• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

U.S. Politics

Page 397 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Not at all. There are answers to my questions but, apparently, none of them beat keeping those guys at Gitmo.

Those questions (and many others) pose real problems as, apparently, BO has discovered.

I'm quite sure he really would like to close Gitmo. And I'm quite sure that the lack of even marginal answers to these questions is why Gitmo is still operational.
Which has nothing to do with KSM...he could have been tried. That you think it is an insult to suggest such is political hackmanship.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Which has nothing to do with KSM...he could have been tried. That you think it is an insult to suggest such is political hackmanship.
Lessee, I think it would be an insult to NYC. Not everywhere, just there. We disagree, it's ok.

KSM has not been tried. Probably won't anytime soon. Two different administrations. Two very different political views. Surprisingly similar conclusions with respect to KSM.

Why do you suppose that is?
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Lessee, I think it would be an insult to NYC. Not everywhere, just there. We disagree, it's ok.

KSM has not been tried. Probably won't anytime soon. Two different administrations. Two very different political views. Surprisingly similar conclusions with respect to KSM.

Why do you suppose that is?
Because Republicans freaked out so hard, it would have been politically devastating for Obama to have conducted the hearings. Doesn't change the fact that it should have happened...in NY. I think the people of NY have big enough panties to have dealt with it.

As for it being an "insult," that is absolutely ridiculous. We used to believe in the rule of law in the US...until your side convinced people that they should cede their rights for a facade of security.

Again, you have the perfect opportunity to do something about Obama's biggest, most disgusting policy...but your side gave him the keys and doesn't have the ba11s to admit that it wasn't just a mistake to give them to him, but an unconstitutional mistake to have ever given them to anyone. The Bush administration, the gift that just keeps on giving...and before you dance the "when are you going to stop talking about Bush" dance, realize you are flogging a donkey that is 3 years old...
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
Is Rand Paul as nutty as his father? He does not want to get rid of the dollar bill and trade with wampum, does he?

He wants to run for president in 2016 and he is about the only one who seems like he might stand up against the Republicrats' assault on the Bill of Rights.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Lessee, I think it would be an insult to NYC. Not everywhere, just there. We disagree, it's ok.

KSM has not been tried. Probably won't anytime soon. Two different administrations. Two very different political views. Surprisingly similar conclusions with respect to KSM.

Why do you suppose that is?
Because he has been waterboarded 183 times. Makes the admissibility of evidence a little rough...

Darth Cheney and Lord W Sith signed the order.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Bala Verde said:
Because he has been waterboarded 183 times. Makes the admissibility of evidence a little rough...

Darth Cheney and Lord W Sith signed the order.
So waterboarding is the stumbling block?

That explains why Holder backed off? The DOJ didn't know about the "torture?"

It's Bush's fault. Haven't heard that one before.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Lets hope the revelations of new scandals slow down after this one.

CBS News' John Miller reports that according to an internal State Department Inspector General's memo, several recent investigations were influenced, manipulated, or simply called off. The memo obtained by CBS News cited eight specific examples. Among them: allegations that a State Department security official in Beirut "engaged in sexual assaults" on foreign nationals hired as embassy guards and the charge and that members of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's security detail "engaged prostitutes while on official trips in foreign countries" -- a problem the report says was "endemic."

The memo also reveals details about an "underground drug ring" was operating near the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and supplied State Department security contractors with drugs.

Aurelia Fedenisn, a former investigator with the State Department's internal watchdog agency, the Inspector General, told Miller, "We also uncovered several allegations of criminal wrongdoing in cases, some of which never became cases."

In such cases, DSS agents told the Inspector General's investigators that senior State Department officials told them to back off, a charge that Fedenisn says is "very" upsetting.

"We were very upset. We expect to see influence, but the degree to which that influence existed and how high up it went, was very disturbing," she said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57588456/state-department-memo-reveals-possible-cover-ups-halted-investigations


And Velo, did you see the new Hillary poll? You guessed it... Going the wrong direction. Dang.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
So waterboarding is the stumbling block?

That explains why Holder backed off? The DOJ didn't know about the "torture?"

It's Bush's fault. Haven't heard that one before.
Lol. You must be trolling with your oneline responses. I take it you tl;dr all the time and then just fling sh#t against the wall and see what sticks.

