On Torture

[Chris Henrys Dealer]

I'm sorry I don't follow the parallel. Zundel was a German citizen, who's Permanent Residency in Canada had expired, (in part because he moved to and lived for an extended period in Tennessee.) He had no legal right to live in Canada following the expiration of his residency , hence was deported to Germany (citizenship) , once his claim for refugee status in Canada was denied. Not to mention that the Cdn government also debated, and then approved the deportation.

Arar was a legitimate Canadian citizen. He lived and worked in the country. (If it was not rendition) but a deportation that was to take place, it should legally have been to Canada. Additionally, the Cdn govt. should also have been instructed that the US was moving him to Syria before it was done. Not two days after.

[Lawman]

[quote name='Chris Henrys Dealer' post='366860' date='Oct 18 2006, 03:00 PM']I'm sorry I don't follow the parallel. Zundel was a German citizen, who's Permanent Residency in Canada had expired, (in part because he moved to Tennessee.) He had no legal right to live in Canada following the expiration of his residency , hence was deported to Germany (citizenship) , once his claim for refugee status in Canada was denied. Not to mention that the Cdn government also debated, and then approved the deportation.[/quote]

There is a gap - How did he get to Canada from Tennessee

Why was he deported

[Chris Henrys Dealer]

[quote name='Lawman' post='366862' date='Oct 18 2006, 03:14 PM']There is a gap - How did he get to Canada from Tennessee [/quote]

He got back to Canada after the States arrested him for violating immigration laws. And forcibly shipped him back to Canada. He then got to stay here for a few months because he applied for Refugee status. Which is strange considering they will do this for someone who has no right to live in Canada, and no Canadian passport, and even had an outstanding warrant in Germany for his arrest, yet with a legal Canadian citizen, travelling on a Canadian passport, with no outstanding criminal charges against him is bounced to Syria.

[Guest bengalrick]

i've got to side w/ you on this one chris... what they did to him (locked him up for a year w/ no charges) is pretty fucked up... i agree w/ using our intellegence to help our national security, but like anything, if it is abused then it will fuck up our security even more (when we remove those tools for those that use them)

nothing i just read about this dude leads to think he is a terrorists, here to harm americans, or deserved to be locked in a syrian jail (even though he had dual citizenship w/ canada and syria, our friends to the north deserve to be warned when their citizens are being deported anywhere)... this dude got fucked pretty hard...

[Lawman]

[quote name='Chris Henrys Dealer' post='366870' date='Oct 18 2006, 03:26 PM']He got back to Canada after the States arrested him for violating immigration laws. And forcibly shipped him back to Canada. He then got to stay here for a few months because he applied for Refugee status. Which is strange considering they will do this for someone who has no right to live in Canada, and no Canadian passport, and even had an outstanding warrant in Germany for his arrest, yet with a legal Canadian citizen, travelling on a Canadian passport, with no outstanding criminal charges against him is bounced to Syria.[/quote]

Here you go, and yes I believe the US was culpable in this case also.

[url="http://www.ihr.org/news/030923Zundel.shtml"]http://www.ihr.org/news/030923Zundel.shtml[/url]

Who Is Ernst Zundel, And Why Is He In Jail?
By Mark Weber
[b]September 2003[/b]


For more than six months now, Ernst Zundel has been held [u]without charge [/u] in solitary confinement in Canada on the pretext that he is a threat to national security. In fact, this 64-year-old German-born writer, publisher and civil rights activist is a political prisoner and a victim of great injustice.

Who is this man, and why is his case important?

Zundel was arrested at his home in Tennessee on Feb. 5, where he had been living peacefully with his wife, Ingrid Rimland, [u]on the pretext that he missed an interview date with immigration authorities[/u] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//23.gif[/img] . Two weeks later he was deported to Canada, [b]even though his wife is an American citizen[/b].

Claiming that he is a national security threat, Canadian authorities have been holding Zundel since Feb. 19. [color="#000099"](2003)[/color] The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) — something like the American FBI — supports this charge by citing tenuous and years-old ties by Zundel to “white supremacist” groups. [b]While acknowledging that he is not violent himself,[/b] CSIS also argues that material published by Zundel [u]might cause [/u] “like-minded individuals to engage in violence.”

There is absolutely no basis for the “security threat” charge. Zundel’s life is an open book. He is a peaceful man [u]with no record of violence[/u]. During the 40 years he lived in Canada, he was never convicted of a crime. In fact, he has himself been a victim of hate and violence. He survived at least three attempts on his life, including a devastating arson attack against his residence.

