Comments on: Bush Signs Terror Detainee Bill

Bill Authorizes Tough Interrogations, Clears Way For Military Tribunals

[ronniehm]

But, frankly frankly, we've had this before and we got through it just fine, because the power is not actually in one man's hands. I mean I understand that you're saying he has the authority to do something evil, but for all practical purposes it's like the scene from the Monty Python movie where the guy wants to have the right to have babies. It can't possibly happen. George Bush could no more get away with scooping innocents off the street than he could get away with choking on a pretzel without anyone knowing about it. We're just not living in a country where anyone would get away with that. Habeas corpus is not the solitary check and balance that keeps the president from doing what you fear.

jjasonham, I know that almost every single detail of the war in Afghanistan is different from World War II. One is the same, though. Public safety requires that we don't reveal classified information. Does that actually serve public safety? You say you don't think so, but to know for sure, you'd have to have access to the classified information. People who do have access to it seem to think it is important to keep it classified. People ... not just one man ... people like judges, intelligence agents, military officers. And if all those people are in on the George Bush master plan, we're already screwed, so what difference is this law going to make either way?

That's another thing I wanted to ask. Frankly6, are you more than one person? How are there so many repeat posts that seem like more than one person is talking?!

[frankly6]

Anything is legal if it's secret.

[clestes-2009]

Ronnie, you make it sound like people hate gw just because they feel like hating someone today. That is not the reason. People hate gw because of what he has done to us (the people of the US) of what he has done to others (the 600,000 figure is real my dear!) and what he has done to this country. How long do you think we are going to remain the "superpower" when we are so deeply in red ink we are drowning! and a lot of those IOU are to China, for God's sake!

Do you really think that China, not known as a benevolent counry, is not going to use those IOU's.

gw has seriously weakened us to the point that remaining the sole super power is gone AND we may end up working for the *** Chinese!

"just blurred"....sorry :)

"...the judge who tries the person, the JAG who defends the person, the people in the prison system, and on top of that, you're assuming that the people in this country would stand for it. That's just not going to happen."

That would only be the case if it was tried in a normal court. There have been many, many things that have happened that we never would have believed could! How did Abu Ghraeb happen? Americans torturing detainees? That is just unreal. And that was with the laws in place that this bill just took blurred.

[frankly6]

It does not serve our freedoms or our security to change fundamentaly who we are.

I can see what you mean Ronnie, but the motivation of the enemy IS a huge factor in how we win a war. When you have a clear motivation, then you have a clear objective..which leads to clear legislation to meet that objective. There are so many actions that have been taken that do not line up with the objectives that we have set. Look at Afghanistan. If the law was suspended for Afghanistan only, then why is there less of a presence in Afghanistan? Why has Iraq dominated our war budget and military resources? I am only one man, but from what I see, we haven't done everything possible to stop Afghanistan, or get Bin Laden. Is that our objective? Not being sarcastic, I'm asking, is that our objective? When we have a clear and defineable objective, and done everything in our power to meet them, then we can start making suspensions on American rights....they will be FINITE. I also just don't understand why if this was a war on principles, then we would suspend one that defines our own so thoroughly. I'm all for public safety, but I really don't think it's any safer. Not all trials have to be in the mainstream. This bill did not need to be enacted to do that.

[frankly6]

Ronnie

This is only about GW in as much has he had a role in making it happen.

It's really a matter of suspending Habeus indefinitely and the fact that no President, well meaning or not, should have this much power. This will stay in effect until it is struck down. Who knows when that will be? Meanwhile, it is likely that a President will come along that you truly hate or distrust. I doubt you will feel secure then. Our government was designed so that we do not have to depend on the "good will" or "good intentions" of those that run it. It was thus specifically designed to keep one branch, one party, or one man from obtaining this kind of power.

[ronniehm]

"We can now be abducted, sent to a secret prison, tortured, denied trial and detained indefinitely all on the whim of one man who declares us an enemy combatant or an aid and comfort to the enemy. This power should never rest in the hands of one man no matter what his possition or political affilition."

I guess we were typing at the same time, so I already kind of answered this, but ... How, in practice, could this actually happen? It's seems immensely hypothetical to me and it's only reasonable if you basically think George Bush is satan. The power does not rest in the hands of ONE MAN; it would require the silence of a great many people ... including the media and anyone who is concerned about the well-being of the innocent. I mean it's getting to be a little bit like George Bush passing a law allowing him to jump on your bed and saying it gives him the power to interfere with air travel. OK, yeah .. I guess if in reality he could jump that high we'd have something to worry about, but in practice, it doesn't really give him that authority.

[frankly6]

The video below must be seen by every American who cares about freedom.