Of course it's a major stumbling block. If you can't see how torture contaminates evidence (it's plain illegal), besides the fact that it pulls open a can of worms (the defense is going to have a field day, litigating W's policies)...

Secondly, he is in military custody, as combatant, so under military jurisdiction. DOJ can't just say, hey guys screw you, we're in charge. An appeals court is in charge of that and they don't automatically rubber stamp transfers.

Thirdly, Congress has passed laws (most appropriations bills, NDAA and justice aprops iirc) that prevent the administration from transferring or using any US facility for the detention of GTMO detainees. You wouldn't want BO to dismiss laws passed by Congress, amiright?

Also, I don't understand how you can be so in favor of the constitution, but then make a distinction between the US constitution and the applicability of International Law. The Constitution actually incorporates international law; I mean the framers weren't unaware of the international aspects of sovereignty :rolleyes:

Hence article 6:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
To quote you from up thread: "How many more Constitutional provisions need to be shredded."

Torture is illegal, under the US constitution, and international humanitarian and human rights law. The US has ratified the antitorture treaty and has acknowledged it is bound by the Geneva Convention.

A speedy trial is required under the Constitution, and humanitarian international law, more specifically the Geneva convention:

the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
You also seem to focus a little too much on KSM, and then use him as a representative for all the people held. Why have hundreds of people been released, without trial? Why is it that currently 86 people are cleared for release, but haven't been released? Why would the US clear alleged terrorists? Do you really think they would release dangerous people (in a political context where being tough on terrorism is the excuse to justify everything), if they can hold them forever, which it seems judging from the current practice, they can? Do you really think they would reach out to (European) allies to take some of them? Do you really think (European) allies will welcome them, if they see the US doesn't want to admit them themselves?

Don't forget that the detainees are still alleged enemy combatants, because their status has not yet been confirmed by courts. It's pre-trial detention they are in, they haven't been convicted of anything. Why is it that after a decade, no one knows why these people are held? If they are the worst of the worst, competent big government DOD lawyers surely would have been able to make a case...

Why do you think it is that the SC has ruled that the writ of habeus corpus is applicable to GTMO detainees?

Analogous, how has the US managed to successfully prosecute members of the FARC, and even terrorists in civilian courts? How is it that the UK, India, and Spain have managed to prosecute terrorists in the cities that were attacked? I mentioned the cost of GTMO, because its current expenses could buy you a lot of security and logistics to have them tried in NY. For 150m a year you can house him in a supermax prison in NJ and dig a tunnel to Manhattan to try him there.

Heck atm, the easiest solution is this: release all of them to FATA and drop drone bombs on their A$$es. Problem solved.

The current framework has evolved over a decade and because of serious missteps, incompetence, or short-termism under the Bush admin, it is flawed, ambiguous, unhinged, and based on illegal precedents and false arguments.

The absence of a proper framework that abides by domestic and international legal standards, is why BO has stepped up the drone strikes, because killing is less (politically) thorny then detention and prosecution. That is worrisome, because it has lead to the situation in which the US Government can designate anyone, including US citizens, as an "imminent threat" and assassinate them. You can't even torture them anymore for more information, because you won't see them alive.

Besides that, it has enormous consequences for the development of international law and how other nations will conduct themselves, domestically and internationally.
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,280
0
0
Bala Verde said:
Lol. You must be trolling with your oneline responses. I take it you tl;dr all the time and then just fling sh#t against the wall and see what sticks.

Of course it's a major stumbling block. If you can't see how torture contaminates evidence (it's plain illegal), besides the fact that it pulls open a can of worms (the defense is going to have a field day, litigating W's policies)...

Secondly, he is in military custody, as combatant, so under military jurisdiction. DOJ can't just say, hey guys screw you, we're in charge. An appeals court is in charge of that and they don't automatically rubber stamp transfers.

Thirdly, Congress has passed laws (most appropriations bills, NDAA and justice aprops iirc) that prevent the administration from transferring or using any US facility for the detention of GTMO detainees. You wouldn't want BO to dismiss laws passed by Congress, amiright?

Also, I don't understand how you can be so in favor of the constitution, but then make a distinction between the US constitution and the applicability of International Law. The Constitution actually incorporates international law; I mean the framers weren't unaware of the international aspects of sovereignty :rolleyes:

Hence article 6:



To quote you from up thread: "How many more Constitutional provisions need to be shredded."