Jewish groups are demanding that Zundel be deported to Germany, where he faces years of imprisonment for the “thought crime” of “denying the Holocaust.” (“Holocaust denial” is against the law in Germany, France, Switzerland and some other European countries.) [b]He sit's there now![/b]

Zundel is in prison not because his views are unpopular, or because he’s a “security risk.” He’s in prison because Jewish groups want him there. He’s a prisoner because he promotes views that the Jewish-Zionist lobby considers harmful to its interests.

This lobby is the decisive, critical factor in the decades-old campaign to silence him. The only sustained and institutionalized effort to imprison him has come from this lobby, which includes the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association, and the League for Human Rights of B’nai B’rith (with the Anti-Defamation League, its counterpart in the US).

A few prominent Canadians have been speaking out against the unjust treatment of Ernst Zundel.

One such person is Bill Dunphy, a veteran investigative journalist and editor for the daily Hamilton Spectator. He spent six years probing Canada’s “white supremacist” movement, and got to know Zundel personally. [b]Although he has no sympathy for Zundel’s views[/b], in a hard-hitting column (Hamilton Spectator, May 14) he told readers:

“Our government has seized and branded Ernst Zundel, stripped him of his human rights, [u]tried him in secret [/u] ( I[i] have read the unclassified transcript and it does admit to secret evidence[/i]) and found him wanting, and will now hand him over to a foreign government anxious to throw him in jail...

“... Zundel — who did this country a favour by wiping off the books our disgraceful False News laws — has never once been convicted of a criminal offence in this country, never once found to have violated the hate crime laws that rest snugly around the throat of free expression in this country.

“Calculating correctly that there was no political cost, no ‘down side’ to slipping on the jackboots to kick a reviled old man out of our country, our government cobbled together their best insults and innuendo, and Lord knows what secret ‘evidence,’ and branded Ernst Zundel a threat to national security.

“I know this man, his local and international contacts and I know this movement. And after reading the 58-page ‘unclassified’ summary of the government’s case, I can assure you there is no justice here. Their ‘evidence’ is riddled with errors and misinformation, hearsay and inflammatory innuendo. Dead men walk again, and the shattered bits of shoddy secret networks long since collapsed under the weight of their own ineptitude are made whole and menacing once again. It is a shameful piece of dishonest, unreliable tripe.”

The trendy Toronto weekly Eye pointed out in an editorial (May 15) that “declaring Zundel a terrorist now is not the result of any startling new information,” but rather [u]“it has to do with political pressure ...” [/u] The paper added:

“The new security certificate admits Zundel has ‘virtually no history of direct personal engagement in acts of serious violence.’ It labels him a terrorist partly because he ‘seeks to destroy the multicultural fabric and underpinnings of Canadian society.’ Citing opposition to official multiculturalism as a type of terrorism risks expanding the war on terror to include everyone to the right of Pierre Trudeau.

“Anti-terrorism provisions should not be used as a catch-all solution. Misapplying terminology in this way damages its credibility, and undermines the efforts against real terrorism. It has also, of course, damaged the integrity of our refugee system.”

Similar concerns have been voiced by the daily Times Colonist of Victoria, British Columbia. In an editorial, “Even Zundel Merits Fairness” (May 9), the paper declared:

“... The way the federal government is trying to get rid of Zundel is wrong — it is using law that is so sweeping in its scope that it may be, as Zundel’s lawyer Doug Christie argues, unconstitutional. It would allow him to be deported [u]on evidence that amounts to mere assumption and subject him to a kangaroo court process where no defence can be mounted[/u]. [i]Sound familiar[/i]

“The Canadian Security and Intelligence Service calls Zundel the patriarch of Canada’s white supremacist ‘movement.’ It argues he is a risk to national security — a finding essential for his deportation under this procedure — because he is trying to ‘destroy the multicultural fabric and underpinnings of Canadian society.’

“... Most Canadians would be surprised to learn that the country’s multicultural fabric could be torn apart or society toppled by Zundel’s rants which are not, in fact, broadcast widely. But this is the basis for CSIS’s security certificate against Zundel.”

The Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE), a leading free speech advocacy group, is demanding Zundel’s immediate release. “Mr. Zundel is quite literally a political prisoner,” says CAFE director Paul Fromm, who has also been acting as Zundel’s legal representative in his detention hearings. “He is being held in solitary confinement solely for the non-violent expression of his political views.”

