New law giving the president more power

[hoosier]

First, what did we do in the past with terrorists and spies? One reason you may not know is the high level of secrecy. As decades old and even century old information becomes available or is scrutinized, it's obvious that spies and terrorists were treated with the harshest methods available, then shot or hung. So we're a hell of a lot nicer now.

I don't get it. Countries used to draw and quarter traitors so now we should feel all warm and cozy because we stop short of killing them? Old histories of barbarism can't be used to justify new, kinder and gentler barbarisms.

Second, Ahaha wrote that he was more worried by our government than the terrorists. I wrote my sarcasic response to illustrate how absurd that notion is.

Why is that notion absurd? Is a terrorist attack really more damaging to democracy in the long run than a government with no respect for civil liberaties and human rights?

That's why I think it's necessary to promote change in the middle east and have at least some latitude in dealing with the worst terrorists, at least in the case of the terrorist who knows the location of the ticking bomb, and in the case of terrorists trying to call their buddies in the U.S.

"The terrorist who knows" argument is a red herring and a cheap appeal to emotion in order to win blanket approval for tactics that would never otherwise see the light of day.

[FavreChild]

Without making any *value* judgments about liberal/moderate/conservative...

The last "liberal" president, rhetorically speaking, was LBJ. I scoff at the notion of any current elected official as "liberal."

Not to mention that all elected officials are pro-capitalism (hence, not *really* liberal, if you want to discuss semantics) but that's a can of worms I don't especially care to discuss.

Why the hell am I posting, then??

[SkinBasket]

I don't get it. Countries used to draw and quarter traitors so now we should feel all warm and cozy because we stop short of killing them? Old histories of barbarism can't be used to justify new, kinder and gentler barbarisms.

You're right. Keeping someone who would wipe out every non-muslim on the face of the planet without a second thought awake for a day straight with loud rap music in a carefully controlled environment under specific humanitrian conditions is terribly barbaric.

Why is that notion absurd? Is a terrorist attack really more damaging to democracy in the long run than a government with no respect for civil liberaties and human rights?

Exactly who's "civil liberties and human rights" does this bill erode again? Maybe one of you guys wringing your hands over this could give us one example of how this bill effects your civil liberties or infringes on your human rights.

[hoosier]

You're right. Keeping someone who would wipe out every non-muslim on the face of the planet without a second thought awake for a day straight with loud rap music in a carefully controlled environment under specific humanitrian conditions is terribly barbaric.

First off, a significant percentage of people detained at Gitmo have turned out to have nothing to do with terrorism, Taliban, etc. Bummer for them. Second, what exactly is a "carefully controlled environment under specific humanitarian conditions"? Prolonged sleep deprivation, simulated suffocation--it does sound controlled, but doesn't quite have a humanitiarian ring to me.

Exactly who's "civil liberties and human rights" does this bill erode again? Maybe one of you guys wringing your hands over this could give us one example of how this bill effects your civil liberties or infringes on your human rights.

Since the power to designate someone as "enemy combatant" is totally arbitrary, it theoretically affects any and all of us. But that's not my point. My point is, as soon as we begin to differentiate between people who have full rights and people who don't (or people who aren't fully human), our democratic tradition has died. And since US citizens are very likely to be processed under this bill if it doesn't get struck down, one can't get off the hook arguing that it only affects people not protected by the US constitution.

[ahaha]

I don't get it. Countries used to draw and quarter traitors so now we should feel all warm and cozy because we stop short of killing them? Old histories of barbarism can't be used to justify new, kinder and gentler barbarisms.

You're right. Keeping someone who would wipe out every non-muslim on the face of the planet without a second thought awake for a day straight with loud rap music in a carefully controlled environment under specific humanitrian conditions is terribly barbaric.

Do you really believe these are the harsher methods Bush wants to implement? In order for torture to work it has to involve extreme suffering.

[ahaha]

Why is that notion absurd? Is a terrorist attack really more damaging to democracy in the long run than a government with no respect for civil liberaties and human rights?

Exactly who's "civil liberties and human rights" does this bill erode again? Maybe one of you guys wringing your hands over this could give us one example of how this bill effects your civil liberties or infringes on your human rights.

Anyone the military suspects has ties to terrorism. I guess that wouldn't be a problem if they never ever made one single mistake. But, they're human, and bound to make mistakes. And when they do, the defendents won't have any way to challenge.

"It allows the government to seize individuals on American soil and detain them indefinitely with no opportunity to challenge their detention in court," Feingold said. "And the new law would permit an individual to be convicted on the basis of coerced testimony and even allow someone convicted under these rules to be put to death."

Terribly un-American.

