Bush and the midterm election

[Diekan]

I'm all for detaining terrorists and interrogating them for information. What I am against, however, is giving the government the green light to take people and hold them indef without due process. Is it likely that some cop will come in the night, haul YOU off never to be seen again because someone at your work called you in as a possible terrorist? Probably not very likely at all - however - do you REALLY want the government having that type of power? Do you really want them having that ability to use? I sure as fuck don't.

[Phlegm]

More Bush on the campaign trail:

"If you think your family budget can afford more taxes, you vote Democrat . If you believe you pay more than enough in taxes and you would rather invest your money and save your money and spend your money the way you see fit, vote Republican."

"If you think the way to best protect America and win the war against these terrorists is to simply criticize and offer no plan, vote Democrat.

[Trielelvan]

'nuff said

[Lueyen]

I'm all for detaining terrorists and interrogating them for information. What I am against, however, is giving the government the green light to take people and hold them indef without due process. Is it likely that some cop will come in the night, haul YOU off never to be seen again because someone at your work called you in as a possible terrorist? Probably not very likely at all - however - do you REALLY want the government having that type of power? Do you really want them having that ability to use? I sure as fuck don't.

The government does not have this sort of power. You like to point out that you feel the Bush administration and the GOP use the danger of terrorism as a fear tactic to garner support, yet you seem to have bought hook line and sinker the Democrats use of the same tactic. The scenario you stated above would be illegal and a violation of your rights as an American citizen. Nothing has changed in regards to that, even though legislation which Democrats opposed on this very same basis was passed. It was a flat out false representation of what the legislation enacted.

Let us say that my wife, who is here in the gallery with us tonight, a sixth generation Oregonian, is walking by the friendly, local military base and is picked up as an unlawful enemy combatant. What is her recourse? She says, I am a U.S. citizen. That is a jurisdictional fact under this statute, and she will not have recourse to the courts? She can take it to Donald Rumsfeld, but she cannot take it across the street to an article 3 court.Let us say that my wife, who is here in the gallery with us tonight, a sixth generation Oregonian, is walking by the friendly, local military base and is picked up as an unlawful enemy combatant. What is her recourse? She says, I am a U.S. citizen. That is a jurisdictional fact under this statute, and she will not have recourse to the courts? She can take it to Donald Rumsfeld, but she cannot take it across the street to an article 3 court.

Not unlike your scenario is it? This was Wu's statement regarding the Military Commissions act, and his reasoning for voting against it. I question if he ever actually read the act. If you assume that he read it (since you know he was voting on it), then he either did not understand it, or was deliberately trying to make false claims about it's implications. Take your pick. Regardless in the end it is simply not true, the act does not change in any way how the government, courts or military tribunals deal with American citizens.

[Arlos]

Leuyen, what do you have to say to the case of the canadian citizen, Maher Arar, I have mentioned before?

If you are unfamiliar with the particulars, this is what happened (and it has been fairly well corroborated):

He is of arab descent, and has dual citizenship with Syria and Canada. He was a highly successful computer engineer, and his wife is a PhD in Economics, and ran for office in 2004.

In october of 2004, Maher was returning from a family vacation in Tunisia, travelling under his Canadian passport. He was detained in New York for "Suspicion of links to terrorism", and was deported, with no trial, no judicial procedure, no proof of guilt of any kind, to Syria. In Syria, he was placed in Sedyanka prison, where he was tortured and beaten daily for months, and spent the rest of his time in a cell that are the exact dimensions of a coffin, sleeping on bare concrete, unable to even roll over.

He was kept in that cell in Syria for 375 days, with no formal charges ever being brought against him, and with no need in any way for the US government to provide any evidence or proof of guilt of any kind. He was just scooped up, disappeared, tortured for months upon months, and he'd done NOTHING WRONG. He had NO links to terrorism, none. The only reason he was released is because of his wife's political connections, who managed to put enough pressure on the Canadian government to get them to pressure Syria to release him.

So here we have a man, who the US government decided was a terrorist, and without any legal recourse of any kind, and without needing to even give reasons why, who went through a living hell for more than a year. And you say you are OK with the government having that kind of unfettered power, simply because your reading of that document says that it can't happen to American citizens?

