Ableton Forum

jamester wrote:While I'm on your side, do realize that Habeas Corpus is a right for US citizens, so it has nothing to do with the Gitmo detainees. Therefore, it also has nothing to do with America's implementation of "democracy" towards its citizens.

Wrong. Habeas Corpus is not an american invention, it's a common human right among many countries.

Venezuela and Greenpeace, I really doubt Bush gives a shit about them. Could you imagine Bush speaking out to help Greenpeace? Or telling Hugo Chavez he's caught that terrorist for him? Right...

We don't torture them so they don't torture us and our children who are in battle, something our AWOL Commander In Chief has no concept of.

We are America, we are dumb, we are aggressive, we have the bomb and you're not allowed to. We don't follow any rules we make our own up as we go along. Don't like it? So what?


19 more months of this BUllSHit, it's only going to get worse.

To the rest of the world - Please keep the US government separate from the US people, we're pissed and can't do a damn thing about it.

smutek wrote:Contains mature subject matter, occasional use of strong language, and brief nudity. regardless, a relevant and thought provoking documentary for those who will take the time to watch it.

The UK Channel 4 program examines torture in the war on terror by exposing seven volunteers to methods reported to have been used by American interrogators on alleged terrorists at the Guantanamo Bay camp.

The Guantanamo Guidebook reconstructs the regime at the US's Cuban base. For 48 hours, seven volunteers are subjected to interrogation techniques known to be used in the camp, ranging from harassment and abuse to sensory deprivation – with shocking results.

For obvious reasons more dangerous techniques, such as water boarding, were not employed on the volunteers.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 8271&hl=en

Try a prison in China, N Korea, Russia, N Ireland or Zimbabwe... You'd be on your hands & knees begging God to get back to guantanamo in about 5 seconds.

JACKAL & HYDE wrote:Try a prison in China, N Korea, Russia, N Ireland or Zimbabwe... You'd be on your hands & knees begging God to get back to guantanamo in about 5 seconds.

Those other prisons make Gitmo OK? Hell no.

We don't torture them so they don't torture us. Send the Bush twins into battle.

Tone Deft wrote:Wrong. Habeas Corpus is not an american invention, it's a common human right among many countries.

Venezuela and Greenpeace, I really doubt Bush gives a shit about them. Could you imagine Bush speaking out to help Greenpeace? Or telling Hugo Chavez he's caught that terrorist for him? Right...

I never said Habeas Corpus was an American invention! However, American's right to Habeas Corpus is specifically granted in the Constitution, and those rights do not apply to Gitmo's prisoners.

Now, in re-reading your bumper sticker I will conceed that I was looking at it from a more "American" perspective (because of the second bumper sticker); I see what you're saying about it being more a universal civil right. However, there are countries that use Habeas Corpus and are not democracies, like Malaysia, so the two are not necessarily mutualy inclusive.

Again, don't get me wrong - I hate Bush and where America is at right now. I'd move to Vancouver in a heartbeat if I could afford it. Instead, I have to hope that democracy will work, and the will of the people will be heard next round. Bush's own party is turning against him at this point; the desire for new leadership/direction has become a fairly bi-partisan desire!

Edit: Oh I meant to add, the Chavez situaiton is crazy...we allow Venezuela to sell their gas to poor Americans at reduced prices, but yet refuse help from them during Katrina. Still, I think he's a nut and will ultimately cripple Venezuela economically by removing them from the global market economy through over-nationalizing. But that's just my opinion. He wouldn't be the first well-meaning leader to accumulate too much power and descend into tyranny....

JACKAL & HYDE wrote: Try a prison in China, N Korea, Russia, N Ireland or Zimbabwe... You'd be on your hands & knees begging God to get back to guantanamo in about 5 seconds.

+1.

Besides, Gitmo is 100% cleaned up, and has been for years. Leftist and media hyper-scrutiny has seen to that. Criticizing Gitmo prisoner treatment is like demanding that women get the vote; It's a dead issue that's been long addressed.

(edit: has been addressed in the United States that is... I wouldn't try that in Saudi Arabia or anything just yet).

Tone Deft wrote:

JACKAL & HYDE wrote:Try a prison in China, N Korea, Russia, N Ireland or Zimbabwe... You'd be on your hands & knees begging God to get back to guantanamo in about 5 seconds.

Those other prisons make Gitmo OK? Hell no.

We don't torture them so they don't torture us. Send the Bush twins into battle.

