Subject:
|
Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 3 Jan 2006 04:29:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3297 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
Enemy combatants are treated differently than US citizens. This has always
been the case.
|
In fact, this has only “always” been the case since Dubya created the term
“enemy combatant” out of the firmament. It didn’t exist prior to his
declaration of permanent war on terror, at least not as a supra-legal designator
for “people whom the president decides should be incarcerated forever.”
Are we at war? According to Dubya, we are. Therefore prisoners taken in combat
or military action are POWs and entitled to the rights set forth by the Geneva
Convention.
I’m not comfortable with the notion that the famous inalienable rights (with
which our Creator (sic) has endowed us) apply only to American citizens. If
such inherent rights are subordinate to the vagaries of place-of-birth, then our
Creator needs to do a better job of endowing them, IMO.
| |
| |
One could as easily
decry that policy as Christo-fascist; since its architects are Christian,
and numerous high-profile examples exist in which leading policy apologists
infuse their rhetoric with Christian invective. Sure, they might not be
real Christians, but I’d say the same of the so-called Islamo-fascists,
who are not real Muslims.
|
Well, if you had Christian leaders invecting from the pulpit to incarcerate
Muslims, I might be inclined to agree (which is the analogy to Mullahs
issuing their fatwahs of Jihad).
|
The “pulpit” is the public stage, and it doesn’t refer only to spoken words.
The policy of the Dubya administration is clear: torture will be permitted as
long as it’s applied to so-called terrorists in the current war (and only the
current war, I hasten to add) in which--coincidentally--the enemy happens to be
pretty much exlusively Arab or Muslim.
| |
Were that the case, the outcry of other
Christians would be swift and deafening. Where is the universal uproar of
Muslims over the reign of terror being perpetrated in the name of their
religion? Where is the outcry in the Muslim world over the
completely
outrageous statements of that nutjob otherwise known as the president of
Iran?
|
Well, I’ll give you that one. What a doofus. My understanding is that the only
saving grace, if such it may be called, is that even his own citizens think that
it was an act of shameless propaganda and a stupid, blowhard thing to say.
| |
| |
It’s no good to assert that the detainees are bad people deserving of
detention unless they are subject to due process. Instead, Dubya is
scooping up (and in not a few cases allowing to be tortured) people who
happen to be Muslim but who have committed no other terrorist act.
|
As far as you know. Again, “enemy combatants” are treated differently. Not
my call, not even Bush’s, but that is the law, however convenient for Bush
and unfortunate for the no-doubt perfectly innocent people being detained.
|
It’s the law because Dubya has said it’s the law, and for no other reason. In
the wake of his declaration of permanent war, he also assumed (as CIC) absolute
power to circumvent whatever laws he finds inconvenient. One wonders if, once
he’s out of office, he’ll be as supportive of any future Democratic president
who likewise asserts absolute power to subvert the Constitution and all modern
notion of human rights.
Of course, I don’t expect that a Democrat would be as horrifyingly tyrannical,
but if he (or she) is, then I’ll be among the first to call for his/her
impeachment, too.
| |
| |
Before anyone calls for my evidence that these people are innocent, I remind
the reader that Dictator Dubya has by fiat refused to allow any evidence to
be aired or any defense to be mounted. However, I recall a time when people
were presumed innocent until proven guilty.
|
Again, they haven’t the same rights, Dave!
|
Why not? Because they weren’t born twixt these shores? Not very inalienable,
those rights.
| |
| |
When Dubya repealed the presumption of innocence, the terrorists won,
because Dubya killed a cornerstone of American culture and history.
|
Do you have a specific cite of this being the doing of Bush? What you are
failing to take into account is the newness of this type of enemy-- it isn’t
at all clear as to how we should be treating them.
|
Specific cites abound. Jose Padilla is the most famous among the “held for
years without being charged and without legal council” crowd, but there are many
others. The illegal and secret wiretapping (no matter how many Rightwingers
stump for it) is another great example of Dubya’s corrupt and dictatorial
over-reaching.
The lightning-quick forfeiture of our nation’s deepest values (and the Fourth
amendment, while we’re at it) shows how eager Dubya was to abandon American
ideals for the sake of dubious political expediency.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
| (...) Enemy combatants are treated differently than US citizens. This has always been the case. (...) Well, if you had Christian leaders invecting from the pulpit to incarcerate Muslims, I might be inclined to agree (which is the analogy to Mullahs (...) (19 years ago, 2-Jan-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
65 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