Torture is illegal, under the US constitution, and international humanitarian and human rights law. The US has ratified the antitorture treaty and has acknowledged it is bound by the Geneva Convention.

A speedy trial is required under the Constitution, and humanitarian international law, more specifically the Geneva convention:



You also seem to focus a little too much on KSM, and then use him as a representative for all the people held. Why have hundreds of people been released, without trial? Why is it that currently 86 people are cleared for release, but haven't been released? Why would the US clear alleged terrorists? Do you really think they would release dangerous people (in a political context where being tough on terrorism is the excuse to justify everything), if they can hold them forever, which it seems judging from the current practice, they can? Do you really think they would reach out to (European) allies to take some of them? Do you really think (European) allies will welcome them, if they see the US doesn't want to admit them themselves?

Don't forget that the detainees are still alleged enemy combatants, because their status has not yet been confirmed by courts. It's pre-trial detention they are in, they haven't been convicted of anything. Why is it that after a decade, no one knows why these people are held? If they are the worst of the worst, competent big government DOD lawyers surely would have been able to make a case...

Why do you think it is that the SC has ruled that the writ of habeus corpus is applicable to GTMO detainees?

Analogous, how has the US managed to successfully prosecute members of the FARC, and even terrorists in civilian courts? How is it that the UK, India, and Spain have managed to prosecute terrorists in the cities that were attacked? I mentioned the cost of GTMO, because its current expenses could buy you a lot of security and logistics to have them tried in NY. For 150m a year you can house him in a supermax prison in NJ and dig a tunnel to Manhattan to try him there.

Heck atm, the easiest solution is this: release all of them to FATA and drop drone bombs on their A$$es. Problem solved.

The current framework has evolved over a decade and because of serious missteps, incompetence, or short-termism under the Bush admin, it is flawed, ambiguous, unhinged, and based on illegal precedents and false arguments.

The absence of a proper framework that abides by domestic and international legal standards, is why BO has stepped up the drone strikes, because killing is less (politically) thorny then detention and prosecution. That is worrisome, because it has lead to the situation in which the US Government can designate anyone, including US citizens, as an "imminent threat" and assassinate them. You can't even torture them anymore for more information, because you won't see them alive.

Besides that, it has enormous consequences for the development of international law and how other nations will conduct themselves, domestically and internationally.
we don't torture people, we use enhanced coercive interrogation techniques.

you must have missed the memo ;)
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Bala Verde said:
Lol. You must be trolling with your oneline responses. I take it you tl;dr all the time and then just fling sh#t against the wall and see what sticks.

Of course it's a major stumbling block. If you can't see how torture contaminates evidence (it's plain illegal), besides the fact that it pulls open a can of worms (the defense is going to have a field day, litigating W's policies)...

Secondly, he is in military custody, as combatant, so under military jurisdiction. DOJ can't just say, hey guys screw you, we're in charge. An appeals court is in charge of that and they don't automatically rubber stamp transfers.

Thirdly, Congress has passed laws (most appropriations bills, NDAA and justice aprops iirc) that prevent the administration from transferring or using any US facility for the detention of GTMO detainees. You wouldn't want BO to dismiss laws passed by Congress, amiright?

Also, I don't understand how you can be so in favor of the constitution, but then make a distinction between the US constitution and the applicability of International Law. The Constitution actually incorporates international law; I mean the framers weren't unaware of the international aspects of sovereignty :rolleyes:

Hence article 6:



To quote you from up thread: "How many more Constitutional provisions need to be shredded."

Torture is illegal, under the US constitution, and international humanitarian and human rights law. The US has ratified the antitorture treaty and has acknowledged it is bound by the Geneva Convention.

A speedy trial is required under the Constitution, and humanitarian international law, more specifically the Geneva convention:



You also seem to focus a little too much on KSM, and then use him as a representative for all the people held. Why have hundreds of people been released, without trial? Why is it that currently 86 people are cleared for release, but haven't been released? Why would the US clear alleged terrorists? Do you really think they would release dangerous people (in a political context where being tough on terrorism is the excuse to justify everything), if they can hold them forever, which it seems judging from the current practice, they can? Do you really think they would reach out to (European) allies to take some of them? Do you really think (European) allies will welcome them, if they see the US doesn't want to admit them themselves?