And countries have always tortured US soldiers laughing at the UN charter are you kidding? Vietnam had rampant torture going on toward US soldiers as well as Korea and now in Iraq they dont even get to torure as the insurgents go straight to head chopping. So I'm not giving the "dont torture them they wont torture you" much gas...

M. Bréqs wrote:

JACKAL & HYDE wrote: Try a prison in China, N Korea, Russia, N Ireland or Zimbabwe... You'd be on your hands & knees begging God to get back to guantanamo in about 5 seconds.

+1.

Besides, Gitmo is 100% cleaned up, and has been for years. Leftist and media hyper-scrutiny has seen to that. Criticizing Gitmo prisoner treatment is like demanding that women get the vote; It's a dead issue that's been long addressed.

(edit: has been addressed in the United States that is... I wouldn't try that in Saudi Arabia or anything just yet).

monty! I thought you were off in Afghanistan fighting for imperialism?

ps. It's not an issue that's been long addressed. When the remaining detainees of gitmo and all of the other prisons we run around the world (covert and overt) are actually charged with a crime, given a fair trial, due process, and proven guilty or innocent, and once the innocent and their families have received a formal apology and due compensation for their years of detainment, then the issue will have been addressed.

Then the next issue to be addressed will be how a so called democratic society would do such things to begin with, and how so called patriotic freedom loving citizens in my country, and around the world, would give it their mindless support.

First of all, the controversy with habeas from a domestic (i.e. US) viewpoint is not that foreign enemy combatants have a right to habeas - they never have, and do not. The problem is with the wording of the Military Commissions Act. It does not celarly define what :1) an unlawful enemy combatant is; 2) what terrorism is; 3) what a competant tribunal is. With regards to #1, anybody can be an enemy combatant for the purpose of detention at facilities like Gitmo under the MCA - even Americans. And anyone can be an unlawful enemy combatant if you are associated with "terrorist" organizations. What are the grounds for determining that association? Could be anything - even hearsay evidence - which the defense does not have a chance to review, or review how the government obtained that evidence.

That's because the MCA also pretty much redefines torture to be anything short of death, or losing a limb, or brain damage. So, the MCA allows torture for obtaining evidence, and then specifically forbids how that evidence was obtained from being renewed.

So the consequences of the MCA are pretty amazing: 1) for the first time in US history, Americans may have their habeas rights denied; 2) Congress pretty much denied the Supreme Court its power to interpret treaties under Article III of the constitution (a separation of powers issue); and 3) Congress authorized the Executive to ignore international treaty obligations. All these point to perhaps the biggest breakdown in seperation of powers in US history, and really calls into question whether the Executive feels any obligation to the Rule of Law.

There is, incidentally, absolutley no controversy surrounding the question whether the US could be indicted in the future for war crimes or crimes against humanity. They have violated the law of war in the Third Geneva Convention and Common Article III. From a legal standpoint, there are no grounds for defending the Bush Administration in respect to Guantanomo and the treatement of detainees under the MCA. Will they? Probably not. But could they? Definetly!

hoffman2k wrote:A university (princeton or stanford i think) did some tests on how quickly a "jail" makes people into sadistic bastards..

It takes 36 hours to turn a college student into a monster.
Thats about the same time to break somebody with mild abusive behaviour.

Be it in college or in real jails/camps, this pattern always surfaces.

End conclusion? Guatanamo was decaying within 2 days, when it should have seen a change of the guards..

How long does it take to go from "I have to guard these people" to "Lets throw these dudes naked in a pile and take some pictures to send home"?

Prof. Zimbardo from Stanford did the test. This is his website http://www.lucifereffect.com/

M. Bréqs wrote:

JACKAL & HYDE wrote: Try a prison in China, N Korea, Russia, N Ireland or Zimbabwe... You'd be on your hands & knees begging God to get back to guantanamo in about 5 seconds.

+1.

Besides, Gitmo is 100% cleaned up, and has been for years. Leftist and media hyper-scrutiny has seen to that. Criticizing Gitmo prisoner treatment is like demanding that women get the vote; It's a dead issue that's been long addressed.

(edit: has been addressed in the United States that is... I wouldn't try that in Saudi Arabia or anything just yet).

How has it been addressed? Please, pray tell.

jamester wrote:

dango wrote:just watched it, that movie tipped me over the edge.

just made a couple bumper stickers for my car. going to get some cardboard and go freeway blogging to. people need to start caring.