It happening to a citizen of *ANY* country is absolutely unconscionable, and indefensible in any way. The fact that you would defend such action, or even the POTENTIAL for such action as you have is incomprehensible to me.

-Arlos

[Lueyen]

You have a lot of incorrect information in your post Arlos. The incident which you describe started in September of 2002, not October of 2004. By October of 2004 Arar had been back in Canada for a year.

Arar's apprehension by US authorities, his detention and subsequent deportation were indeed all based around suspicions that he was connected to terrorists. This suspicion however was not a determination made via investigations or intelligence gatherings by the US government. The suspicions were based in information the US government received from Canada. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police requested that he and his wife be added to the TECS (US Customs Treasury enforcement system) with the description "Islamic Extremist individuals suspected of being linked to Al Qaeda terrorist movement" with no other instructional requests of any kind.

Arar was never given any sort of legal proceedings because he was never charged with anything, he was denied entrance to the country... something that is last I check the prerogative of the United States, to allow or disallow foreigners from remaining in our country. He was then deported not to Syria, but to Jordan. Apparently Syria would not take him directly, why he was not returned to Canada I do not know for sure, but based on the information given by the Canadian police I'm guessing it was "apparent that Canada didn't want him back".

Jordanian authorities later turned custody of him over to Syria, where he was subjected to horrific torture. This however was not sanctioned by the United States, although technically US authorities were aware that it was possible he would be tortured there. I say possible, because that information came from Arar, who did not know for sure himself that torture would be the result of his deportation to Syria. Arar suspicioned he might be tortured based on his failure to fulfill some sort of military service obligation before leaving Syria, he was a Sunni Muslim, and a relative had been imprison due to an accusation of being part of the Muslim Brotherhood (a terrorist organization).

All that said, the man went through utter hell, and I would not condone such actions. The hell visited upon him though was not by the US nor done by proxy. The suspicion of terrorist links was not determined by the US directly, but via believing Canadian information. At no time was he charged with a crime by US authorities, rather he was denied access to the country. The torture he endured in the hands of Syrians was not done for the interests of the US, but for those of the Syria. I am not aware how the decision to deport him to Jordan/Syria rather then to Canada was made, although based on the information invoking suspicion I would guess that US authorities assumed Canada didn't want us shipping him back. There may be cause to be critical of how we dealt with the man, but it is not in the lack of due process or torture.

So... what does all this have to do with the Military Commissions Act? Absolutely NOTHING. First of all given that all of these events occurred between 2002 and 2003, that subsequent investigations and suits were acted upon in 2004 the Military Commissions Act would not have been applied. The reason it would have absolutely no bearing on this case is two fold. First he was not charged with a crime, he was not detained as an enemy combatant, and he was not tried before a military tribunal... but the real kicker here is the second reason.. and pay close attention to this little detail.. The Military Commissions act was passed this year, thats right in 2006 nearly 3 years AFTER Arar was returned to Canada, nearly 4 years AFTER he was taken into custody and deported by US customs.

In all actuality Maher Arar would have been better off had it been a US determination of suspicion of terrorist links falling under the Military Commissions Act. He would have been allowed (and even provided, his choice) with legal council, and the year of hellish torture would not have taken place because the MCA provides deterrence to torture as any evidence gained in such a way would be inadmissible before a military tribunal.

[Evermore]

I'm all for detaining terrorists and interrogating them for information. What I am against, however, is giving the government the green light to take people and hold them indef without due process. Is it likely that some cop will come in the night, haul YOU off never to be seen again because someone at your work called you in as a possible terrorist? Probably not very likely at all - however - do you REALLY want the government having that type of power? Do you really want them having that ability to use? I sure as fuck don't.

ah yes they do now, thanks to King George. Habius Corpus is long gone...

[Lueyen]

I'm all for detaining terrorists and interrogating them for information. What I am against, however, is giving the government the green light to take people and hold them indef without due process. Is it likely that some cop will come in the night, haul YOU off never to be seen again because someone at your work called you in as a possible terrorist? Probably not very likely at all - however - do you REALLY want the government having that type of power? Do you really want them having that ability to use? I sure as fuck don't.

ah yes they do now, thanks to King George. Habius Corpus is long gone...

Care to try and back up your assertion?

[10sun]

Leuyen, what do you have to say to the case of the canadian citizen, Maher Arar, I have mentioned before?

