Skip to main content

RE: http://www.timesdaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20...0323/1017/OPINIONS03

The writer implies that there is something wrong with our system, where those arrested and accused of crimes are fed three good meals a day and given a holy book to read. Perhaps we should just let all prisoners starve? Mr. Peck praises the system of "Sharia Law" practiced in Saudi Arabia, where public beheadings await those the government there believes have committed serious crimes. Perhaps this is what we should do with all the detainees at Guantanamo -- torture them first and then line them all up and chop their heads off?

Also, like the Taliban, the Saudis believe that the appropriate punishment for adulterers is for them to be publicly stoned to death. Perhaps this might be a good "cheap" way we could control population growth?

My suggestion to Mr. Peck is, if he thinks their system of justice is so much better than our own, perhaps he and his family should move over there. The other alternative would be to join the Taliban, one of whose stated goals is to impose Sharia Law on the whole world. I would caution him, however, to be very careful not to offend any members of the Royal Family, lest he find himself minus one head in Riyadh's "Chop-Chop Square".

As for me, notwithstanding the Bush administration's and Attorney General Alberto (Gonzo) Gonzales' tireless efforts to destroy and pervert our own system of justice, I'll stick with the American system of "innocent until proven guilty".

When fighting our enemies we must guard against becoming exactly like them.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

The letter writer is "off the wall." Both sad and scary that we have people here who think like this, some even in our media and government.

Probably a Fox Viewer.

I agree, we have a constitution that protects the innocent. And we better fight to keep it.

Saudi Arabia also uses torture. Fine example for the letter writer to look up too.
"Behold, the mountain has labored and brought forth a molehill!"

Its just one letter writer spouting off. At Guantanamo the prisoners are fed so much, they are mistaken for American tourists if released to their own countries.

Most of the prisoners are in for a rough time, but most won't be executed. And, those that make it to chop-chop square will encounter a sharp sword and not the dull knives used by the jehadis.
interventor:

Except for jehadis seized in the field, give examples please, especially of US citizens punished?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Jose Padilla is a US citizen who was physiologically tortured. As we all know he was at first accused of plotting to set off a "dirty bomb." His name was given to interrogators under torture. He is now being charged with sending money to Chechnya rebels.

There was also another American citizen that was studying in Saudi Arabia who "confessed" under torture but was convicted in US anyway.

There is James Yee, (I believe his name is) who was the Muslim Chaplain at Guantanamo who was held in isolation and although not tortured was mistreated roughly who was totally innocent. He was denied his rights for a while. Held in isolation.

We know there is an American citizen being held in a "secret" Ethiopian jail, where the FBI and CIA are interrogating people.

They also had a reporter for the AP or something (I forget right now) held in Abu Gharib who was held without trial for over a year. He was mistreated, interrogated but not tortured.

They kidnap people and have secret prisons so in reality we don't really know if there are American citizens being held. Right now I don't think so but of course, we don't Really know.

The poster "country" said "the FBI can punish you and call you guilty until you prove your innocent."

Under the Military Commission Act the President can deem a US citizen an "enemy combatant." Though torture is not allowed, for now, he can lose his constitutional rights.

If they can start by doing it to non citizens US citizens can be next. That they haven't done it yet does not mean they won't. They are already claiming Bush has the "inherent authority" to wave a citizens rights under the 4th amendment. They have being doing this for a number of years. The PATRIOT ACT also gives them the authority over the 4th amendment.

Peace activists have been "visted" by the FBI.

Retired General Tommy Franks in an interview said they are ready to declare Martial Law if there is anothe major terrorist attack. Doesn't mean they will but it also doesn't give us confidence as they slowly take away our rights, build huge new detention centers, have secret prisons and the Guatanamo Gulag. Then make threatening statements about anyone who doesn't support them as "unpatriotic."

The only thing that protects are rights are we the people.
Pogo,

Playing possum again.

The Military Commission Act specifically states it is for aliens only, not US citizens. I went back and read the thing before I posted this.

Jose Padilla trained with the jehadis and is imprisoned, not psychologically tortured.

Ahmed Omar Abu-Ali was stupid enough to associate with al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. His interrogation by the Saudis was upheld in court, but not by any new legislation. A US jury found him guilty on all counts after a couple of days. the jury considered other evidence, as well as, his confession.

Tommy Franks said a nuclear attack might cause martial law in the US. Unfortunately, such plans also existed in the cold war. Mainly, for the affected area, not for the entire nation.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

interventor:

Pogo,

Playing possum again.

The Military Commission Act specifically states it is for aliens only, not US citizens. I went back and read the thing before I posted this.

Jose Padilla trained with the jehadis and is imprisoned, not psychologically tortured.

Ahmed Omar Abu-Ali was stupid enough to associate with al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. His interrogation by the Saudis was upheld in court, but not by any new legislation. A US jury found him guilty on all counts after a couple of days. the jury considered other evidence, as well as, his confession.

Tommy Franks said a nuclear attack might cause martial law in the US. Unfortunately, such plans also existed in the cold war. Mainly, for the affected area, not for the entire nation.