While I'm on your side, do realize that Habeas Corpus is a right for US citizens, so it has nothing to do with the Gitmo detainees. Therefore, it also has nothing to do with America's implementation of "democracy" towards its citizens.

it starts there, then moves to US citizens. and how do you know if or if not there are us citizens being held?

if habeas corpus isn't supposed to apply towards enemy combatants then why did Bush need to suspend it in the military commissions act? (not argeing, just asking)

"On January 17, 2007, Attorney General Gonzales asserted in Senate testimony that while habeas corpus is "one of our most cherished rights," the United States Constitution does not expressly guarantee habeas rights to United States residents or citizens.
As such, the law could be extended to US citizens and held if left unchecked."

Gonzales is a bullshitter. For sure, habeas is guaranteed in the US constitution for Americans, or was before the Military Commissions Act. What Gonzales does is basically lie about the law so that people won't think anything of it.

The exact wording of the consitution allows congress to suspend habeas only during "rebellion and invasion."

However, if this is the logic that Gonzales follows, then technically, nearly every right in the constitution could be suspended during times of war. However, the definition of war when the constitution was written meant a traditional war, utilizing a military command structure. And in regards to habeas specifically, even during war, it could not be suspended unless during invasion - which we do not have here - or rebellion - also absent.

But now we have this new war on terror. Essentially, a war on a concept, not a state, and in this regard the ebst we can do is manage terrorism, never truly defeat it. So, instead of "war" the US is effectively engaging in a lifestyle decision. But this point has been hashed out enough.

G:" Habeas has never been a guaranteed right, so the MCA is okay."
Society: "Oh well, the AG said its okay so..."

So why did the administration have to come up wih the MCA in the first place if it never was a guaranteed right? I guess the 5 justices who said it was in Hamdan V. Rumsfeld are wrong? Don't believe ANYTHING Gonzales says - he is a liar.

If wrote on my law school exam - habeas is not a guaranteed right - without explaining the rebellion/invasion exception, I would not do well on that exam.

Dango - America's suspension of Habeas Corpus is not unprecedented (unfortunately):

Wikipedia

Suspension during the Civil War and Reconstruction

On April 27, 1861, habeas corpus was suspended by President Lincoln in Maryland and parts of midwestern states, including southern Indiana during the American Civil War. Lincoln did so in response to riots, local militia actions, and the threat that the border slave state of Maryland would secede from the Union, leaving the nation's capital, Washington, D.C., surrounded by hostile territory. Lincoln was also motivated by requests by generals to set up military courts to rein in "Copperheads" or Peace Democrats, and those in the Union who supported the Confederate cause. His action was challenged in court and overturned by the U.S. Circuit Court in Maryland (led by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney) in Ex Parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (C.C.D. Md. 1861). Lincoln ignored Taney's order. In the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis also suspended habeas corpus and imposed martial law. This was in part to maintain order and spur industrial growth in the South to compensate for the economic loss inflicted by its secession.

In 1864, Lambdin P. Milligan and four others were accused of planning to steal Union weapons and invade Union prisoner-of-war camps and were sentenced to hang by a military court. However, their execution was not set until May 1865, so they were able to argue the case after the Civil War. In Ex Parte Milligan 71 U.S. 2 (1866), the Supreme Court of the United States decided that the suspension of the writ was unconstitutional because the President was not empowered to try and convict citizens before military tribunals. The trial of civilians by military tribunals is allowed only if civilian courts are closed. This was one of the key Supreme Court Cases of the American Civil War that dealt with wartime civil liberties and martial law.

In the early 1870s, President Grant suspended habeas corpus in nine counties in South Carolina, as part of federal civil rights action against the Ku Klux Klan under the 1870 Force Act and 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act.

Yes - during rebellion and invasion. Those are the two exceptions to habeas. The Civil War was a rebellion. I'm not sure about the KKK, but I'll bet it was also grounded in the rebellion exception.

Quote: "In 1864, Lambdin P. Milligan and four others were accused of planning to steal Union weapons and invade Union prisoner-of-war camps and were sentenced to hang by a military court. However, their execution was not set until May 1865, so they were able to argue the case after the Civil War. In Ex Parte Milligan 71 U.S. 2 (1866), the Supreme Court of the United States decided that the suspension of the writ was unconstitutional because the President was not empowered to try and convict citizens before military tribunals. The trial of civilians by military tribunals is allowed only if civilian courts are closed."

The MCA gives the president authority to try and convict civilians before military tribunals.

but there is not a rebellion nor invasion happening right now.

oh wait, we are invading countries so i guess they are counting that.