[ahaha]

Second, Ahaha wrote that he was more worried by our government than the terrorists. I wrote my sarcasic response to illustrate how absurd that notion is. Terrorism wins when they blow up buildings and trains and frigthen the hell out of civilians. Terrorism wins when an entire culture become accustomed to bombs and other slayings as a part of life, as has happened in Israel.

Terrorism wins when we give up our freedom because of fear.

[SkinBasket]

Exactly who's "civil liberties and human rights" does this bill erode again? Maybe one of you guys wringing your hands over this could give us one example of how this bill effects your civil liberties or infringes on your human rights.

Since the power to designate someone as "enemy combatant" is totally arbitrary, it theoretically affects any and all of us. But that's not my point. My point is, as soon as we begin to differentiate between people who have full rights and people who don't (or people who aren't fully human), our democratic tradition has died. And since US citizens are very likely to be processed under this bill if it doesn't get struck down, one can't get off the hook arguing that it only affects people not protected by the US constitution.

An "arbitrary" meteorite falling from the sky "theoretically" affects me too, and it worries me just as much as the passage of this bill. Actually the meteorite concernes me more, since I'm pretty sure that I am not:

a) Going to be captured in Afghanistan fighting against American forces or

b) Going to spend several months at an al-Queda training camp, where I may, or may not, plot a dirty bomb attack.

which are the reasons that exactly two US citizens have been designated enemy combatants - making them theoretically subject to this bill. Not exactly as arbitrary as you claim or as widespread as you fear.

Bang the gong.

[mraynrand]

"It allows the government to seize individuals on American soil and detain them indefinitely with no opportunity to challenge their detention in court," Feingold said. "And the new law would permit an individual to be convicted on the basis of coerced testimony and even allow someone convicted under these rules to be put to death."

Terribly un-American.

Yes, it is un-American, specifically for those un-American 'individuals' as Feingold calls them. I can't stand this manipulative freak. He's trying to persuade you into thinking that Americans would somehow lose their civil liberties. They would not. He's also presenting the exact same argument he would present for allowing a death row inmate to escape execution. It's always the worst case scenario - coerced testimony, conviction, death sentence. Painting the process as though the military wants to put any suspicious American to death on a whim. Well, they want to be able to arrest and try suspected foreign terrorists without divulging surveilance methods (NYT?) and without the circus of the high profile U.S. trial (O.J., anyone?). If you don't like this, then what is the proper alternative?

[ahaha]

"It allows the government to seize individuals on American soil and detain them indefinitely with no opportunity to challenge their detention in court," Feingold said. "And the new law would permit an individual to be convicted on the basis of coerced testimony and even allow someone convicted under these rules to be put to death."

Terribly un-American.

Yes, it is un-American, specifically for those un-American 'individuals' as Feingold calls them. I can't stand this manipulative freak. He's trying to persuade you into thinking that Americans would somehow lose their civil liberties. They would not. He's also presenting the exact same argument he would present for allowing a death row inmate to escape execution. It's always the worst case scenario - coerced testimony, conviction, death sentence. Painting the process as though the military wants to put any suspicious American to death on a whim. Well, they want to be able to arrest and try suspected foreign terrorists without divulging surveilance methods (NYT?) and without the circus of the high profile U.S. trial (O.J., anyone?). If you don't like this, then what is the proper alternative?

1. Just because the accused isn't a U.S. citizen, it doesn't mean they don't deserve the right to a fair trial. And, I don't see them all becoming high profile circuses like your worst case scenario(O.J.).

2. I think you're way off on your judgement of Feingold. When presenting a negative argument, the idea is to show all the negatives of a new policy and how they outweigh any positives. I don't understand how he's manipulating us by stating the worst case scenarios, especially when they're so plausible. And, he never implied the whole military would be out to abuse this power. But, with this law behind them, there is sure to be some fanatics, in the war on terror, who abuse it. And speaking of manipulation, Feingold's biggest opponents on this argument are the best. The Bush administration and the Republican leadership under Karl Rove are masters at manipulating public perception.(Truth be told, all politicians have skills in manipulating the way people think)

3. Freedom is lost in increments. This law, in itself, may not take away our civil liberites, but it's a step in that direction. The real problem for us as citizens is that once this becomes accepted practice it could lead to further similar legislation. Terrorist aren't always foreign. We could see more attacks like the Oklahoma City bombing or more bombs on abortion clinics. Isn't it plausible to think these events could lead to an expansion of this law to include all U.S. citizens suspected of any kind of ties to a terrorist group.


4. What is the proper alternative? Strike down this law. The status quo may not be perfect, but that doesn't mean we need this law.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Just because the accused isn't a U.S. citizen, it doesn't mean they don't deserve the right to a fair trial.