[frankly6]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=igycXBseoAg

"the sole determination of who that enemy is now is left to one man's interpretation. Also what torture is is left to one man's judgement. The founding fathers were students of history and thus were very dilligent in trying to design a government where this kind of power would never rest in the hands of one man."

Exactly. There is a reason why our government was set up with a system of checks and balances. Republican, democrat, independent, etc...the government was set up for the people. Taking a right like that away is a danger to the people. Even if it is not explicitly evident at first. I'm sure most laws are passed with the highest ideals in mind (yes, I'm a natural optimist), but without the possibility of them being "checked" there is no way to ensure that they are being "balanced".

On a side note: I was scanning through this thread (it's been a doozy) and one particular person was talking about loyalty, and how democrats don't have it. It made me think about this Time's article on the subject and our current administration: http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,1543871,00.html

[ronniehm]

I strongly believe there's only one reason to be against this bill, and that's if you profoundly hate George Bush. We have certainly operated under the suspension of habeas corpus in the past (World War II for one) and we got through it just fine. We got through it because the reality is that it's not just the president who holds exclusive power over who is detained and how they're tried. In actual practice, it's not a step toward dictatorship, because it's still got a tremendous number of checks and balances. In order for someone who is just minding his own business to be scooped up off the street in the middle of the night, you're talking about a conspiracy that requires the cooperation of the soldiers who would pick up the person, the judge who tries the person, the JAG who defends the person, the people in the prison system, and on top of that, you're assuming that the people in this country would stand for it. That's just not going to happen.

[frankly6]

You make an intelligent argument Ronnie. But you are mistaken about who this bill effects. It effects everyone. Perhaps most importantly it effects US citizens. We can now be abducted, sent to a secret prison, tortured, denied trial and detained indefinitely all on the whim of one man who declares us an enemy combatant or an aid and comfort to the enemy. This power should never rest in the hands of one man no matter what his possition or political affilition. Our government was designed taking history human nature into account specifically limiting the power that any branch could have much less one man. The desired outcome was to preserve Democracy against those that would seek absolute power no matter what their percieved motivation. This bill turns that on its ear indefinitely.

[clestes-2009]

I predict that this bill will end up in front of the Supreme court in less than 5 years. Maybe 7.
I even predict that it will be overturned.

This is about the only permanent thing Dubya has managed to get through Congress, and it violates the Constitution.

What a legacy gw will have!

1. A balance sheet that is trillions in the red.
2. hundreds of thousands dead at his instigation of a invasion that proved to be a false threat (WMD)
3. Numerous violations of the constitution
Patriot act
illegal wiretaps
this stupid bill are only a few
4. The contempt of other world leaders, allies and enemies alike
5. Discredit of American intelligence agencies
6. Increase in number of children in poverty
7. Increase in number of elderly in poverty
8. Complete disintergration of American military
9. Hatred of millions of muslims, many of whom will be moved to strike at Americans everywhere, which only increases the general threat to Americans everywhere.

Let's see, is there anything I have missed? Oh yeah, the person that managed to bring the strongest country to its knees in 6 years.

Good going gw. At least your name will never be forgotten by history!


(Your family may wish that is was....)

4. Contempt of other world leaders

[ronniehm]

I think there is tremendous agreement that going to Afghanistan was the right thing to do. We had more countries support us there than we had during World War II. The people we captured there are the people to whom this bill pertains. It doesn't even affect the prisoners we're holding in Iraq. And as for being a holy war, I don't see why the motivation of the enemy should be a factor. Al qaeda is an organized group ... not as organized as the Nazis, but also not just a bunch of random guys who haphazardly meet our criteria as terrorists. The Constitution allows us to suspend habeas corpus when it serves public safety and rightly so. It would not serve the public safety to broadcast the evidence we have against members of al qaeda, so in the only facet that matters (public safety), it's no different than the reasons why we handled war criminals the way we did during World War II. It's not about support around the world and it's got nothing to do with a religious or secular enemy.

[frankly6]

Check out the video below. It explains what this bill has done better than I can.

[frankly6]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=igycXBseoAg

[frankly6]

Well said jjasonham.

In addition, the "war on terror" is a war that will go on infefinitely. Should we suspend Habeus indefinitely as well? Unlike WW2 we are fighting a vague enemy without borders and without uniform and the sole determination of who that enemy is now is left to one man's interpretation. Also what torture is is left to one man's judgement. The founding fathers were students of history and thus were very dilligent in trying to design a government where this kind of power would never rest in the hands of one man. The only thing that's kept us secure and free from the begining is our Constitution. We shoul not scrap it for terrorists. We do not have to give up our freedoms to defeat this enemy. If we do they have won.