurker]

"Fighting it like a goddamn honest American or a sneakly little bloodstained commie is what we're (unbelievably) arguing about."

No, that is not what we are arguing about. Where you are coming from is that you don't think the problem with terrorism exist.

[freaknik]

Ok, Lurker, Democrats don't think terrorism exists.

Ground Zero is represented in Congress by a Democratic Representative and two Democratic Senators.

You are an idiot.

[lurker]

You really think those terrorists are US citizens, freaknik, huh?

New York has always been a very liberal state. The location of Ground Zero was chosen because of money, e.g., financial and stock markets. There are no connections between Ground Zero and democratic representatives and senators.

Your handle fits you very well.

[lurker]

PUK,

"

Freaknik,
Nothing would have to be secret if the Democrats didn't behave like the political wing of al Qaeda.
Like the average criminal your down home Jihadi is likely to re-offend when out on bail,unfortunately his odea of re=offending is strapping on an explosive vest in a crowded public place.

Is it possible to get this into your skull? The Jihad does not believe in ether your laws or your morality.Your beliefs are abhorrent to it,you are an infidel,it despises your culture and every liberal thing you stand for."

Hahaha, aptly timed and just before freaknik's "Ground Zero" comment.

[lurker]

Ground Zero...

Of about 2900 killed inside those two WTC towers on 9/11, how many countries that these victims came from?

Majority of the countries.

Yup, no connections between Ground Zero and your democratic representatives and senators of NY. Hillary did not even attend the funerals shortly after 9/11.

[freaknik]

Listen to you Lurker-the saddest stupidest sort of partisan jackass.

Ground Zero has no connection to Democrats. None whatsoever.

Why I bet every one of the 3,000 people who got murdered that day was a Bush loving Republican who just commuted into a liberal hotspot for work huh?

Your stupidity is really offensive.

[lurker]

Nope. You are wrong, freak.

[lurker]

Many of the 3000 killed on 9/11 came from other countries around the world.

[Cecil Turner]

I'd say that this distiction is of no moment.

Since you've been saying several things that don't square with a casual perusal of the law of war or applicable case law, I'd have to admit paying less attention. SCOTUS struck down the Administration's tribunal system based in part on common article 3, but the rules-of-evidence discussion centered on admissibility of "unreliable" evidence. For example:

Another striking feature is that the rules governing Hamdan's commission permit the admission of any evidence that, in the presiding officer's opinion, would have probative value to a reasonable person. Moreover, the accused and his civilian counsel may be denied access to classified and other "protected information," so long as the presiding officer concludes that the evidence is "probative" and that its admission without the accused's knowledge would not result in the denial of a full and fair trial.

But that admissibility standard is common in military commissions. For example (In Re Yamashita, WWII):

THE REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY GENERAL MACARTHUR GOVERNING THE PROCEDURE FOR THE TRIAL OF PETITIONER BY THE COMMISSION DIRECTED THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD ADMIT SUCH EVIDENCE "AS IN ITS OPINION WOULD BE OF ASSISTANCE IN PROVING OR DISPROVING THE CHARGE, OR SUCH AS IN THE COMMISSION'S OPINION WOULD HAVE PROBATIVE VALUE IN THE MIND OF A REASONABLE MAN," [emphasis added, caps in original]

The only discussion of coerced testimony is an aside:

and they make no provision for exclusion of coerced declarations save those "established to have been made as a result of torture,

And claiming it's the central concern is simply wrong.

[PeterUK]

"The Jihad does not believe in ether your laws or your morality."

That's okay Puk-neither does my own President!"

You know Freaknit,I'll bet Bush will be glad to see the back of this job.

"Fighting it like a goddamn honest American or a sneakly little bloodstained commie is what we're (unbelievably) arguing about."

Could you clarify this,are you saying you wish to grant the Jihad more privileges than the Japanese?

[Pofarmer]

freaknik

We get your point. You want terrorrism to be handled as a law enforcement matter.

See Terrorist attacks-Clinton.

It ends with 9/11.

It don't work dimbulb.

Can I dopeslap this?

[freaknik]

Oh just go all the way Lurker. Start spreading the news.

Al Qaeda gave advance warning to its Democratic allies to not go to work on 9-11.

That's why no Democrats got killed that day.

[PeterUK]

"Your stupidity is really offensive."

Freaknit,
Your offensiveness is really stupid.

[lurker]

Change of topic and off topic, too:

A Military Transformed?

Robert Kaplan's book described the sense of change.

Cecil, how much of the classified documents were kept from the Nazis during the Nuremburg trials?