______________________________________________________________________

The Military Commission Act gives the president the right to declare a US citizen an enemy combatant, which is what they basically did to Padilla, without the Military Commission Act. He was kept in isolation and psychologically tortured. He is now believed to be unfit to be tried. It's front page news, pitcures and all, even in the mainstream corporate media.

Ahmed Omar Abu-Ali was studying to be a Muslim Scholar. He went to Saudi Arabia to further his studies. He did not "associate with al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia."
He was convicted on the bases of his confession that was extracted under torture. It should have been ruled inadmissible.

The fact that they didn't even have a "Military Commission Act" then but just ignored the rights of a US citizen backs up my point.

Tommy Franks said something to the effect of another attack on the order of 9/11 would cause the government to declare Martial Law. He may have said like a nuclear attack or dirty bomb, I have his exact quote in files somewhere, but the point is there is no constitutional amendment that authorizes martial law or the "suspending" or taking away of constitutional rights.
Pogo,

Ahmed is a bad guy and deserves his fate. He was tried by a jury, who believed all the evidence presented, not just his confession.

Ahmed Omar Abu Ali was sentenced to 30 years in prison for being part of an al Qaeda cell, for ploting to bring terrorists over the border from Mexico, hijack airplanes, and planning to assassinate the President of the United States. Ahmed Omar Abu Ali is the son of a Saudi embassy worker and the valedictorian of the Islamic Saudi Academy, Alexandria Virginia.. The school's curriculum was antisemitic and Wahhabi in orientation and included a textbook condemning Christians and Jews as infidels.
His parents, Omar and Faten Ali, likely encouraged their sons jihadi tendencies by sending him to an Islamic school. The couple worshipped at the Dar Al Hijrah Islamic Center, Salaafist stronghold and where two of the 9/11 hijackers worshiped.
The imposition of martial law by the federal or state governments, in a portion of the nation, where no law enforcement structure exists has been supported by several Supreme Court decisions, long before Bush became President. Ever heard of Reconstruction? Surely, you recognize Bush was not the successor to Lincoln. Or, are you one of Moveon.org's adherants that blame Bush and Rove for all evil in the world, past, present and future? Talk about pathological!
The Military Commissions Act allows the President to declare a US citizen an "Enemy Combatant." Bush has already done it with Padilla before the Act.

Ahmed Omar Abu-Ali confessed in Saudi Arb under torture. He stated in his trial he confessed under torture. The evidence should have been ruled inadmissible.

You are also condoning torture. That's basically the point of the Thread.

These types of trials are nothing but "Show Trials" that were carried out by the likes of Hitler and Stalin and other authoritarian regimes.

The Reconstruction Act was during the Civil War. We are not facing such a threat. An emergency or terrorist attack is not the same. We have FEMA to handle such emergencies as well as the State National Guard. Bush now has the authority to over rule a governor and take command of the National Guard. It's the consolidatng of power into the Executive Branch.

We get an idea of what they have in mind when we look at New Orleans were Bush sent private mercenaries to patrol the streets. The people needed to be rescued and aid, which never materialized. They were left abandoned by the negligence of the government.

There was finger pointing everywhere but the states National Guard was mainly in Iraq. That shouldn't have been. There wasn't chaos, the reports of shootings and rioting turned out to be false.

Many people went to empty stores and took food and water that was needed. There was some looting but not on a massive scale.

The nation saw the incompetence of FEMA due to political appointments and patronage.

There is no need to "suspend" the constitution. We need competent leadership.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor:
country,

Except for jehadis seized in the field, give examples please, especially of US citizens punished?
Jose Padilla. Arrested at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport An American Citizen. Held AGAINST COURT ORDER, for over four years. Finally charged on evidence obtained though torture, from another prisoner, with a crime he was not first arrested for, and NOT YET BROUGHT TO TRIAL.

That's ONE.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor:
Pogo,

Playing possum again.

The Military Commission Act specifically states it is for aliens only, not US citizens. I went back and read the thing before I posted this.

Jose Padilla trained with the jehadis and is imprisoned, not psychologically tortured.

Ahmed Omar Abu-Ali was stupid enough to associate with al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. His interrogation by the Saudis was upheld in court, but not by any new legislation. A US jury found him guilty on all counts after a couple of days. the jury considered other evidence, as well as, his confession.

Tommy Franks said a nuclear attack might cause martial law in the US. Unfortunately, such plans also existed in the cold war. Mainly, for the affected area, not for the entire nation.
The word "CITIZEN" does not appear here. The words "Person" and "People" appear often.
quote:
THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution

The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
quote:
Originally posted by Peace Brother:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
Peace Brother,Peace Brother,
The writer is full of it. He is speculating.

Thanks for the support EdEKit. Us card-carrying liberals need to stick together -- or else the neocons might try to line US all up together and chop OUR heads off....
I agree that we need to stick together. I would add, we need to choose our battles carefully.
interventor has diverted the discussion. I think you set out to show the similarities between the treatment of prisoners held by the United States, and those held by the "enemy." interventor has decided to rationalize and justify the unconstitutional treatment of the non citizen persons held by the US on charges of being "enemies" of the United States.
A reading of the Constitution, and the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter will demonstrate that persons held by an occupying force or any Government must be granted all rights granted to citizens of the country holding them.

