Now that Habeus Corpus has been suspended and George Bush has the power to indefinitely detain and torture anyone he deems to be an "enemy combatant" the next logical step is to obtain official sanction for the idea that anyone who opposes him is in fact an enemy combatant.
What? You say that will never happen? Wanna bet?
Attorneys for the Center for Constitutional Rights claim that what appears to be the final version of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 could allow the government to detain the attorneys themselves as 'enemy combatants.'
...
The current version of the Military Commissions redefines an "unlawful enemy combatant" so broadly that it could include anyone who organizes a march against the war in Iraq.
3 comments:
We can't play nice with these people. They aren't just some neighbor complaining that our music is up too loud. They want to make us dead. They have no means to accomplish this as yet, but that's what they want.
These people are not part of the U.S. Legal System. They are not covered under the Constitution. They are enemy combatants and they don't want or deserve these protections.
If you doubt this, let me ask you, would you rather be a prisoner of George Bush's U.S., or of Osama's Taliban? I daresay that the 'torture' we dish out doesn't compare to being beheaded and having your body dragged through the streets.
We can't play nice with these people.
Who said anything about "playing nice"? I want to see those bastards' asses nailed to the wall as much as anyone. I'm just saying we should stick to the rules.
These people are not part of the U.S. Legal System.
Jose Padilla is a U.S. citizen. And whatever else they may be, "these people" are still people.
they don't want ... these protections.
I doubt that very much.
If you doubt this, let me ask you, would you rather be a prisoner of George Bush's U.S., or of Osama's Taliban?
Gee, what a choice.
I daresay that the 'torture' we dish out doesn't compare to being beheaded and having your body dragged through the streets.
So what? Are we the good guys, or just the slightly-less-evil guys?
"These people are not part of the U.S. Legal System. They are not covered under the Constitution. They are enemy combatants and they don't want or deserve these protections."
You did read the part where you personally can now be considered an "enemy combatant" for doing as little as organizing a march against the Iraq war? So, to sum up your argument: you, the individual going by the name of "Some Yahoo" here on blogspot, are part of "these people" now. The same "these people" who are not covered under the Constitution (as you so aptly pointed out).
Just so you're clear on that.
"[...] would you rather be a prisoner of George Bush's U.S., or of Osama's Taliban?"
So you're asking me whether I'd like to be waterboarded (made to believe I'm in imminent danger of drowning and likely to be mentally scarred for the rest of my life by the experience) by Bush's cronies or have a wider variety of nasty things done to me by Bin Laden's cronies. Hm. I can't help wondering if you've ever heard of the "false dilemma" argumentative fallacy.
I choose to support a government that doesn't torture people because that is the kind of horrific things that I don't want done in my name. Ever. That's the kind of behavior that awful people in awful countries do. That's the kind of thing that the land of the free is supposed to be above. That's not the kind of thing that people acting on my behalf should be doing.
"I daresay that the 'torture' we dish out doesn't compare to being beheaded and having your body dragged through the streets."
Then you're not nearly as smart as you think. In fact, you're sounding stupider by the minute. I'd rather be killed quickly than waterboarded even once, and whatever they want to do with my body afterwards isn't my problem any more.
Post a Comment