posted
This has me just fuming. I have to say, if the facts are as stated in this article, I am just astounded. In essence, we are being accused of being duped by people who simply hated someone in their community and "turned them in" to American forces to settle old scores. And these people just disappear into our little black hole until someone in the Administration sorts it all out.
Some of the people's "combat" experience consists of being hit by one of our bombs...not particularly well aimed. In essence, we don't know who we hit, but if it hit you, you must've been fighting us, and off to Gitmo you go.
Or...happen to know someone who we suspect might be involved in an organization that may have ties to another organization that might have ties to Bin Laden...maybe...off to Gitmo for you.
What the heck is this?
A fair number of the people there weren't even in Afghanistan or Iraq, but in non-combat areas of Pakistan?
Holy Carp!
I'm sorry, but, again, if these turn out to be factual reports, I am deeply ashamed of my country's actions.
Our country is calling these people "the worst of the worst." And yet, we have documented cases where the only evidence against them is a sarcastic "Okay, I'm a terrorist" uttered in frustration after hours of interrogation? OMG! Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
omg, descendre avec l'americans!
IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with you, Bob. Truth be told, Bush's invasion of Iraq and ham-handling of the aftermath has probably done more to foster ill-will and bolster terrorist ranks than anything America may have done prior to 9/11.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: This has me just fuming. I have to say, if the facts are as stated in this article, I am just astounded. In essence, we are being accused of being duped by people who simply hated someone in their community and "turned them in" to American forces to settle old scores. And these people just disappear into our little black hole until someone in the Administration sorts it all out.
Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, every place we hold people without trial, pretty much. There's been reports from human rights groups for a while that this has been the case.
When articles like this come out, it just highlights the reason that no one should take the state at its word.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
We continually get the same response from President Bush, "Trust me." That trust has been betrayed too often.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that it's great that we live in a country where our government can imprison anyone they want, torture them if they want to--or (even better) outsource it to foreign countries. Also, we can torture them right under the noses of the United Nations and Amnesty International, and they're nothing they can do about it because we're the United States of Freakin' America! And the whole beauty about torture? Everyone knows that that it's a useless way of getting meaningful information!
posted
Most of the people who voted for George Bush knew what they were getting. They voted for him anyway. I think things like this are more indicative of the failings of the American public and political system as a whole than they are of any one political leader or adminstration..
As such, I don't really see what all can be done about this in the short term.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strictly speaking, and arguing purely as a matter of form, the constitution does not apply to those who are not American citizens. (If the article states that these things are being done to US citizens, even this pro-forma argument vanishes, of course.) The American state can do anything it likes to non-citizens, constrained only by the fear of retaliation in kind. That's what war is, to pick one example : You do unpleasant things to the other guy's citizens until he gives in and gives you what he wants. (Not saying this is a war of that kind, just using it as an example of the kind of thing states are entitled to do.)
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM: no, the Constitution does not just apply to American citizens. It does apply differently to non-citizens.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Most of the people who voted for George Bush knew what they were getting. They voted for him anyway. I think things like this are more indicative of the failings of the American public and political system as a whole than they are of any one political leader or adminstration..
As such, I don't really see what all can be done about this in the short term.
This pretty sums up my feelings. Republicans aren't stupid, they know what's going on -- even, especially those who intentionally blink. But those who still stand by the party are loyal (or "partisan" if you don't like them), and value that more than they do the human rights of other people. And the number of these loyalists seems to make up a good half of the country.
I'm not sure what these people do value -- obviously not American prosperity, safety, or rights -- but I somehow doubt they number your outrage as one of them.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I refuse to get upset anymore. Hell, I'm buying up shares of sinopec as quickly as I can. Somebody is going to profit from all of this, and that somebody is "partially sharingly speaking", ME!
Posts: 351 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can't believe the american public is going to sit by and watch while our 240 year old constitution is simply tossed in the trash!
If one really wants to generate public support for challenges to specific practice, one would be wise to avoid such obvious hyperbole.
We're nowhere near to having the Constitution "tossed in the trash."
One thing that would help a lot is for Americans to start paying attention to the Constitution and protesting violations or twisted interpretations of it that support their policy preferences. There is a long history of people across the political spectrum supporting tortuous constitutional interpretations that support their desired outcomes, rather than insisting that the Constitution be either followed or changed.
Many people upset about separation of powers now don't seem to have a problem overriding the vertical separation between the state and federal governments or greatly restricting the "rule of law" by inventing rights in the name of substantive due process. And oh, yes, twisting the commerce clause beyond recognition is fine when it comes to federal criminalization of behavior typically left to the states, but a travesty when it restricts the ability to use marijuana medicinally.
The Constitution is about a hell of a lot more than the Bill of Rights and not having the President do things Congress hasn't authorized. Maybe the violations that are occurring will make people start paying attention to the idea of a limited government as a whole, based in a Constitution that is not changed at the whim of 5 people for the convenience of the moment.
I sure hope so. But I fear that many, or even most, of the people in this country getting up in arms about the Constitution now will nod in approval at some future decision that tweaks the Constitution to support their desired policy outcome.
If you want to protect the Constitution, I would suggest demanding it be adhered to even when doing so is contrary to ones desired policy outcome. Both parties as a whole fail utterly at this. (Edit: and I'm not suggesting anything about whether anyone here does or does not demand such Constitutional consistency. These are generalizations with many, many exceptions. Including me. )
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
