39C. WHO'S FOR DICTATORSHIP?
On July 15th the Washington D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Bush administration view of presidential military authority.
That view is akin to the authority Stalin or Hitler held. The Bush administration believes that the president has the right to designate ANY individual as an "enemy combatant", and that person can be detained indefinitely with no right to appeal, representation, evidence, trial, or presumption of innocence. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez applauded the decision.
The document specifies that Congress cannot "place any limits on the President's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used, or the method, timing, or nature of the response."
A December, 2001 ruling that goes along with this states that no federal court could "properly entertain appeals from enemy aliens held in detention."
By being tagged as "enemy combatants", they are not treated as prisoners of war or criminals (those groups have more rights). The President can literally name ANYBODY (including YOU) an "enemy combatant" and that individual has NO recourse whatsoever. That is nothing short of Gestapo-KGB-dictatorial power, exceeding anything Saddam Hussein ever perpetrated.
As dangerous as such power is in the hands of a supposed conservative, Republican Christian, can you imagine that power in the hands of future President Hillary when she wants to eradicate "homophobes", anti-abortion zealots, those home schoolers who are in such rebellion to the gov't, or other members of the "vast right-wing conspiracy"? In fact, Hillary's husband Bill was the one who originated this presidential war-power plan that George Bush currently enjoys enforcing.
Actually, it's not a matter of "when" some ambitious president will use this power to detain a foreigner or an American. It has already been done. Of course most of the people violated are "bad guys" like American citizen Jose Padilla. That way the public isn't so alarmed. But if they are truly such bad guys, they surely would be duly convicted in a legal trial.
But they are not all so repugnant. Canadian citizen Mahar Arar's experience proved that. He was detained under these regulations with no charges filed. He was not allowed to face his accusers not was he presented with any evidence. He was sent to Syria where he was tortured with rods and cables. He was forced to sign a bogus confession and then freed without ever being charged with anything by anybody.
Shipping these alleged "enemy combatants" to foreign countries that use heinous methods of torture is becoming common. Besides Syria, we've sent some to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Uzbekistan (along with sending their Karimov regime $500 billion for "security matters"), where they torture by boiling body parts, among other gruesome methods. Our President can order torture of the detainees as he (or she) sees fit, and the interrogators enjoy immunity from persecution.
Certainly no conservative could support such atrocities. The Washington D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals must be made up of typical liberal judicial activists trying to legislate from the bench and force their socialist bent on America.
Oh, did I mention that one of the judges on the Washington D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals who endorsed these dictatorial presidential powers was JOHN ROBERTS?
(Information from http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1903.shtml)
That view is akin to the authority Stalin or Hitler held. The Bush administration believes that the president has the right to designate ANY individual as an "enemy combatant", and that person can be detained indefinitely with no right to appeal, representation, evidence, trial, or presumption of innocence. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez applauded the decision.
The document specifies that Congress cannot "place any limits on the President's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used, or the method, timing, or nature of the response."
A December, 2001 ruling that goes along with this states that no federal court could "properly entertain appeals from enemy aliens held in detention."
By being tagged as "enemy combatants", they are not treated as prisoners of war or criminals (those groups have more rights). The President can literally name ANYBODY (including YOU) an "enemy combatant" and that individual has NO recourse whatsoever. That is nothing short of Gestapo-KGB-dictatorial power, exceeding anything Saddam Hussein ever perpetrated.
As dangerous as such power is in the hands of a supposed conservative, Republican Christian, can you imagine that power in the hands of future President Hillary when she wants to eradicate "homophobes", anti-abortion zealots, those home schoolers who are in such rebellion to the gov't, or other members of the "vast right-wing conspiracy"? In fact, Hillary's husband Bill was the one who originated this presidential war-power plan that George Bush currently enjoys enforcing.
Actually, it's not a matter of "when" some ambitious president will use this power to detain a foreigner or an American. It has already been done. Of course most of the people violated are "bad guys" like American citizen Jose Padilla. That way the public isn't so alarmed. But if they are truly such bad guys, they surely would be duly convicted in a legal trial.
But they are not all so repugnant. Canadian citizen Mahar Arar's experience proved that. He was detained under these regulations with no charges filed. He was not allowed to face his accusers not was he presented with any evidence. He was sent to Syria where he was tortured with rods and cables. He was forced to sign a bogus confession and then freed without ever being charged with anything by anybody.
Shipping these alleged "enemy combatants" to foreign countries that use heinous methods of torture is becoming common. Besides Syria, we've sent some to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Uzbekistan (along with sending their Karimov regime $500 billion for "security matters"), where they torture by boiling body parts, among other gruesome methods. Our President can order torture of the detainees as he (or she) sees fit, and the interrogators enjoy immunity from persecution.
Certainly no conservative could support such atrocities. The Washington D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals must be made up of typical liberal judicial activists trying to legislate from the bench and force their socialist bent on America.
Oh, did I mention that one of the judges on the Washington D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals who endorsed these dictatorial presidential powers was JOHN ROBERTS?
(Information from http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1903.shtml)
posted by T.G. at 11:50 PM
<< Home