Posted on 11/21/2001 9:29:08 AM PST by Croooow
WHO PUT WHAT IN BOB BARR’S CHEERIOS?
Sometimes I just can’t figure that guy out. Right now he’s on a tear about this military tribunals thing. Barr doesn’t like it, and I frankly don’t understand why.
I’ve read the President’s Executive Order. I agree that there are some troubling aspects there …we can tear those apart later. Right now let’s deal with this military tribunal thing in the context of Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorists.
Let’s say that some of our Special Forces guys are wandering around Ashcanistan and here comes Osama holding his hands high … he’s giving up. At this point our guys have four real options.
The best option? Kill the SOB. A gut shot, not one of those Special Forces headshots. Let the bastard suffer.
But, let’s say he lives and is captured. Look more closely at the options.
A UN Trial.
Oh this would be just wonderful. Since the day the United Nations was formed it has been unfriendly toward the United States. In recent decades the UN has been nothing less than an US taxpayer funded soapbox for every petty dictator and activist in the world who has a gripe against America.
Of late the UN has become more than an international anti-American soapbox. The UN is feeling quite bold right now. Just a few months before the terrorist attacks the UN chastised the State of Arizona for going forward with an execution the UN didn’t want to happen. The UN actually stated that Arizona was subject to the mandates of the UN courts and that election had been illegally conducted.
Also, have you ever paid attention to the UN’s signature document when it comes to human rights? This human rights treaty was touted by Bill Clinton as the finest document in support of freedom in the history of the world. Others might feel that honor belongs to the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution. But, no. Clinton says the UN Human Rights Declaration is Numero Uno! Without belaboring this point – you might be interested to know that the UN Human Rights Declaration clearly states that humans have NO rights when it comes to the goals and purposes of the United Nations.
So .. try Bin Laden or some other terrorists captured in Afghanistan before a UN court? A UN court is an anti-American court. The trial would turn into a spectacle wherein the great unwashed would parade in front of international television camera to denounce America as the “true” terrorist Nation. The actual trial of the terrorists would only be a subplot to the anti-American agenda on center stage.
Try him in a US Court.
As soon as we drag that dirt bag over to the United States he immediately earns the protection of the United States Constitution. Yup – that’s right. As long as the terrorist (or any other criminal, for that matter) is (a) not an American citizen and (b) not physically in America, he is not entitled to the protection of our Constitution. No right to an attorney. No right to a jury trial. No right to confront his witnesses. No right to appeal. But … once they’re here, all bets are off.
Can you just imagine a trial on American soil of Osama Bin Laden? Who would want to serve on that jury? Every juror would be a marked man or woman for the rest of their lives --- IF, that is, they voted to convict. Osama is very media savvy. He would seize the opportunity to turn the trial into a spectacle of anti-Americanism. Why do we want to invite such a spectacle to take place right here at home?
A Military Tribunal
George Washington did it. So did Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. Washington and Lincoln did it on American soil with American defendants. The Supreme Court passed on it. No problem.
There is no law, no court ruling, no precedent which confers rights under the United States Constitution on non-citizens who commit crimes overseas.
Look, the young men and women we sent over there in the American uniforms don’t get full constitutional protection if they commit a crime while in our armed services. They’re subject to the Uniform Code of Military Conduct. Isn’t it somewhat strange that those opposed to military tribunals for the terrorists want them to enjoy more rights than our own military men would have?
I do have a theory about those on the left who oppose the tribunal idea. They WANT an anti-American spectacle. They know a terrorist trial – especially one of Bin Laden – would be the media event of the decade. What a time for them to wheel out their anti-American agenda?
But how does that explain Bob Barr?
YOU GO, GIRL!!
If we EVER "Forget" this Principle, we may need Centuries to regain our Freedom & "Human Dignity!"
Doc
How would you know? Have you seen the evidence that they are actually terrorists who committed crimes against U.S. citizens?
Yes I oppose the action in Afghanistan. It is absolutely unjustified and serves no purpose in regard to 9/11. It will make the area much more amenable to a multi-billion dollar generating natural gas pipeline though and I guess that's a plus....
And I could care less what a bunch of Europeans say about holding people over for trial. They do not run this country and they have no regard for human rights.
