ecb – combine your list with OJS’s comments on “abtruse” and that was pretty much my reaction – then the ohohohohohohoh waitaminnit, did I tell you George Schultz really really likes us too?”

Makes it sound like vote for homecoming queen.

Christy – it’s a lovely post, but I am very concerned that, except for a few places, the only thing getting play/discussion is torture vis a vis the Conventions. There is a tremendously larger picture and the door has blown wide open for some minor accomodation on torture and then “rejoicing” over the “victory” as a systemic evisceration of both our criminal justice and military justice codes becomes enshrined.

Graham sees a win/win IMO He can raise this squawk, appease some of his military friends that he is trying to do something, offer up a singleton or deuce area of compromise for the WH to still get all the amnesty it wants and continue with secretive abuses that have no review. But he thinks – hey, Bush won’t be around that long. The military wants to clean up, so it will some as soon as he’s gone and with the amnesty and no judicial review, no habeas, we won’t have to re-live the abuses that have already happened and tarnish the country and military with them.

He just forgets the most central posit of both criminal and military justice – accountability.

Bush has NOT gone with military commissions under the much waved banner (that Graham endorses) that the ideologic confrontation as well as the physical one is a “war” which makes the commissions the “logical” response Instead, he’s gone for this for two reasons.

First is one that has some minor aspects that need review and consideration – but which has been twisted and abused beyond recognition. The issue is that with the kinds of significant, paramilitary attacks/threats posed by some of the “terrorist” groups (and BTW- if someone checks the definitions and lack thereof for what makes a “terroris” group in the US, THERE is a frighteningly vague matter – if there are worries over vagueness) there is a perceived (and possibly/probably real – it’s just the level of depravity of what passes for DOJ’s practice of law in this area leave me with no trust) need to be able to detain someone, even if there has not been a crime that can be pointed to with clarity.

The only place this concept comes to any fruition under our common law heritage – with its strong habeas corpus tradition – is “battlefield” detentions by the military. It is the only place where the ability to detain without charges until a “resolution of conflict” can be found.

So what Bush&Co have done is to declare the world a battlefield, an unending battle against terror, and thereby to justify detention with no charges until the memory of man runneth not to the contrary. That’s where military detention aspects come in. However, standard military justice aspects didn’t give him what he wanted, even there so –

Second concept. I’m CIC, I can make the military do anything I want Throw in CIA as a part of DOD. With this, he has said, by fiat, that he can get rid of the Geneva Conventions requirements

a) for regularly consituted tribunals for trials of charges (what went up on Hamdan) and

b) similar standards for review of status under the conventions (which means, if someone claims they were mistakenly rounded up and are not a “battlefield” or “illegal combatant” detainee – but are, say a civilian or a POW etc.

Now those have been, not only requirements of the Geneva Conventions but of our UCMJ – and Bush just ditched. Entirely. And pretty much wants to continue with that. NOt only that, he also went with getting rid of requirements

c) relating to juveniles

d) disallowing tortured and coerced testimony (and big heads up here – this is happening in civil courts as we speak with Salah and Padilla – Padilla just lost round one on exclusions of torture testimony)

e) disallowing hearsay etc (and here, after years, they laughingly use the ‘battlefield’ justification – no one can stop and collect evidence on the battlefield, doncha know – google the combatant status review tribunals and look at the kangaroo court approach for this)

f) requiring that a charged party know the charges and the evidence against them

Ok – so that is all pretty friggin bad, but then what? Then he and DOJ say – hey, isn’t this cool, we can do all kinds of stuff here we can’t do in the real world, where they won’t just let us create our own reality – so let’s also say, that if the President closes his eyes and clicks his heels three times, US citizens wont’ be in criminal courts anymore.

We can kidnap them in this country and ship covertly – without nofitication to anyone – to GITMO or wherever, and with no habeas apply the exact same “no evidence, no need to charge to detain, torture testimony is fine, etc.” standards.

The frightening thing is how many of these aspects the Graham Warner bill is willing to keep. To then say,they will compromise with the WH to dilute – that has to just grab you in the gut, even if the torture aspects were not so overwhelming.

Take on no amnesty and take away any remote kind of standing for someone to have direct recourse and you also get a situation where anything can be violated and the only recourse is if the Chain of Command orders prosecution of the violations – the Chain of Command headed by the President who says he can do anything he wants whenever he wants

Whatever happened to Kansas doesn’t matter, because we are not in Kansas anymore.

