Andrew Sullivan to Anderson Cooper: Detainee Bill "Legalizes Tyranny"
"Whatever else this is, it is not a constitutional democracy. It is a thinly-veiled military dictatorship, subject to only one control: the will of the Great Decider. And the war that justifies this astonishing attack on American liberty is permanent without end."
Following Sullivan's comments: A Syrian-Canadian is arrested in Canada, turned over to Syria by the US and tortured. The same thing could happen to you or me.
The Bush Administration is a fascist regime that must be stopped. Period.
I'll see you all in Guantanamo.
3 comments:
Nadir: You're deluding yourself if you think you have a realistic chance of getting targetted by Bush for a political arrest.
I agree with you on many of these points, but not all. I don't see any way possible for a nation to conduct a war without apprehending people on the battlefield and holding them outside of the nation's judicial system. As far as US citiznens getting fingered for similar treatment, I certainly agree that they must remain within the US legal system. And I agree that all the executive actions must occur with oversight from the legislative branch, with the judicial branch arbiting conflicts between the two.
"I don't see any way possible for a nation to conduct a war without apprehending people on the battlefield and holding them outside of the nation's judicial system."
You don't? Then you have far less imagination than I could possibly have dreamed.
The right of habeas corpus has been around since the Magna Carta. Perhaps that is one of those "primative" relics of an "uncivilized" society that you often rail against, but many believe it is a fundamental right in a just and humane world.
"As far as US citiznens getting fingered for similar treatment, I certainly agree that they must remain within the US legal system."
What has changed since Friday, my friend, is that Bush now determines what the limits of that "US legal system" is. He now has the sole authority to label someone an "enemy combatant" for whatever reason he deems fit. The fact that 90% of the people detained at Guantanamo have been found innocent means that the military is playing loosey goosey with the definition of this new term which was invented by the Bush White House.
"Nadir: You're deluding yourself if you think you have a realistic chance of getting targetted by Bush for a political arrest."
I pray that you are correct...
Nadir: Please inform me of any war conducted by any government where soldiers capture people and transfer these POWs to a judicial system. This would require soldiers to obtain and impliment evidence-gathering processes that seem to me impossibly impractical on a battle field. I agree with you that these captured people warrent the designation "POW" and coverage by the Geneva Conventions, even though they technically do not qualify for this. I further suppport your advocacy of zero torture, and focusing more on those who have been captured are innocent than those who are guilty.
Please refer me to any evidence of "The fact that 90% of the people detained at Guantanamo have been found innocent." First of all, I'm unaware of any legal system that declares anybody "innocent", as opposed to "not guilty." And even with the lower standard of "not guilty", given that this enemy wears no uniform, who is it possible to prove that any captured person is "guilty"? And "guilty" of what? Is it enough to label a captured person as "guilty" for a GI to testify that the particular prisoner fired a weapon at the GIs?
If you were leading an army against the KKK in 1890s Georgia, how would you conduct the war?
Post a Comment