The allegation that Zundel might be a threat to national security “is mischievous nonsense,” says Fromm. “Zundel has been politically active in Canada for 40 years. He’s a public figure. His writings and speeches are available on-line. He’s been investigated for years by the police. He’s an open book. Zundel has never advocated or practised violence, nor have his followers,” Fromm adds. “He’s a pacifist and a publisher.”

A Life of Struggle

Ernst Zundel, a towering figure in the worldwide Holocaust revisionist movement, was born in 1939 in a small town in the Black Forest region of southwestern Germany. He emigrated to Canada at the age of 19, where he soon married and became the father of two sons. It wasn’t long before he made a name for himself as a successful graphic artist whose work appeared, for example, on the front cover of Canada’s national news magazine, Maclean’s.

Setting aside a thriving career, he resolved to dedicate himself to the great task, as he sees it, of redeeming the sullied reputation of his fellow Germans. Through his Samisdat publishing house he distributed worldwide a prodigious quantity of books, booklets, leaflets, newsletters, and audio and video cassettes. Simon Wiesenthal, the well-known “Nazi hunter,” has called Zundel the world’s number one distributor of allegedly dangerous literature and cassettes.

He has written countless booklets, newsletters and essays. He is a prodigious publisher, a one-man public relations firm, and an able public speaker and organizer. A dauntless leader in struggle against apparently insurmountable odds and seemingly invincible adversaries, no revisionist is more tenacious, dedicated and courageous.

Ernst Zundel, who sometimes describes himself as a "Swabian peasant,” is an outgoing, good-humored man who is blessed with a rare combination of unflagging optimism and practical ability. He maintains this infectious spirit even under very trying conditions. He is an unusually alert and sensitive individual with a keen understanding of human nature. He knows how to persuade, cajole and encourage his supporters to give their best for the greater good. He inspires confidence, loyalty and affection.

Zundel is probably best known for his central role in the “Holocaust Trials” of 1985 and 1988. He was brought to court in Toronto on a charge of [u]“publishing false news,” [/u] (I[i] have to take my hat off to this, finally someone in the industry being held accountable[/i]) and specifically for publishing a reprint edition of a booklet entitled Did Six Million Really Die?.

To wage the legal battle that was forced upon him, he brought together an impressive international team of revisionist scholars, legal specialists, researchers, and many others. From numerous libraries and archives in North America and Europe, this group assembled at “Zundelhaus” one of the most impressive collections of evidence anywhere on this chapter of history.

Zundel’s two lengthy trials — the 1985 trial lasted two months, and the 1988 trial lasted four months — have been the closest thing anywhere to full scale debates on the Holocaust issue. For the first time ever, “Holocaust survivors” and Holocaust historians were closely and critically questioned under oath about their claims and views.

Among those who testified on Zundel’s behalf in the two trials were Robert Faurisson, David Irving, Mark Weber, William Lindsey, Udo Walendy, and Bradley Smith. As a result of the two trials, an enormous quantity of compelling evidence refuting the Holocaust extermination story was presented to the court and thereby was made part of the permanent public record. The most important of this evidence was the historic testimony of American gas chamber expert Fred Leuchter about his on-site forensic examination of the alleged extermination gas chambers in Poland.

Zundel was found guilty in the 1985 trial, but the verdict was set aside by the provincial appeals court. It ruled that the judge in that trial had, among other things, given improper instructions to the jury, and had improperly excluded defense evidence. In May 1988, at the conclusion of the second Zundel trial, the jury declared him guilty. A few days later, he was sentenced to nine months imprisonment.

On appeal, Canada’s Supreme Court threw out the conviction, declaring on August 27, 1992, that the archaic “false news” law under which he had been convicted was a violation of the country’s Charter of Rights. This was not only a personal vindication by Canada’s highest court; Ernst Zundel secured an important victory for the rights of all Canadians.

Zundel’s next great legal battle was fought out before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in Toronto on charges, instigated by Jewish groups, of promoting “hatred or contempt” against Jews through the “Zundelsite” Internet web site (www.zundelsite.org), operated by Ingrid Rimland from the United States. In this legal action, as the Tribunal’s presiding Commissioner declared, the truth or validity of the supposedly “hateful” items was not a consideration. The Tribunal ultimately ruled against Zundel, declaring the “Zundelsite” to be unlawful.

After four decades in Canada, including a failed effort to acquire Canadian citizenship, he moved to the United States, where he married Ingrid in January 2000. For two years they lived quietly in the mountain region of eastern Tennessee.