I'm with you here.
What Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and many defenders of liberty and the Constitution posting on this website find unforgivable is the usurpation of powers by Bush to do what no branch of the government could legally do -- violate the most basic Constitutional principles which he and many of us are sworn to uphold, not destroy.
You have to enumerate what principle Bush violated. Constitutional Scholars as diverse as Lawerence Tribe, Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz all acknowledge that military tribunals are constitutional.
You seem to read Bush's Executive Order and think "bin Laden" and that nothing is too vile to wish on him. Others like myself read the order and think about their spouse or mother-in-law from Mexico or Canada who has never had anything to do with any terrorists or terrorism, but based on the non-reviewable whim of one man can be tried and put to death in secret by hand-picked "judges" with no right of appeal or much of anything which gives a trial moral legitimacy in the eyes of Americans.
Simply not true, the tribunals will be conducted in accordance with the UCMJ and nobody is interested in trying your mother-in-law. Thats hyperbole, it makes no sense, Americans would not stand still for such gross violations.
This makes us a nation of men (or, even worse, MAN), not laws. It doesn't matter who the man is, our founders fought, died, and made tremendous sacrifices to insure that in this country NO PERSON OR GROUP OF PERSONS had powers like these.
What powers? Bush is exercising his authority by order of Congress' authorization pursuant to the War Powers Act in accordance with the UCMJ which was codified by Congress. He is CIC, and therefore in a military tribunal, he can and should act as the district attorney deciding who should be indicted. Who would you have do this?
Before you state that "That's not what the order is intended to do," let me go ahead and reply that intentions are debatable, subject to change, and not really all that meaningful, whereas the plain meaning of the words of the order clearly "allows" for these and a multitude of other injustices. If the order is not meant to apply to each and every non-citizen, then why is it written that way?
It is written to give the CIC the widest latitutde possible in dealing with the "unlawful belligerents" who attacked and killed almost 5 thousand of our brothers and sisters. There are beaucoups checks and balances. The American people being the prime example.
To those who claim that the order only applies to "terrorists," I would say that that is a classic example of "question-begging" -- it assumes what is sought to be proven. How does someone challenge being tried as a terrorist on the grounds that they are not a terrorist? Of course, they can't, and that is by design.
Habeus corpus has not been suspended and they will be able to present a defense.at the tribunal. I find it amazing that you are so distrustful of President Bush in using discretion while at the same time endorsing the killing of all such combatants in Afghanistan. Does Private GI Joe have better judgement than the CIC?
This is a bad, bad business, and totally unncessary. Those who love and have fought for the Constitution and the principles upon which this country was founded should cry tears of sorrow. And rage.
No, it is good business, We have the example of the one eyed mullah being tried in New York. Eight years later they are convicted but not executed and in the interim, loads of classified data pertaining to the enginneering of the WTC found its way to the public and bin Laden.
Then we have nothing further to discuss, now or ever.
LSJohn, you mentioned earlier that you weren't exactly sure about my "Left Progressive (Positivist, Materialist, yada yada) thing." Well, maybe I got even that wrong. Maybe what we're dealing with here is some global variant of Mob, Inc. -- which cares nothing at all about ideology, and everything about effective -- and global (such pretensions being what they are) -- POWER. (But conceding that point, they could only justify such power on positivist, materialist, utilitarian, and/or atheist grounds. Assuming they felt they needed to justify it at all. I'd be willing to try a defense of that hypothesis sometime.... But it's not essential here.)
If the Global Mob, Inc. scenario were to be the case, then where do we start looking for the miscreants? They're sure not "targets" on the ground in Afghanistan.
I'm sorry I haven't written sooner. I've been feeling a little "punk" lately -- you know, swimming in a vast sea of sh*t like most of the rest of us, trying to get some kind of take on the horizon of events, such that I could even begin to get oriented -- and it's been taking its toll. Mostly I've been lurking. But have been reading some. Not to mention thinking, and even dreaming on these themes.
You envision the problem of GWB being held in the dark by his expert advisors (at least as a possibility). It seems to me there is an analogous problem, and I worry about it: That the People are being so held in the dark.