What interventor and others who have the same position on this issue fail to realize is this, "A willingness to defy law in one case, invariably leads to the conclusion that the same government will deny the same rights to ANY person, including, if the case arises, interventor.
Ed & Pogo,

Article 4 Of the original convention of 1949
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From a reading of the convention terms, please tell me how members of Al-Qaeda or other terrorist organizations come under the Geneva Convention of 1949, the subsequent 5 conventions or the three protocols.
interventor. THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS ALLOW THE ENFORCEMENT OF CIVIL LAW.

The require that any person accused of ANY crime, be given the same legal protections and process that a citizen of the nation holding him would receive.

We are required by the Geneva Convention to treat suspected terrorists like what they are, common criminals. We are permitted to execute them...but only after a trial that meets the standards of our justice system. YOU CANNOT EXCLUDE ANY PERSON FROM PROTECTION OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION OR THE CONSTITUTION WITHOUT PUTTING EVERY PERSON AT RISK OF BEING EXCLUDED. Period. end of argument. WE ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO TREAT ALL PRISONERS AS CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.
________________________________________________
________________________________________________

interventor:

From a reading of the convention terms, please tell me how members of Al-Qaeda or other terrorist organizations come under the Geneva Convention of 1949, the subsequent 5 conventions or the three protocols.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

This the double talk we get from the Bush administration. Either they are "Prisoners of War"
and fall under the Geneva Convention or they are not and should be tried in Court as Criminals. Bush wants it both ways and fluctuates back and forth. They have no rights and are not "POW's" but wants them tried by Military Courts.

Even as "POW's" they have certian rights.

No one here is for protecting Terrorists. They are out to do us harm, no doubt. We are concerned that we protect the innocent, which even the Pentagon has admitted a number are innocent and that they are treated fairly.

Al Qaeda is tying to drive the West fro the region. They are also at war with all the other govenrments in the Mideast and want to establish strict Islamic States. They have very little support for their extremist views but sympathy for their goal to be free and western control. They have a cause that should be address and discussed among the American people concerning our involvement in the Mideast, which is oil. The government and media are not telling the American people the truth.
The Pentagon claims they are being treated fairly and humanely but their lawyers say otherwise and those released have also talked about torture, mistreatment and abuse. The former Chaplain has also written on it.

They are being mistreated and denied justice. Some are not even al Qaeda members.

They go on hunger strikes and a couple have committed suicide. Also the US has prevented a number from committing suicide and force feeds them on their hunger strikes.
interventorRead that again, it applies to combatants, and anyone accompanying combatants and anyone associated with combatants in any place in or out of the war zone that they are taken into custody.
And, it is not the Article that applies to "criminals" in zones under the control of either of the combatants.

The article you quoted does not apply to criminals. It does not apply to saboteurs. There is another Article in the Geneva Conventions that does apply to saboteurs. It allows for Killing them when they are "caught in the act," and trying them in a civil court that is identical to the civil court of the nation that captures them.

How can you urge holding any human being in near total isolation, denying him even the right to send letters to his mother? Besides being cruel, in the case of captured terrorists it is STUPID. If I am planning a bank robbery, and the police pick up one of my confederates, let him tell his cousin he has been captured, the cops can let him go without ever finding out about the bank robbery plan, and I AM NOT GOING TO ROB THE BANK. Just on the off chance that the cops will be waiting at the bank when I show up for the dirty deed.

You do more damage to Terrorist networks by telling them you have a member in custody than you do by keeping it secret. Catch him, hold him two days, turn him loose, tell everyone who will listen that he spilled his guts. The other terrorists will kill him for you.
Look At this one, and the next one too.... then say you are safe....

PRISON CAMPS IN AMERICA FOR AMERICANS.... INTERESTING, SCARY??

The thing is... there ARE several places within our borders that can hold AMERICANS for no reason, for as long as they deem necessary, and "YOU" could be one of them...

Anyone who ever believes they are safe, is burying their heads in the soil.

They allow middle easterners into the country to own tax free businesses, and mexicans to be illegal, but within this bill that was signed, gives BUSH and CHENEY the right to get you, hold you and not let anyone even know where you are, if you get within their radar screen...
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
interventor. THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS ALLOW THE ENFORCEMENT OF CIVIL LAW.

The require that any person accused of ANY crime, be given the same legal protections and process that a citizen of the nation holding him would receive.

We are required by the Geneva Convention to treat suspected terrorists like what they are, common criminals. We are permitted to execute them...but only after a trial that meets the standards of our justice system. YOU CANNOT EXCLUDE ANY PERSON FROM PROTECTION OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION OR THE CONSTITUTION WITHOUT PUTTING EVERY PERSON AT RISK OF BEING EXCLUDED. Period. end of argument. WE ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO TREAT ALL PRISONERS AS CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.



UNLESS you want to research the Bill that Bush signed in 2006... he can take any of us, anytime he wants to... and not let anyone know where you are...

Homeland Security, new Bills, ... yes, as a Nation, we are under a dictatorship at this time of our lives.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×