[Osx-nutters] the President is the decider on torture

[Chuck Bennett]

On Oct 17, 2006, at 2:09 PM, Kevin Callahan wrote:

> A 'Clear Message'
>
> By Dan Froomkin
> Special to washingtonpost.com
> Tuesday, October 17, 2006; 12:46 PM
>
> President Bush this morning proudly signed into law a bill that  
> critics consider one of the most un-American in the nation's long  
> history.
>
> The new law vaguely bans torture -- but makes the administration  
> the arbiter of what is torture and what isn't. It allows the  
> president to imprison indefinitely anyone he decides falls under a  
> wide-ranging new definition of unlawful combatant. It suspends the  
> Great Writ of habeas corpus for detainees. It allows coerced  
> testimony at trial. It immunizes retroactively interrogators who  
> may have engaged in torture
>
>


I expect this to be challenged by the ACLU at least.

Thinking about "due process"

With the exception of our voluntary extension of Geneva POW rights to  
Viet Cong, for  unlawful combatants fighting in civilian clothing,  
due process has historically been a cursory battlefield hearing to  
determine if the person in civilian clothing or our own uniforms was  
a combatant followed by a summary execution if he was.

With the exception of the Mhadi "Army" (they wear black)  almost  
everyone fighting in Iraq on the other side, wears civilian clothes.

I can just imagine the ACLU having a stroke if Bush declared that he  
was going to follow the convention "exactly" and make summary  
execution the norm..

Funny but I bet the ACLU doesn't want the entire rules of warfare  
enforced.  Just the one's they want.

=c=
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.tit-wank.com/pipermail/osx-nutters/attachments/20061017/4f2dfa4c/attachment.html