Yes, I know this is wartime. And yes, the "Constitution is not a suicide pact." BUT. I worry that the civil/military authority which is constitutionally vested in the President has decided to tell the American people just as little as it can get away with about information regarding the conduct of this war. Let me repeat: I know we live in wartime conditions. But unless the folks "in charge" don't start telling us something of substance sometime soon, I'm gonna start wondering: Who's war? And for what?
We don't want to get into a situation where the employees of We the People don't trust their employer (let alone fail to understand that they are accountable to same). That would establish a very, very bad precedent, indeed.
Anyhoot, I respect you as a thinker, LSJohn -- and sometime "sparring partner." :^) And I just wanted to let you know that we share common problems. I needed four days to compose a thoughtful reply. You've done me a great kindness in "putting me through the exercise." Thanks, my friend. All my best -- bb.
As far as the citizens not trusting their employees. We were never supposed to trust them. That was the point of the bill of rights. Don't trust them. You'll get screwed if you do.
DD, you're preaching to the choir on that one.
RE: the trans-Afghanistan pipeline: I understand PRC already holds contracts for developing it. Maybe my information is incorrect. But if it is correct, whose interest is being served by this war in which -- according to the Bush Administration -- not a drop of American blood has been shed so far (other than the 9-11 attacks of course -- and a few guys who inadvertently "got wet" by falling overboard)? Even though the foreign press routinely report American casualties on the ground, in the tens if not hundreds.
Maybe those sources are incorrect, or have mistakenly (or even culpably) depended on other sources who are lying to them. How could you or I tell from where we sit -- which in turn controls what we see and, therefore, can rationally understand?
If you ask me, boil it all down, I am far more disturbed by the present Administration's heavy-handed gutting of the Freedom of Information Act than I am of its "cheating" on the casualty numbers.
If the latter is legitimately susceptible to dispute, I strongly doubt the former is. What is the purpose of locking up all presidential papers for a virtual forever, going back (putatively) to the Washington Administration? WHAT purpose is served by this -- in a supposedly "open society," under civilian control? How can civilians keep in control of anything, if they are victims of the Mushroom School of Management: "Keep 'em in the dark, and feed 'em sh*t?"
Presidential Papers are the common property of the People. We bought 'em, and we paid for 'em. If they have become "State Secrets" (for some inchoate and rather dubious "national security reason"), then the First Amendment has exactly zero public traction or relevance, don't you think?
And by the way, where is the Fourth Estate in all of this "secrecy?" Seems it collectively has been struck blind, deaf, and mute. Why even bother to buy newspapers, or watch television news, when the basic collective message these days seems to be: "Don't ask questions. We sure don't."
I'm sorry, DD. Seems like LSJohn has gotten me launched on some kind of a tear here. Must get a grip. It's nearly bedtime anyway. So let me wish you good night and God Bless. -- bb.
That information was first posted here by the way. Perhaps you missed it while you were cheering "rah rah."
Do you even know what the U.S. is doing? I can tell what it isn't doing: bringing terrorists responsible for 9/11 to justice. It is destroying the current regime and attempting to install its own hand-picked government. This government will make the pipeline a reality. I'll bet you any material thing or cash amount you would like to bet that this occurs.
The perpetuation of it is one of the fundamental reasons we have so many other problems, and will continue to have problems, with government in general.