Who says their military trial wouldn't be as fair as any trial that get in a U.S. court? Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this cover terrorists arrested overseas? They aren't U.S. citizens. They aren't even U.S. residents. You can't treat them like U.S. citizens or U.S. residents. They are not protected by the same laws we are. BTW, are you for an international tribunal to try our military personnel overseas?

And, I don't see them all becoming high profile circuses like your worst case scenario(O.J.).

These won't be high profile circuses? Are you kidding me? The media wouldn't be able to get enough of these.

Freedom is lost in increments.

Valid point. I'm a Libertarian at the corp. Hell, I'm against helmet laws, seat belt laws, smoking bans for private businesses, etc. However, I also have come to the realization that we live in new times. Unfortunately, we can never go back to the way things used to be. Not with the scope of attacks are enemies (and they are our enemies) are willing to go, the methods our enemies are using, and technologies are enemies are exploiting.

What is the proper alternative? Strike down this law. The status quo may not be perfect, but that doesn't mean we need this law.

What is an alternative? I don't think it's reasonable to think we can try ever terrorist we pick up overseas in a conventional trial. The process will be too slow, too much of the military's attention will be diverted from the task at hand, the media circus will be too much, and the costs will be exorbinant. It's not like they won't be getting any trial at all. They'll have their day in court. It's just not the conventional trial we are used to, but they aren't protected by the same laws that we are.

[ahaha]

Just because the accused isn't a U.S. citizen, it doesn't mean they don't deserve the right to a fair trial.

Who says their military trial wouldn't be as fair as any trial that get in a U.S. court? Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this cover terrorists arrested overseas? They aren't U.S. citizens. They aren't even U.S. residents. You can't treat them like U.S. citizens or U.S. residents. They are not protected by the same laws we are. BTW, are you for an international tribunal to try our military personnel overseas?

Some might say the admission of evidence gained through torture and coersion isn't as fair. And, it also includes those suspects caught on American soil.

And, I don't see them all becoming high profile circuses like your worst case scenario(O.J.).

These won't be high profile circuses? Are you kidding me? The media wouldn't be able to get enough of these.

O.J.'s trial was allowed to be televised. High profile cases garner attention, so what? Should we throw out justice in the interest of keeping it quiet and cheap?

Freedom is lost in increments.

Valid point. I'm a Libertarian at the corp. Hell, I'm against helmet laws, seat belt laws, smoking bans for private businesses, etc. However, I also have come to the realization that we live in new times. Unfortunately, we can never go back to the way things used to be. Not with the scope of attacks are enemies (and they are our enemies) are willing to go, the methods our enemies are using, and technologies are enemies are exploiting.

The world is and always will be dangerous. Our today's threats worse than what we faced during WWII, or the high tension, nuclear missiles pointing at each other, Cold War?

What is the proper alternative? Strike down this law. The status quo may not be perfect, but that doesn't mean we need this law.

What is an alternative? I don't think it's reasonable to think we can try ever terrorist we pick up overseas in a conventional trial. The process will be too slow, too much of the military's attention will be diverted from the task at hand, the media circus will be too much, and the costs will be exorbinant. It's not like they won't be getting any trial at all. They'll have their day in court. It's just not the conventional trial we are used to, but they aren't protected by the same laws that we are.

I'm not advocating they get a conventional trial a U.S. citizen would get. But, these suspects deserve a fair trial along the Geneva Convention's rules for enemy combatants.

[ahaha]

Stanford Report, October 25, 2006
Military Commissions Act a ‘poisoned chalice,’ scholar warns during symposium

BY LISA TREI

Photo by L.A. Cicero

David Luban of Georgetown and Jenny Martinez of Stanford gave presentations Friday as part of the conference.




President George Bush's approval of the 2006 Military Commissions Act, which permits controversial practices expediting the interrogation and prosecution of terror suspects, undermines the legal prohibition of torture and, in turn, degrades society itself, lawyer Jenny Martinez said Friday during a symposium, "Thinking Humanity After Abu Ghraib."

"The legalization of torture is a loaded gun," warned Martinez, an associate professor of law who in 2004 argued for the defense before the U.S. Supreme Court in Rumsfeld v. Padilla, a case centering on the power of the president to detain American citizens as enemy combatants. Techniques used by CIA interrogators such as extended sleep deprivation, hypothermia and "waterboarding," which simulates drowning, are now at the discretion of the president, she said. "As a result, countries around the world can point to the U.S. and say that torture is permitted," she added. "Legalization of torture degrades society and government in a way illegal torture does not. The existence of torture undermines the humanity of the state and ultimately undermines the security of the state."

