Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 1824
-
@ Holly McLachlan
[Read the article: Standards of American justice under George W. Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"...the rights afforded Americans are not the benchmark for assessing rights afforded enemy combatants in military tribunals." from the NYT op-ed
He followed with a paragraph devoted to the topic of hearsay -- which gave the impression that constraints on the admission of hearsay evidence is the only significant "right afforded Americans" that isn't given to enemy combatants in these tribunals. Is that so? I'd kind of suspected otherwise, or else he would have said it plainly, rather than just implied it.
Off the top of my head, the inadmissibility of evidence obtained by torture/coercion, the right to confront witnesses and compel testimony, the right to see the evidence, and the right to counsel of one's choice. And these are just the protections given U.S. servicemen (and enemy POWs) under martial law (the U.S. Code of Military Justice). I may have a few of these wrong (at least in detail) as I'm not completely familiar with courts martial procedure.
In a court martial, the judges are the "prosecution" in that they're all military. For the "military commissions", it's worse yet; your police is your prosecutor is your judge is your jury is your defence attorney. Talk about a stacked deck, even if there's plenty of folks in the military that take their obligations seriously and do try to administer justice. But having to rely on the luck of the draw, particularly if the maladministration want to "stack the deck" through appointments, dismissals, threats to careers, etc., is not a winning bet.
In a criminal trial in an Article III court, one has further protections, such as trial by jury, right to a speedy trial, etc..
Cheers,
-
Ghosts of Christmas past....
[Read the article: Standards of American justice under George W. Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]["anonymous"]: The people in Gitmo are not criminals in the traditional sense nor are they POWs, since they do not fight in uniform under a recognized state. That is why a new category has been created for them: foreign enemy combatant, yada-yada-yada....
"Bart"! "Bart!" Is that you?!?!?
Cheers,
-
@ bebop-o
[Read the article: Standards of American justice under George W. Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]apologies to Coleridge. It is a loaded gun to me.
Thanks for that. I always did like the rime of the Ancient Mariner.
Cheers,
-
@ shooter042
[Read the article: Standards of American justice under George W. Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]They also listed as heinous torture having a beard shaved and being forced to pray in their underwear. Oh, the inhumanity...
No. It's unarguably "degrading" treatment, particularly for those of certain religious persuasions. If this treatment was inflicted on them because it was known that such would be considered objectionable by people of certain religious persuasions, we have scienter and mens rea.
"shooter", of course, knows this (or should know it), but still trumpets the innocence of such treatment.
Cheers,
-
@ bebop-o
[Read the article: Standards of American justice under George W. Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My hat's to you, bebop-o.
`Is it he?' quoth one, `Is this the man?
By him who died on cross,
With his cruel bow he laid full low
The harmless Albatross.The spirit who bideth by himself
In the land of mist and snow,
He loved the bird that loved the man
Who shot him with his bow.'Here's the esteemed (and prolific) Malvina Reynolds on this:
http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=587114
She was a pearl. A bit of bio on her:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvina_Reynolds
Chances are you've heard her songs even if you haven't heard of her.
Peace and love be with you, and sleep gentle, my humble ex-warrior.
Cheers,
-
@ shooter042
[Read the article: How did the Bush administration use its secret eavesdropping powers?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The accusation summarized is, that to monitor international calls with the US on one end is a 4th Amendment violation.
False. This RNC Mighty Wurlitzer "straw man" has been rehashed, minced, pureed, and freeze-dried.
What's illegal is to target "United States persons" without a FISA court order (and even then you get three days "grace period"). Pretty much every part of your assertion is wrong. Which, sad to say, is about par-for-the-course for you.
Cheers,
-
@ shooter042
[Read the article: How did the Bush administration use its secret eavesdropping powers?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But you have no idea FISA was violated. You know nothing of the sort....
Well, outside of the fact that the maladminisration said they had done so and <*"stick this up your sphincter, Dems and Islamofascist symps!"*> they would continue to do so when they felt like it...
Cheers,
-
Tiberius channels Haley Joel Osment...
[Read the article: Interview with Helen Thomas]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As soon as...
Helen admits that going into Iraq wasn't wrong I'll listen to her.
"I listen to stoopid people....."
Cheers,
-
@ shooter042
[Read the article: How did the Bush administration use its secret eavesdropping powers?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Fitzpatrick had already determined that talking about Plame wasn't a crime.
False. Doing so may well violate the IIPA or other laws.
... The grand jury here was a perjury trap that worked on one person because he and Russert disagreed.
It wasn't if Scooter did nothing wrong. Then he just says what he did (or pleads the Fifth if he's the least bit worried).
A "perjury trap" would be asking somebody something personally embarrassing but immaterial, you know, like, "Did you get a blow job?"....
Cheers,
-
@ Blue Meme
[Read the article: Michael Gordon trains his stenographer weapons on Iran]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It cannot be logically true that (a) all of our opponents in Iraq are al Qaeda and (b) Iran is a major sponsor of our enemies in Iraq....
You ferget. "You're either with us, or you're with the Terra-ists..."
Which also trumps the political mathematic of transitivity for those seeking to provide the proofs that Afghani civilians are undercover Hizbollah "Quds" soldiers of the Eeeeevil Ahmedinejad-Beelzebub.
If they're shooting at us (or if we say they shot at us), they've just picked the wrong side.
Speaking of which, IC, now that the Palestinians have decided to see reason and elect an "emergency cabinet" more to our liking, we'll start giving them money again.
Hope all is clear.
Cheers,