The fact that people are willing work for these men and pony up their credentials behind this kind of mockery and perversion is astounding.

But even the Grahams (and I think he absolutely and clearly sees each of these issues – whereas McCain seems to be a relatively clueless figurehead who wants to just keep his gravitas on torture) are primarily concerned with not haveing things come out that will make people look bad – not really about fixing what the President has done. I’m sure he thinks that the military will eventually get around to fixing some of it when Bush is gone.

When has that ever worked for any military – let’s just keep going down an immoral subverted path with no accountability for years, bc someday will have a better leader and then it will miraculously all be better?

But the bigger issue is – when has that ever worked for any civilian governement? To hand its citizens (btw – keep in mind the “enemy combatant” status carries with it a SLEW of thing that have never been chargeable military crimes – this was Steven’s point on the conspiracy charge in Hamdan) over to blackhole military tribunals answerable only to a CIC who has no oversight?
[/rant]

I am weeping..

Our response needs to be that by abolishing torture it protects all Americans especially our military. We also need to start using the word integrity. We can also say that we this should be part of the war on terrorism in that it will create less terrorists. Those guys get out of captivity after having been tortured and they will be more likely to take up a terrorist cause. “Causing terror in others creates more terror on earth.”

How about “torture is Terrorism”?

After further thought, I believe I know what BushCo has planned for 2007.

Several points:

1) BushCo gaining control (if possible) of all of our nation’s military forces, including state national guard units, cutting out the middlemen and women, our nation’s state governors. ALL Republican and Democratic governors have signed a letter demanding that the House remove this provision from a bill being considered.

2) Building $385 million worth of prisons around the country, for immigration and “other purposes,” purposes to be determined by BushCo.

3) Air Force Secretary Wynne stated the other day that crowd control tactics using non-lethal weapons should be used first to control crowds in the United States before being used on unruly crowds overseas. Wonderful. U.S. citizens being used as guinea pigs again.

4) BushCo seems hell-bent for leather to bomb suspected nuclear sites in Iran either later this year or early in 2007.

So, what would happen next year if BushCo gets us into another conflict that costs hundreds of billions of dollars, leads to the death of hundreds of thousands of people and ends up devastating the U.S. economy?

Anti-war protests would surely erupt in U.S. cities, with protestors calling for the heads of all those in BushCo responsible.

Thus, BushCo needs in place certain things in case this all unfolds as I predict. 1) Absolute, imperial presidential control of our nation’s military forces, including our nation’s national guard units. 2) More prison cells run by a company supportive of BushCo. 3) Crowd control weapons to break up any riots in response to what BushCo has done.

Plus, when you add in the expansion of illegal surveillance of U.S. citizens by BushCo, it becomes very clear that 2007 will be a pivotal year in our American democracy.

Come 2008, will America still be a democracy or will we be a right-wing, banana republic dictatorship ruled by Bushco?

Oh, and John Yoo, he’s one of the architects behind this totalitarian, anti-democracy madness, along with all the neo-con nutjobs at PNAC.

Is this “the end of the world as we know it”? Is this to be the end of our beloved democracy?

Bush has used these so-called signing statements to challenge more than 750 laws that have been enacted since he took office, more than all previous presidents combined.

ABA Panel Challenges Bush Signing Statements

Why would they be asking for *retroactive* immunity, if they didn’t already know they were breaking laws left and right?

What part of the Geneva Conventions is unclear to them, when *no one else*, not even people watching ‘Hogan’s Heroes’, has had problems
understanding it?

What part of ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ did they not learn in Sunday school?

What kind of reputation do they wish to have, and what kind of world are they planning to leave for our children and grandchildren?

What kind of criminals do we have running our government now?

I am more and more convinced that this is coming from fear of War Crimes culpability, and not from any desire to “clarify” Geneva. It is so simple to understand that our interpreting of Geneva just opens the door to other nations doing the same, and doing so in a way that would likely subject our people to inhumane and degrading treatment, and Bush seems to be saying that our interpretation will set a standard that other nations will follow. Problem is that we no longer have that kind of clout or moral imperative, especially when the standard we propose to set is many levels removed from what Geneva provides.

The other problem is that I am not at all convinced that “clarifying” Geneva would actually function in a way that would get those who authorized and administered torture off the War Crimes hook – they don’t get to be exempt just because we pass legislation that says they are.

IMHO: Bingo. At his presser last week W kept talking about “professionals” needing to know they are not breaking the law, so we need to “clarify” Article 3… Stinking BS, it’s all CYA panic before they lose the House.