----generic rant time----- "Government" dropped the ball on heading off and preventing the attacks on 9-11. There ya go. The ball dropped so hard it went flat, and the court is cracked. There is ample data to show they were warned, in various ways and in various manners, well in advance of the attacks. "Government" has been aware of the continuuing presence of these "jihaders" here, and did little of anything to stop them in advance of the attacks. They actually PROMOTED them into the country, by the zillions! One of their prime directives or something. Multiculturalism and so called 'free trade' and 'engagement" or whatever. They-the jihaders- haven't even been remotely secretive about their intentions. The videos of their inflammatory speeches in the domestic mosques and islamic centers in the US is known to them. The foreign fatwahs declaration of wars and previous attacks are in the HUNDREDS now, around the world, including agasinst us, several times now. the wtc and pentagon is just a big example of what has been going on for years. Something really NEW here to see? it's BIGGER than the last attacks, but really no different. What, this all of a sudden snuck up on these politician bozos? They declared war on us a long time ago, but other matters were too important for government to address than those declaration of war against us. We are supposed to widely cheer on decades of incompetence. Like, we pay them trillions, and their excuse is they didn't get an ambassadorial level gilt edged parchment presented with high drama on the whitehouse lawn saying on 9-11 they would be attacking such and such. Phooie, that ain't the real world, as some folks like to quote. In the real world, if you get plenty of advance notice, you head them off at the pass, you don't wait until AFTER they rob the bank, sack the town and rape the school marm. The new 'sheriff' we got has been asleep at his desk for too long, the big loud noise woke him up, the previous sheriff spent all his time drinking and gamblin and whorin around, the sheriff before that was too interested in crooked business deals, including quite a few business deals with the same basic gang of mad jihaders who are nutcases on the loose overseas and over here now. A lot of his boys are now 'advisors' to the new sheriff. Gee, wonder why the jihader gang was ignored so much? This is upposed to be ok because the new sheriffs wife wears lovely pearls and happens to be a different person than the last whorin sheriffs wife? This is important, an excuse? howzzat again? That's the real world we got, bozo incompetents and crooks.
Concerned citizens have warned them. A lot of their own competent and honest and patriotic employees warned them , and they got told to IGNORE IT by the bozo sheriffs. They keep being warned, but for some reason they keep screwing their own honest employees who are trying to do their jobs effectively. We ain't supposed to be smelling rats here? The jihaders own statements and previous actions in advance of 9-11 warned them. The WTC building was previously attacked, to great destructive effects, including heinous terroristic loss of life, by a bomb, and they had government agents and snitches inserted into the very terr cell itself, and STILL, they failed to act in accordance to their primary sheriff duties, which were to secure the integrity of the nations boundaries, and to provide the necessary protections that they are able to provide, using the more than adequate tools ALLOWED them. They are paid extremely well, they got perks like no other human on the planet has ever gotten, they got plenty of notice, all the airconditioned offices they can sit their butts in, all the government vehicles they can ride around in and gas to burn they could want, all the fancy diplomatic chow they can shovel in, you name it, it's been provided to them, and on and on and on and they SCREWED UP ROYAL. That doesn't deserve massive flag waving in support of! It deserves a kick in the can and getting fired, retroactively, too.
They have no need for additional tools, they have shown to be careless with the tools they have now. Reckless, irresponsible, there is NOTHING praiseworthy in any of their actions to date. Nothing they have done in the past warrants rewarding them with "more power", they have abused to the max already, so many examples it would take reams to list-we explore them all the time on this website. This is the PRIMARY reason for this websites existence in fact., to address that, point out all the examples, and seek ways to deal with it, not excuse it and make it worse that it already is!. They seek to use the politicians most used trick-the misdirection-to divert blame and exposure.
Yes, it's quite possible to use torture to extract a "confession" to use as proof of a crime-ask the captured airmen of the korean and viet nam wars about that. If you torture a human being, they will most likely tell you anything you want to hear eventually, makes no difference what they did or didn't do. It's also possible to merely pass an edict that such and such is the data, and because it's "official", then it becomes more "proof". A truly guilty person as well as a totally innocent person may both be tortured, both might be found guilty of the crime based on these proofs. both may have only limited evidence shown in their defense, or no evidence, or manufactured evidence against them, or collective evidence. You are a "jew" so you are guilty. You are a member of such and such a race, so you are guilty. the other side in this current war considers all of us "guilty' by their standards. Should we drop to those levels?.
Many governments do this, most do actually, it's routine, and we LAUGH at them, because they deserve it!. Zimbabwe does this now, it does not make it any better if we do such, no matter today's reason, however "justifiable". We should not be emulating these tyrannical governments in technique. We can be strong and defend ourselves without that. It's more than possible, and I contend it's desirable as well.
We long ago agreed to give up some amount of "total nanny state, bigbro watch over his little chilluns, now do as he say chillub" style "security" in exchange for a strict limit on government, those wise people noticing that in the long run that was a better idea, as this "no holds barred, no limits" type government were the ONLY other previous models they had to look at, THEY SUCK BIGTIME, and those previous models were rejected as being just 'wrong" as they had always become highly abusive, no exceptions, so we done thunk up a new way to do it, and some want to go back to those old stoopid ways.