If you are unfamiliar with the particulars, this is what happened (and it has been fairly well corroborated):

He is of arab descent, and has dual citizenship with Syria and Canada. He was a highly successful computer engineer, and his wife is a PhD in Economics, and ran for office in 2004.

In october of 2004, Maher was returning from a family vacation in Tunisia, travelling under his Canadian passport. He was detained in New York for "Suspicion of links to terrorism", and was deported, with no trial, no judicial procedure, no proof of guilt of any kind, to Syria. In Syria, he was placed in Sedyanka prison, where he was tortured and beaten daily for months, and spent the rest of his time in a cell that are the exact dimensions of a coffin, sleeping on bare concrete, unable to even roll over.

He was kept in that cell in Syria for 375 days, with no formal charges ever being brought against him, and with no need in any way for the US government to provide any evidence or proof of guilt of any kind. He was just scooped up, disappeared, tortured for months upon months, and he'd done NOTHING WRONG. He had NO links to terrorism, none. The only reason he was released is because of his wife's political connections, who managed to put enough pressure on the Canadian government to get them to pressure Syria to release him.

So here we have a man, who the US government decided was a terrorist, and without any legal recourse of any kind, and without needing to even give reasons why, who went through a living hell for more than a year. And you say you are OK with the government having that kind of unfettered power, simply because your reading of that document says that it can't happen to American citizens?

It happening to a citizen of *ANY* country is absolutely unconscionable, and indefensible in any way. The fact that you would defend such action, or even the POTENTIAL for such action as you have is incomprehensible to me.

-Arlos

That'll teach him to try to fly through the United States and be Islamic!

[Arlos]

The government does not have this sort of power. You like to point out that you feel the Bush administration and the GOP use the danger of terrorism as a fear tactic to garner support, yet you seem to have bought hook line and sinker the Democrats use of the same tactic. The scenario you stated above would be illegal and a violation of your rights as an American citizen. Nothing has changed in regards to that, even though legislation which Democrats opposed on this very same basis was passed. It was a flat out false representation of what the legislation enacted.

Unlike you, I place no weight on the fact that at present it cannot happen to an American citizen. The fact that it could happen to ANYONE, of ANY nation is heinous enough for me. No government, anywhere, should have the right to make potentially innocent people effectively disappear and hold them, with no trial or any form of due process indefiniately. I don't care if they're an American Citizen or a citizen of Asscrackistan. Wrong is wrong, period.

-Arlos

[Evermore]

I'm all for detaining terrorists and interrogating them for information. What I am against, however, is giving the government the green light to take people and hold them indef without due process. Is it likely that some cop will come in the night, haul YOU off never to be seen again because someone at your work called you in as a possible terrorist? Probably not very likely at all - however - do you REALLY want the government having that type of power? Do you really want them having that ability to use? I sure as fuck don't.

ah yes they do now, thanks to King George. Habius Corpus is long gone...

Care to try and back up your assertion?

I dont need to try.

Published on Thursday, September 28, 2006 by TruthDig
Habeas Corpus, R.I.P. (1215 - 2006)
With a smug stroke of his pen, President Bush is set to wipe out a safeguard against illegal imprisonment that has endured as a cornerstone of legal justice since the Magna Carta.

by Molly Ivins

AUSTIN, Texas - Oh dear. I’m sure he didn’t mean it. In Illinois’ Sixth Congressional District, long represented by Henry Hyde, Republican candidate Peter Roskam accused his Democratic opponent, Tammy Duckworth, of planning to “cut and run” on Iraq.

Duckworth is a former Army major and chopper pilot who lost both legs in Iraq after her helicopter got hit by an RPG. “I just could not believe he would say that to me,” said Duckworth, who walks on artificial legs and uses a cane. Every election cycle produces some wincers, but how do you apologize for that one?

The legislative equivalent of that remark is the detainee bill now being passed by Congress. Beloveds, this is so much worse than even that pathetic deal reached last Thursday between the White House and Republican Sens. John Warner, John McCain and Lindsey Graham. The White House has since reinserted a number of “technical fixes” that were the point of the putative “compromise.” It leaves the president with the power to decide who is an enemy combatant.