Don't forget that the detainees are still alleged enemy combatants, because their status has not yet been confirmed by courts. It's pre-trial detention they are in, they haven't been convicted of anything. Why is it that after a decade, no one knows why these people are held? If they are the worst of the worst, competent big government DOD lawyers surely would have been able to make a case...

Why do you think it is that the SC has ruled that the writ of habeus corpus is applicable to GTMO detainees?

Analogous, how has the US managed to successfully prosecute members of the FARC, and even terrorists in civilian courts? How is it that the UK, India, and Spain have managed to prosecute terrorists in the cities that were attacked? I mentioned the cost of GTMO, because its current expenses could buy you a lot of security and logistics to have them tried in NY. For 150m a year you can house him in a supermax prison in NJ and dig a tunnel to Manhattan to try him there.

Heck atm, the easiest solution is this: release all of them to FATA and drop drone bombs on their A$$es. Problem solved.

The current framework has evolved over a decade and because of serious missteps, incompetence, or short-termism under the Bush admin, it is flawed, ambiguous, unhinged, and based on illegal precedents and false arguments.

The absence of a proper framework that abides by domestic and international legal standards, is why BO has stepped up the drone strikes, because killing is less (politically) thorny then detention and prosecution. That is worrisome, because it has lead to the situation in which the US Government can designate anyone, including US citizens, as an "imminent threat" and assassinate them. You can't even torture them anymore for more information, because you won't see them alive.

Besides that, it has enormous consequences for the development of international law and how other nations will conduct themselves, domestically and internationally.
I'll respond when I have more time but we could start a new thread on what constitutes torture.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
Bala Verde said:
Because he has been waterboarded 183 times. Makes the admissibility of evidence a little rough...

Darth Cheney and Lord W Sith signed the order.
Was he really waterboarded 183 times?
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
BroDeal said:
Is Rand Paul as nutty as his father? He does not want to get rid of the dollar bill and trade with wampum, does he?

He wants to run for president in 2016 and he is about the only one who seems like he might stand up against the Republicrats' assault on the Bill of Rights.
I'd sooner vote for RuPaul.
 
Mar 25, 2013
3,762
0
0
On Edward Snowden outing himself, is how can any reasonable government around the world sit back and allow another foreign government to spy on their citizens to the level suggested by him?

Let's hope a country has the sense to give asylum to Snowdon and stand up for this. Iceland is probably the best bet by the talk today if he was to be given it.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
BroDeal said:
Yup. Don't worry though. Scott is about to tell us it was not torture.
No doubt it was torture but 183 was the number of times water was poured correct??. So when they start a session of waterboarding that is 1 time it could last for a few hours of torture where abouts they happen to pour water around 35 times each session. So in my opinion it was not 183 times but more like 6 or 7 times with around 20 or 30 water pours.

Ho hum.... just another day at Gitmo.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
I'll respond when I have more time but we could start a new thread on what constitutes torture.
Cool. Definitely looking forward to your thread about what constitutes torture and what doesn't.

Glenn_Wilson said:
No doubt it was torture but 183 was the number of times water was poured correct??. So when they start a session of waterboarding that is 1 time it could last for a few hours of torture where abouts they happen to pour water around 35 times each session. So in my opinion it was not 183 times but more like 6 or 7 times with around 20 or 30 water pours.

Ho hum.... just another day at Gitmo.
Correct.

The medicalization of torture (i.e. doctors ((the ones who swore an oath not to do harm)) present during sessions), has yielded a large volume of useful guidelines with respect to the levels of stress that was deemed "acceptable."