There's a very old adage that fits, two really. .. the road to hell is paved with good intentions. and don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Anyone can understand these two concepts.
We are right this second breaking those adages. Pages and reams of laws are almost all contained in old human sayings of universal truths, fancy guys just stetch them out a lot, but they can all be condensed down pretty good. The ten commandments, the golden rule, these two old sayings I quoted. It makes things easier to understand sometimes to get back to the basics.
We can fight the war against the terrorists most effectively without adding to the executive branches powers, there is zero need for it, and the potentials for abuse are much worse than even the lives of the slain 6000 represent. sorry, but it's true, and I'll say it out loud right now. The opposite is maintaining that we CAN'T fight the terrorists without these abusive new "laws", and I contend that's beyond pussy, excuse the slang. we are supposed to believe by these new dictatorial laws adherent's that we are trembling incompetent nanny-boys without these new laws, that they are "necessary', that we "can't fight terrorism" without them. Says who, really, says who? Where's the proof of that, where's the beef? We are so WEAK we need "new dictator laws"-"secret military tribunals" whatever other politician-dictator buzz word crap they want to call it, to fight these jerks? Huh? Someone is telling me I got to eat that crap because without it we can't beat some freeking goatherders over there or here, using our laws we got already? Double huh? Says who again? Pretty chicken squat pansy point of view really, if ya ask me. "Ohh, I'm so scared of the boogey man mad jihaders that I'm willing to give up everything we have in order to be safe from e-vile mad jihader nail clippers, please hide the bogey men away from me on some island where I won't get the swooning vapors being close to them". Phooie, there it is in straight talk. The politicians call that "getting tough", I say right back in their freaking faces I call it "covering your a$$ and your buddy buddy other politicians a$$ from past fooling around and not taking care of business" wussin out, swapping being a wuss, and endangering your childrens freedoms down the road, so you can be an internet and tv celebrity political pseudo macho man star now. Double phooie.. rah, rah BLAH.
Maybe not exactly right now, or exactly tomorrow, but it's the nature of the chimeric government-beast to never let go of anything once it's been seized and used extensively. It has an insatiable appetite, it feeds on raw power, and once eaten it can't give it back. Jihaders today, "constitution spouting whackos who defy authority "gun nuts" and "lowr-n-orderzz"-mostly orders- sometime tomorrow. It'll happen, have no doubt. It has always happened before in history, any nation that went down that path. We can be just like any other strange country that doesn't care, pick one at random, it doesn't matter, just bigger and better armed, or we have a chance to go back to the "new fangled" way of 'govdernment' that we invented, to be uniquely different.
I really don't want to see just a modern day version of what imperial and strong but wussy effete rome was. I like the older but still "new fangled" way we had, and are in imminent danger of losing. The rest of the world has juntas, secret military courts, summary executions, torturted confessions-screw that, we came up with a better way, a different idea, totally different, and it WORKED when we stuck to it, we don't emulate those other ways, they should strive to emulate us instead. Ya, it's slower, so what? Really, so what? It's better in the long run. I like "better", to me that is of more worth than just "faster".
It is also true that the Taliban and the instability of Afghanistan have been at the root of the pipeline's demise and this was brought to the attention of Congress in congressional hearings.
It might well be absurd. I think it is an international crime of epic proportions. But what do I know?
I suggest that you try to get Larry Klayman to pursue this one for you. He is just the man for the job.
Is there anything you would feel justified in defending or at least support others, less suckassesque in their defence of? If so, what?
Nah, I didn't mean that such a person wouldn't follow the thinking process you outlined. Since my thoughts run in a vein similar to that, I felt the need to disclaim that I wear such a hat (and I was really joking since I knew you didn't think I did.)
IMO, you're one of those rare people who eventually gets very close to the right answer because you won't quit asking questions and working at it until you're satisfied. Your positions are always reasonable and thoughtful, and when I disagree you make me think harder and deeper.
Thanks
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.