Martinez joined ethicists, journalists and psychologists at the Oct. 20 symposium, cosponsored by Stanford Continuing Studies and held in Tresidder's Oak Lounge, to provide a disturbing glimpse into the evolution of an aspect of U.S. policy since the Bush administration launched the "war on terror" following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

According to conference organizers, public exposure of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, revelations of "extraordinary rendition" of terror suspects to countries that practice torture, the ongoing detention of prisoners without trial at Guantanamo Bay and evidence of secret CIA prisons have had profound repercussions on how the United States is viewed abroad and by its citizens at home.

Seymour Hersh, an investigative journalist for The New Yorker who was largely responsible for breaking the Abu Ghraib story in 2004, opened the conference with a keynote address Thursday in Kresge Auditorium. Hersh compared the psychological and reputational damage reverberating from the prison scandal to the 1968 My Lai massacre in Vietnam, a story that he broke and that earned him a Pulitzer Prize.

On Friday, Mark Danner, who also writes for The New Yorker, provided graphic descriptions of the torture of Iraqi civilians by their American captors and detailed how the federal government has responded to allegations of abuse. "In this administration, officials lie in the full light of day," Danner said. If the American polity fails to confront this, he said, it will mean the people have accepted the government's actions. "This is not simply a partisan political issue," he continued. "This is what fear—used by politicians and accepted by the populace—does."

During the second half of the conference, Philip Zimbardo, psychology professor emeritus, presented shocking and gruesome images of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib, and compared the scandal to his 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment. In the latter, Zimbardo explained, he randomly assigned normal, healthy college students to play either prisoners or guards in what was to be a two-week study. He called off the experiment after only six days because the "guards" quickly became sadistic and the "prisoners" broke down. Recently, Zimbardo acted as an expert witness in the trial of one of the accused military police officers at Abu Ghraib prison, Sgt. Ivan "Chip" Frederick, and he described how an all-American patriot could turn into a sadistic guard. Zimbardo's upcoming book, The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil, details his findings. "We want to believe that good and evil are separate, that it's 'them, not me,'" he said. In fact, both characteristics are present in human nature and, rather than exclusively blaming a flawed character, attention also should be paid to the external situation or system within which people operate, he said. Instead of blaming the atrocities at Abu Ghraib on a few "bad apples," as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld did, Zimbardo pointed to the corruption of ordinary people within the context of powerful situational forces—the "bad barrel"—and the leaders who allow the situation to happen—the "bad barrel makers."

"The 'bad apple' theory is what every administration uses to protect itself," Zimbardo said. "Evil is intentionally behaving [badly], or having the power to cause others to act [badly]. Evil is knowing better and doing worse." In the face of overwhelming situational forces, Zimbardo said, it is rare for a person to resist publicly. He noted that Army Reserve Spc. Joe Darby, who exposed the abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib, did so at great personal risk.

According to Gerald Gray, a clinical social worker and former program manager of the Center for Survivors of Torture in San Jose, "Abu Ghraib is a speck on the panorama of abuse" that captured the world's attention because of its graphic images. "The U.S. government operates 16 other prisons in Iraq," he said. "No U.S. torture is accidental. It's all policy; it's all planned. Modern-day torture is political control."

To date, Gray said, lawyers and journalists have largely been responsible for exposing such broad abuses of government power. "As psychologists, I hope, beginning with this symposium, we can change this," he said. Gray called on attendees to support the 150 torture victim centers that operate worldwide. He said survivors need both clinical and legal assistance to recover from their physical and psychological wounds. "You only recover from torture if you feel safe," he said.

David Luban, a Georgetown Law School professor and a former Stanford visiting professor, noted that it was ironic that the Military Commissions Act was signed into law about the same time as the 60th anniversary of the conclusion of the first Nuremberg trial of Nazi leaders. Great Britain and Russia opposed the trials—Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin wanted the Nazi war criminals executed—but the United States insisted on due process to demonstrate its commitment to the rule of law. Luban described how Justice Robert H. Jackson, who took a leave from the U.S. Supreme Court to act as chief counsel for the United States, pushed for the trials. Quoting from Jackson's opening speech at the first Nuremberg trial, Luban said, "We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our lips as well." With the enactment of the Military Commissions Act, "every aspect of the Nuremberg vision has been reversed," Luban said. "President Bush has signed into law a poisoned chalice."

[SkinBasket]

Good god. Let's not just start posting articles by highly biased sources on one side or the other. At least put some effort into writing something yourself - even if you do only steal whatever's written in the article. Otherwise, no one's gonna read it.

[ahaha]

Good god. Let's not just start posting articles by highly biased sources on one side or the other. At least put some effort into writing something yourself - even if you do only steal whatever's written in the article. Otherwise, no one's gonna read it.

Every viewpoint is biased in some way. At least these law scholars aren't tied to one political party and all its ideologies.

Sorry about the long article, though. I thought some of the points were interesting regarding recent American history on torture and the trials of known war criminals.