Here are the specifics (including IG report):

The CIA used the waterboard "at least 83 times during August 2002" in the interrogation of Zubaydah. IG Report at 90, and 183 times during March 2003 in the interrogation of KSM, see id. at 91
Guidelines:

…where authorized, it may be used for two "sessions" per day of up to two hours. During a session, water may be applied up to six times for ten seconds or longer (but never more than 40 seconds). In a 24-hour period, a detainee may be subjected to up to twelve minutes of water appliaction. See id. at 42. Additionally, the waterboard may be used on as many as five days during a 30-day approval period.
the author of the blog did the math and it seems they exceeded the "medical" limits by about 50%:

So: two two-hour sessions a day, with six applications of the waterboard each = 12 applications in a day. Though to get up to the permitted 12 minutes of waterboarding in a day (with each use of the waterboard limited to 40 seconds), you’d need 18 applications in a day. Assuming you use the larger 18 applications in one 24-hour period, and do 18 applications on five days within a month, you’ve waterboarded 90 times–still just half of what they did to KSM.
I am not sure, but did he (or others) not also get locked up inside a stress box of said description?

It’s said to be about three feet long on each side. Only once during his two years in detention was the detainee put in the box; his confinement there lasted over an hour. The circles are small holes, into which his interrogators “prodded him with long thin objects.”
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Bala Verde said:
Cool. Definitely looking forward to your thread about what constitutes torture and what doesn't.
The operative word was "could."

Public Safety Secretary Genaro Garcia Luna has said Mexican drug traffickers copied the terror tactic from the Al Qaeda in Iraq after it posted videos on the internet of the decapitations of Americans. He said the cartels were using Al Qaeda's methods to pressure the government to halt its crackdown against drug traffickers, which had fractured many of the gangs.
http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/americas/killings-grow-more-gruesome-as-mexican-drug-cartels-try-to-out-shock#page2

I'm not all that far from a border town where people are tortured. The torturers skip right over waterboarding. Not to mitigate waterboarding as a form of torture, but in terms of degrees, it seems a bit pedestrian. And to think, KSM kinda blueprinted what's going on in Mexico now is all the more ironic.

Still, I suppose the constitution was violated and everyone involved is a war criminal.

KSM and his treatment is interesting (to me) particularly for the following;

His role in the 9/11 attack

And his role with the Daniel Pearl beheading.

"I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi, ****stan."

Now, the US Military has charged him with, among other things, war crimes... I cannot imagine how they could come to such a conclusion but ymmv.

I guess asking him politely for information was destined for failure.

Yes sir, sitting high, mighty and sanctimonious works pretty well until its your family that's wiped out by some random jihadist.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,924
0
0
gooner said:
On Edward Snowden outing himself, is how can any reasonable government around the world sit back and allow another foreign government to spy on their citizens to the level suggested by him?

Let's hope a country has the sense to give asylum to Snowdon and stand up for this. Iceland is probably the best bet by the talk today if he was to be given it.
Entirely with you. I'd like to think that he gave some thought to the situation he would face once he outed himself, and made the optimum possible preparations. They'll get him though, ultimately.
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Yes sir, sitting high, mighty and sanctimonious works pretty well until its your family that's wiped out by some random jihadist.
Totally agree, the trick though is determining just who is a "random jihadist" who is a Religious Crusader who is a Freedom Fighter and who is a Terrorist.





Hint: If they are with you they are a Religious Crusader/Freedom Fighter if they are against you then of course they are a Jihadist/Terrorist.
Or to put it more simply kill 'em all unless they are American citizens who might want to bear arms against a President we don't like, then we really need to protect their rights to do so.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
Totally agree, the trick though is determining just who is a "random jihadist" who is a Religious Crusader who is a Freedom Fighter and who is a Terrorist.





Hint: If they are with you they are a Religious Crusader/Freedom Fighter if they are against you then of course they are a Jihadist/Terrorist.
Or to put it more simply kill 'em all unless they are American citizens who might want to bear arms against a President we don't like, then we really need to protect their rights to do so.
You, of course, are correct.

KSM is just a peace loving member of the human race caught up in a struggle of religious persecution.


Or to put it more simply kill 'em all unless they are American citizens who might want to bear arms against a President we don't like, then we really need to protect their rights to do so
The gun nuts bear arms for many reasons, one of which might be to oppose an oppressive government, not a president. But then again, there used to be a difference between the two.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Zam_Olyas said:
Scott, you spend too much time here, i know there is not much to talk about the lance nowadays but doping is still rampant and so come visit the clinic from time to time, we need your wits. :D :p
Don't I know it. Love/Hate relationship personified.

I chime in once in a while in the clinic. Every time you see LA referred to as Monkey Mouth I think you will see some tiny fragment of my lasting legacy. :D
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS