Ain't this sumthin

T

thenextbesthang

#1
Slamming the final nail in the coffin of everything America used to stand for, the boot-licking U.S. Senate last night gave President Bush the legal authority to abduct and sexually mutilate American citizens and American children in the name of the war on terror.
There is nothing in the "detainee" legislation that protects American citizens from being kidnapped by their own government and tortured.​
Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman states in the L.A. Times, "The compromise legislation....authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights."​
Similarly, law Professor Marty Lederman explains: "this [subsection (ii) of the definition of 'unlawful enemy combatant'] means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to 'hostilities' at all."​
We have established that the bill allows the President to define American citizens as enemy combatants. Now let's take it one step further.​
Before this article is dismissed as another extremist hyperbolic rant, please take a few minutes out of your day to check for yourself the claim that Bush now has not only the legal authority but the active blessings of his own advisors to torture American children.​
The backdrop of the Bush administration's push to obliterate the Geneva Conventions was encapsulated b y John “torture” Yoo, professor of law at Berkeley, co-author of the PATRIOT Act, author of torture memos and White House advisor.​
During a December 1st debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel, John Yoo gave the green light for the scope of torture to legally include sexual torture of infants.
Cassel: If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress — that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo…
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.
Click here for the audio.
So if the President thinks he needs to order children's penises to be put in vices, there is no law that can stop him and after last night's vote, the Senate and Congress, exemplified by sicko 16-year-old boy groomer Mark Foley (R-FL) , has graciously provided Bush its full support for kids around the world to be molested in the name of stopping terror.
Yoo's comments were made before the passage of the torture legislation last night. Up until that point Bush had merely cited his role as dictator-in-chief as carte-blanche excuse for ordering torture - now his regime have the audacity to openly put it in writing - going one step further than even the Nazis did.
Again, for those who are still deluded into thinking the extent of the "pressure" is loud music and cold water being thrown over Johnny Jihad in Ragheadistan, consider for a moment the fact that your own Congress and President who, according to the Constitution, are mandated to serve you, have just legalized abducting your kids from your home and electric shocking their genitals.
Now that the criminals have declared themselves outside of the law does that mean we'll see Bush barbecuing babies on the White House lawn? Of course not, but the policy of torturing children in front of their parents has already been signed off on by the Pentagon and enacted under the Copper Green program and it happened at Abu Ghraib .
Women who were arrested with their children were forced to watch their boys being sodomized with chemical glow sticks as the cameras rolled. Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh says that the U.S. government is still withholding the tapes because of the horror of the "soundtrack of the shrieking boys" and their mothers begging to be killed in favor of seeing their children raped and tortured.
Your government has just lobbied for and Congress has passed legislation to discard the Geneva Conventions and mandate all this.
Pedophiles nationwide should rejoice - they can comfortably take a stroll down to the local swimming pool, grab whoever they like, drag them home, rape and torture them, and then in their defense cite the U.S. government as an example of how one should conduct themselves.
The bill also retroactively gives Bush, the Neo-Cons or any of their henchmen immunity from war crimes charges dating back to September 11 . Ask yourself why they would be so careful to protect themselves from accusations of war crimes.
Could that possibly be because they are knowingly committing war crimes?
The legislating of torture itself should be a criminal act. All laws that contradict the U.S. Constitution are null and void. It was once a law that black people were slaves.
Only by engaging in civil disobedience and refusing to tolerate or acknowledge the laws of a criminal regime that has greased the skids for sexually torturing kids can we ever have a hope of returning America to its past glory.
 
F

Feslin

#3
gave President Bush the legal authority to abduct and sexually mutilate American citizens and American children in the name of the war on terror.
That's kind of an exxageration, but yes, this is bad (although, I haven't heard all sides of the story...)
 
I

Inkslinger

#4
Farewell America... it was a good run. In-fucking-credible how stupid the american people are anyways, we deserve the forthcoming chaos...
 
J
#5
lol...come on, Inky!! We can't give up! We need people like you to have faith in your country or else we really are doomed...
 
#8
Ok so basically this is an amendment to the to the War Crimes Act passed 10 years ago and in addition to banning some cruel and inhumane treatment denies some detainees the right to challenge their detention in a federal court. So what's the problem?? Their enemy combatants they should have no rights under our constitution. It's just a bunch of partisan bullshit legislation and politics way to close to midterm elections to be taken seriously.
 
T

thenextbesthang

#9
Ok so basically this is an amendment to the to the War Crimes Act passed 10 years ago and in addition to banning some cruel and inhumane treatment denies some detainees the right to challenge their detention in a federal court. So what's the problem?? Their enemy combatants they should have no rights under our constitution. It's just a bunch of partisan bullshit legislation and politics way to close to midterm elections to be taken seriously.
It's not a question in my eyes of the rights of enemy combatants.

You do recognize that the only thing that prevents our democracy from turning into a tyranny is the nature of checks and balances right?

What are you doing here? You are saying that a portion of society has no rights (ignore the fact that they aren't 'legally' a person). You are saying that our government has the right to treat people as non-people, even if they aren't its people.

IS that the type of world you want to live in? I've heard some people say that the new law can be interpreted so that Americans that disagree with the president can be held as enemy combatants (jose padilla, who had no evidence against him that he was an enemy combatant, was held illegally for three years, AND WAS AMERICAN).

You start the ball rolling here. You end up in a tyranny.
 
#10
All Im saying is that for the majority of prisoners are allready protected from abuse by Pentagon guidelines and this current bill will mostly apply to a few prisoners being held in CIA custody. It didnt change a thing and only reaffirmed historic precedent as it applies to prisoners of war and enemy combatants. It's as far as Im concerned partisan political posturing in an election year.
 

Similar Discussions