Restoring Habeas Rights Fails
Why do Republicans hate basic human rights so much?
But I'll give some minimal kudos to the five Republican Senators who bucked their pathetic excuse for a political party.
Of course, as Glenn Greenwald notes, this restoring of habeas rights was almost certainly a formality, as Bush would veto the bill, and the Dems didn't have enough votes to override the veto. But at least the Dems tried to do something right, though, as Greenwald spends most of his post on, the Dems have been FAR too accommodating to Bush's extremism.
And this story is a good example-- it's laughable that the Democrats really had no clue that the Bush administration would push a bogus terror threat in order to get their spying bill approved.
But I'll give some minimal kudos to the five Republican Senators who bucked their pathetic excuse for a political party.
Of course, as Glenn Greenwald notes, this restoring of habeas rights was almost certainly a formality, as Bush would veto the bill, and the Dems didn't have enough votes to override the veto. But at least the Dems tried to do something right, though, as Greenwald spends most of his post on, the Dems have been FAR too accommodating to Bush's extremism.
And this story is a good example-- it's laughable that the Democrats really had no clue that the Bush administration would push a bogus terror threat in order to get their spying bill approved.
posted by spooked at 12:42 PM
3 Comments:
Basic human rights. Oh, right. You think that a terrorist who would blow up an elementary school or fly a jet into an airliner should be afforded the same rights that any old American citizen.
What do you know about the Geneva Convention, there, ol Spook? What does ol Geneva say about capturing enemy combatants who are in civilian clothing and not in any sort of uniform?
What does the Geneva Convention say about those captured on a battlefield (and to al Queda, the world is their battlefield) but are not attired in the uniform of a recognized army?
Oh, that's right. You don't think there's any al Queda. You don't think there's a terrorist threat. You don't think there's a threat at all.
You are so full of shit its coming out your nose.
No Habeas Corpus rights helps prevent the possibility of a framed "terrorist" from being freed to tell the world what happened to them.
Demagoguery and name calling aside, I think every person should be given basic rights.
I'm not sure what "fly a jet into an airliner" means exactly, but whatever.
I understand that the Geneva Conventions treat uniformed combatants differently than non-uniformed combatants. However, the Geneva Conventions don't say it is OK to torture non-uniformed combatants. Non-uniformed combatants should be treated humanely with basic human rights, such as habeas corpus, for a few reasons:
1) it is the right thing to do
2) when you capture a group of fighters, you don't immediately know who are the really bad ones guilty of terrorism.
3) assuming that this is a war for the hearts and minds of the Islamic world, I think treating people humanely gives us the upper moral ground and is more likely to win converts than blowing people up and treating them like shit.
Finally, I think there is little doubt that at the upper levels "Al Qaeda" is a creation of Anglo-American intelligence agencies, and that they are controlled by the powers that be. To think otherwise is just to fall for the mindless propaganda that the US regime puts out.
I won't say there is no terrorism threat, but certainly the threat from al-CIA-duh is a complete fabrication. It is truly naive to think that "the powers that be" don't have ultimate control over major terrorist groups. That includes al-CIA-duh in Iraq as well.
Post a Comment
<< Home