This bill is not a national security issue—this is about torturing helpless human beings without any proof they are our enemies. Perhaps this could be considered if we knew the administration would use the power with enormous care and thoughtfulness. But of the over 700 prisoners sent to Gitmo, only 10 have ever been formally charged with anything. Among other things, this bill is a CYA for torture of the innocent that has already taken place.

Death by torture by Americans was first reported in 2003 in a New York Times article by Carlotta Gall. The military had announced the prisoner died of a heart attack, but when Gall saw the death certificate, written in English and issued by the military, it said the cause of death was homicide. The “heart attack” came after he had been beaten so often on this legs that they had “basically been pulpified,” according to the coroner.

The story of why and how it took the Times so long to print this information is in the current edition of the Columbia Journalism Review. The press in general has been late and slow in reporting torture, so very few Americans have any idea how far it has spread. As is often true in hierarchical, top-down institutions, the orders get passed on in what I call the downward communications exaggeration spiral.

For example, on a newspaper, a top editor may remark casually, “Let’s give the new mayor a chance to see what he can do before we start attacking him.”

This gets passed on as “Don’t touch the mayor unless he really screws up.”

And it ultimately arrives at the reporter level as “We can’t say anything negative about the mayor.”

The version of the detainee bill now in the Senate not only undoes much of the McCain-Warner-Graham work, but it is actually much worse than the administration’s first proposal. In one change, the original compromise language said a suspect had the right to “examine and respond to” all evidence used against him. The three senators said the clause was necessary to avoid secret trials. The bill has now dropped the word “examine” and left only “respond to.”

In another change, a clause said that evidence obtained outside the United States could be admitted in court even if it had been gathered without a search warrant. But the bill now drops the words “outside the United States,” which means prosecutors can ignore American legal standards on warrants.

The bill also expands the definition of an unlawful enemy combatant to cover anyone who has “has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.” Quick, define “purposefully and materially.” One person has already been charged with aiding terrorists because he sold a satellite TV package that includes the Hezbollah network.

The bill simply removes a suspect’s right to challenge his detention in court. This is a rule of law that goes back to the Magna Carta in 1215. That pretty much leaves the barn door open.

As Vladimir Bukovsky, the Soviet dissident, wrote, an intelligence service free to torture soon “degenerates into a playground for sadists.” But not unbridled sadism—you will be relieved that the compromise took out the words permitting interrogation involving “severe pain” and substituted “serious pain,” which is defined as “bodily injury that involves extreme physical pain.”

In July 2003, George Bush said in a speech: “The United States is committed to worldwide elimination of torture, and we are leading this fight by example. Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right. Yet torture continues to be practiced around the world by rogue regimes, whose cruel methods match their determination to crush the human spirit.”

Fellow citizens, this bill throws out legal and moral restraints as the president deems it necessary—these are fundamental principles of basic decency, as well as law.

I’d like those supporting this evil bill to spare me one affliction: Do not, please, pretend to be shocked by the consequences of this legislation. And do not pretend to be shocked when the world begins comparing us to the Nazis.

Bush has members of his own party questioning his methods and motives. Hell a few rep candidates in this election have added "Dump Rumsfeld" to there campain platforms.

Btw I meant to ask you. What is your plan to "win" in iraq? I would love to see this gem. Please by all means post it.

[Lueyen]

Btw I meant to ask you. What is your plan to "win" in iraq? I would love to see this gem. Please by all means post it.

nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

[Lueyen]

I have some time to respond to some of this now >< it's been a busy day for me.

Unlike you, I place no weight on the fact that at present it cannot happen to an American citizen. The fact that it could happen to ANYONE, of ANY nation is heinous enough for me. No government, anywhere, should have the right to make potentially innocent people effectively disappear and hold them, with no trial or any form of due process indefiniately. I don't care if they're an American Citizen or a citizen of Asscrackistan. Wrong is wrong, period.

-Arlos

When we are discussing the death of habeas corpus or a constitutional crisis, I place great weight in how it applies to American citizens. It is in refuting these out right false claims which are nothing more then propaganda that I point that out . What pisses me off the most about all of it is not the politics of it, but the fact that the politics of it is getting in the way of bringing to light what I see as the true problems of this act. You Arlos have I believe gotten to one of the core issues here, and in one of the threads previously, we had more of a discussion then an argument about this... I found it refreshing.

Anything like this act must be considered and reviewed with great care. There is a very fine line between protecting the interests of our countries security and those of individuals. I have absolutely no issues with criticisms of this act provided they are based on factual information. Your opinions and arguments on the matter of the validity of refusing habeas corpus to aliens have great merit, and while I feel it is subjective in that I do believe it to be the right of our country to determine what rights we do and do not extend to aliens, the more I think about it the more I am inclined to agree that this is yet another problem with this act much along the same lines of the way it deals with classified evidence. I believe both these issues to have a similar balanced solution that need to be added (or really amended). What I am referring to is the procedures the act sets forth for dealing with classified evidence. As it stands, where classified evidence is brought in, the defendant and his or her lawyers can be removed from the court room while presentation of this evidence takes place. As I recall the accused can be provided with an edited version of that evidence where anything of concern due to it being classified can be censored out. This aspect I think I'm more concerned with then the issue of habeas corpus, it's one thing to not be able to challenge the validity of charges, it's an entirely different thing to not be able to directly answer them. You may categorically take the same issue of both equally, I can see that, but the provisions for handling classified evidence seem far more sinister to me.

On the issue of habeas corpus, it could be handled better by allowing it, but not in our domestic courts. I do not feel that on average the majority of our domestic court systems are in a position to make prudent decisions in this regard, mainly due to the intracacies of the international matters, and the ability to review high level classified information pertaining to the reasons for capture and detention. For obvious reasons I don't think the Military tribunal judging the case, or any military body for that matter would be in a position to review writs of haebus corpus with an unbiased eye. What I do see as a workable solution is a judge/court that can review submitted writs of habeas corpus, perhaps a body that is similar to the one setup to review the out come of these tribunals.

On the matter of classified evidence, there needs to be at the very least, representation for the defense. I'm not to keen on the idea of evidence presented and reviewed in the absence of the individual being charged, but at the very least some form of legal representation should be present. In the event that the individual chose to obtain their own council, and one who did not meet the levels of security clearances needed to be present for the introduction of classified evidence then appointed co-council of someone who did meet those criteria be available. At the very least the accused would be free to obtain their own council yet still have the representation in the event that classified evidence be introduced. It wouldn't be perfect, and I can see where issue would be taken with it, however I haven't come up with a better idea to both allow sensitive and pertinent information while still maintaining security.

Quite honestly genuine factually based issues with this act would probably be enough to get the public outcry the propaganda machines are looking for, yet to anyone actually paying attention they discredit themselves with outrageous false claims in an attempt to blow the issue out of proportion.

As for Evermore's article from TruthDig (you know that non-partisan unbiased source of reputable legal scholars~), it again paints an inaccurate picture on many points. Frankly I'll not go into a point to point break down of every issue, if you take what the author says as cold hard facts, and refuse to actually look into it on your own, then anything I say will fall on deaf ears... and I'll not waste my time.

I will point out however that the parts regarding torture are completely in accurate. I have pointed out in past threads why I feel that the Geneva convention is lacking in a litmus for what is and is not torture, and for the reasons stated above I'll not repeat it again. Suffice it to say, criticisms that take issue with the wording in the MCA yet on the flip side say that the articles of the Geneva convention should suffice are completely stupid. The MCA defines torture in an in depth detail that the Geneva convention articles lack. In this we are talking the difference between around a page and a half vs 2 sentences. No the MCA does not expressly forbid torture it's self (this would actually be the domain of other laws and legislation). What it does do is invalidate any evidence gained via torture, so not only is it illegal, but there is no motivation to do so.

Evermore as far as a military and social strategy for Iraq, I'm no where near well versed enough in the entire situation in the field, in military strategy and social infrastructure to begin to set forth a detailed plan. I've posted what I think our goals for an exit strategy should be, and what should be the primary focus. The extreme lefts views and the indications of what that primary focus should be do not in any way coincide with something that keeps the people of Iraq or it's future in mind. Do I think we need a change in the way we are handling things, Do I think it could be done better? Absolutely, but I believe the lefts idea of change would have far worse ramifications over all then no change at all. This is in part why I asked if anyone on the left had an actual detailed plan besides get the fuck out at all costs and as quickly as we possibly can.

Demonstrated by your "win" comment, there is a large part of the left that sees no possible positive out comes for the war. Be that a reality of feeling or a stance taken to eventually if given the opportunity finalize it in a drastic mess, I'm inclined to reject that idea. You may not like the fact that we are there, you may not like how it affects world politics, but in the end the fact remains we are already there and the answer to cleaning it up does not lie in just leaving the mess to implode on it's self. It is not in the best interest for anyone beyond those who would use tragic results for more Bush ammo to throw in the towel and leave a mess behind. So I plead with any registered Democrats, when considering the parties next presidential candidate, give us someone who will do a better job, not tuck tail and run, abandoning the people of Iraq yet again (yes I'm very critical of Bush Sr. on this one). For god sakes if we could get two candidates from both political parties that were not frothing at the mouth extremists or fuggin morons, where regardless of the outcome the American people win either way... that would be an election to remember.

[Arlos]

There are a few factors you are overlooking, Leuyen.

1) One reason why we should care how we treat aliens is because of the reciprocity principle. If the US shows it is willing to take and hold citizens of foreign nations indefinitely with no charges, due process, or any form of habeas corpus, what is to prevent other nations from doing the same with OUR citizens? After all, we have set the precedent that such actions would be legal as far as we're concerned. What leg would we have to stand on should some other nation hold our nationals indefinitely?

Indeed, if one carries this out to its logical conclusion, consider the possibility of another case like the Iran Embassy hostage situation. By precedent we are setting, all some other nation would have to do is to take our entire embassy hostage, declare them to be "enemy combatants" under their laws (regardless of if they have any evidence of guilt beyond heresay), and they could hold them indefinitely with no recourse. Again, we have paved the way, holding citizens of other nations with no charges, no evidence, no due process, etc. Should it happen to us, how can we complain without being blatantly hypocritical?

2) Now, as for "classified evidence". If we try someone, even in an impartial court, and claim that the conviction is based on evidence, but not allow viewing or validation of said evidence, what proof is there that the "evidence" wasn't pure fabrication? What real independently verifiable proof is there that the evidence is accurate, says what the prosecution claims it does, isn't manufactured, and is indeed actually worthy of being classified? No, if we wish to continue to have rule by law, then any defendant, of any crime, should and must have the right to examine any piece of evidence used against him, so that he has the chance to refute it if it is inaccurate, etc. etc. etc. Sure, present it in session closed to the public, but the defense team *MUST* have full access to it.

3) With no way to challenge even the circumstances of their imprisonment, how can a defendant prove that they were or were not tortured? Especially when you consider that the evidence generated by such activities is almost guaranteed to be labeled in the "classified" category, and thus be not subject to examination by the defense team. How can the defendant prove he was tortured and/or that the evidence was obtained via torture? Sorry, but I'm not inclined to take the interrogators at their word, especially when there's no independent non-governmental oversight of the process whatsoever.

Likewise, what about people similar to Maher, who were sent to foreign nations with instructions given to find information? If the foreign intelligence service doesn't admit to torture (and Syria certainly hasn't with regard to Maher, despite independent confirmation that he was most certainly tortured), and provides "intelligence" from their interrogation with no details of how it was acquired... How is that to be filtered?

By the way, did you know that we hung Japanese interrogators in WW2 for torture when their methods included nothing harsher than waterboarding, sleep deprevation, etc? Think about that.


Ultimately, my position is entirely unchanged. No, no, a thousand times no. This legislation breaches the geneva convention, in spirit if not in direct verbiage, it breaches the Constitution, both in action as well as intent, and it nearly irredeemably harms our national image as what was once described as "The shining house on a hill"... Now what would it be, a dank dungeon in a hillside, complete with waterboards?

-Arlos

[Lueyen]

Just some thoughts on each of your points

1.) I'm inclined to agree with you to the extent there should be a process for habeas corpus, however I don't like the idea of either military or domestic courts reviewing it. Not because I really want it handled any differently then it would be handled as a domestic issue, but because I see the need to have judges reviewing it that have high clearance for sensitive security matters and a better understanding of international affairs. The idea of another country doing this in an US embassy would be considered an act of war it wouldn't fly. However that doesn't protect our citizens traveling abroad from the same scenario. There should be a time limit on the determination of combatant status, however that may or may not be addressed in other laws, it's out of the scope of the MCA superficially, however with the long term detentions going on at this time I suspect this is an issue that needs to be addressed with whatever laws are applicable. Honestly I'll have to look at it again, I seem to recall some form of time constraint on hearings, however I may be thinking of the military's internal codes for dealing with prisoners of any sort. Whichever it was, from what I recall it did have a soft time period if you will in that it provided for an extension if a suitable military tribunal could not be readily formed, but that if this were the case, proof and documentation as to why had to be submitted to independent review.

2.) This is where what I suggested strikes a balance, unfortunately we have already had cases where civilian attorneys have passed message on to terrorist organizations for their client, and in at least one case the attorney claimed it was unintentional. Unintentional or not, does not change the gravity of the event. The only other alternative I see is to have pre-qualified or some sort of qualifications for independent council vs court/tribunal appointed. I would however see it setup as the ability to pick whatever independent council the defendant wished.

3.) on this there is independent oversight, however it is not non-governmental... I'm not sure how you are going to pull off that one if you consider any judiciary panel "government"

As for Maher, I did look up the suit he filed against the US government and various individuals, the suit did not claim that the US had any part or interest in the torture in Syria. Again due to Maher's words it was known to be technically possible, and we are certainly aware that Syria does engage in torture, but is wasn't something that the US government or officials were looking for. Frankly I suspect they thought what he said in this regard was all lies, remember based on Canadian information they thought he had links to terrorism, but they were not interested in charging him or doing anything beyond getting him out of the country.

Something of note and an issue I'm surprised you have not raised about the case in particular is that the lawsuit he filed was dismissed, not on the grounds of inapplicability (he was claiming US constitutional rights), but on the grounds of national security although not related to the MCA, it is a disturbing dismissal.

Again on the Geneva convention articles, they are extremely vague and up to interpretation. This works when dealing with nations and their military forces because the subjectivity becomes a non issue when informal agreement is reached under a sort of do unto others idea. With terrorists who first do not follow the Geneva convention this is not the case, thats not in anyway a justification to even begin to approach their barbarism. The problem is without the mutual agreement on specifics reached by both sides there is no litmus test to a very vague definition. The point that really seems to be missed and this is largely due I think to political propaganda is that the "redefinition" of torture is not to allow for certain methods of interrogation that would be considered torture under the Geneva convention, it is to expand on a very vague definition. It is not to allow for torture, but to protect interrogators and guards ect. If you read the definitions of torture in both documents I think you'll see that what is in the Geneva convention is very vague and up to a lot of interpretation, where as definitions in the MCA are very specific yet still broad enough not to have to list off waterboard or sleep deprivation tortures (both of which would fall under the category of torture as set forth in the MCA).

[Arlos]

As for Syria and torture, Maher is far from the only person we've sent there. There have been other individuals we've sent to Syria, with the specific intent of having their intelligence services get answers to questions we wanted asked. Indeed, in some cases, the US intelligence representatives have gone to their opposite numbers and informed them with words to the effect of, "If you have any questions you want to ask X, just let us know, and we'll pass it along to the Syrians, and let you know."

The CIA's system of prisoner transfer via private jet to their network of secret prisons has been quite well documented, down to having flight logs with tiems & dates that are corroborated by pictures of the planes at the specified airports at the specified dates and times mentioned in the logs. Syria is not the only place they have been sent where the host nation has the habit and/or practice of torturing their prisoners.

Remember, one very important factor is that the war vs terrorism is not, at its core, a military campaign. That is a symptom, not a cause. At its heart, it is a marketing campaign. Part of what we need to do is convince the average Arab/Muslim/whatever that the US really is the respector of rights and suchlike that we claim we are.

Which statement goes further towards that? 1) "America does not condone torture. Therefore, we abhor and reject any practices that could even be considered as to violate the Geneva Conventions." or 2) "America does not condone torture, however we will interrogate people using methods that cause 'serious pain', and we felt the need to expand the definition of torture so that it would be easier to legally circumvent the intent of the ban."

What we currently have is #2. Oh yes, that position so helps our diplomatic efforts.

I can see your point about an embassy being an act of war, but I hope you see mine about average citizens. An average US citizen could be picked up off the street in a foreign nation, held for years without charges, interrogated with methods featuring 'Serious Pain', having comitted no crime, and with no way to free themselves... and how could the US object to said treatment, when we are RIGHT NOW doing the same thing? It's asinine.

-Arlos