Of this remarkable man, Robert Faurisson wrote in 1988: “Zundel may once again go to prison for his research and beliefs or be threatened with deportation. All this is possible. Anything may happen when there is an intellectual crisis and a realignment of historical concepts of such a dimension. Revisionism is the great intellectual adventure of the end of this century. Whatever happens, Ernst Zundel is already the victor.”


You do not have to agree with what this guy (Zundel) says, but there is a principle issue that can not be dismissed.

From Wikopedia:

If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell, Preface to Animal Farm (1946)

"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech." Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media (1992).

"I have fought censorship all of my adult life. To me, the most precious of all rights in this marvelous country called the United States of America is the freedom to think, write and say whatever is on your mind... That freedom also extends to thoughts that are stupid, ignorant or incendiary. No one needs a First Amendment to write about how cute newborn babies are or to publish a recipe for strawberry shortcake. Nobody needs a First Amendment for innocuous or popular points of view. That's point one. Point two is that the majority-you and I-must always protect the right of a minority-even a minority of one-to express the most outrageous and offensive ideas. Only then is total freedom of expression guaranteed." Lyle Stuart in his introduction to The Turner Diaries

"The price of freedom of religion, or of speech, or of the press, is that we must put up with a good deal of rubbish." Robert H. Jackson

"The principle of free thought is not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate." US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in United States v. Schwimmer (1929).

"He wrote something stupid, a bunch of words that say something we don't agree with. It's only words and ideas, it's not like he beat someone up, he's not committing violence or hurting people, he's simply saying something offensive that we do not want to hear because we don't like it. If we suppress ideas we don't like, the proponents of those ideas will probably fester in secret societies and explode in double-plus ungood ways and we will like those results even less. If we allow people to see their ideas, and we ignore them, they've had their chance and they don't have to feel cheated about not getting exposure. Or if we really don't like their ideas and really need to keep them from convincing other people to believe in them, the answer is to tell people why and they'll learn. But you can't just beat people up because you dislike their stupid opinion. If we go that route, then anyone who is willing to use force can suppress any opinion they don't like, and maybe support opinions we don't like. Then what you get is a society of brutality where it isn't the best ideas that are seen by others, it's only the ideas that have the most vicious thugs to back them up. And it becomes very hard for people to be willing to express any opinion if someone can just pop them one because they say something someone else doesn't like." - Supervisor 246 in Paul Robinson's Instrument of God.

[Guest bengalrick]

here is an article i found by a random blogger...

[url="http://jcb.pentex-net.com/?p=2471"]click here[/url]

[i][b][size=3]The Geneva Conventions and Habeas Corpus: Why the Left-Wing Reactionaries are Wrong[/size] [/b]

By John Bambenek

The reactionary hand-wringing about the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is wholly devoid of intellectual support and contradicted by the Geneva Conventions themselves. The flaccid objections are based in three parts: that unlawful combatants can be anyone, Habeas Corpus is a right enjoyed by military combatants, and a misunderstanding of the Geneva Convention documents (if they are read at all). Through on top a healthy dose of paranoia and you have basically the entire dogma of the liberal establishment on the issue.

[b]First, there is such a thing as a lawful combatant (which makes anyone not living up to that standard unlawful). [/b] This is defined in the Geneva Conventions document “Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War”, Article 3. It falls into 4 basic parts: wearing a uniform of other distinctive insignia, having someone with command authority in charge, carrying arms openly, and conducting themselves in accordance to the laws of war. Now, according to some, in fact, most left-wing “thinkers”, killing Americans or Jews is a complete immunity to any infraction of international law, however, there are some reasonable people who do think there are some laws here that might possible apply.

[b]For instance, Article 3 talks about the illegality of taking hostages. Presumably sawing off their heads with a dull knife also falls under this.[/b] Using mosques, hospitals, or schools as arms depots or locations to launch attacks is also included. [b]In short, almost the entire battery of tactics used by Al Qaeda or the so-called insurgents in Iraq is illegal under international law.[/b]

Another point to note is the requirement to carry arms openly and to wear a distinctive and fixed sign (a.k.a. a uniform). This is to clearly identify which people are ok to shoot at and which are not. [b]If you don’t wear a uniform, it makes it really hard to be sure you aren’t shooting a civilian. That’s why things like Haditha happen.[/b] In short, the tactics employed help ensure that more civilians get killed, and for that matter, it makes it just as hard for the authorities to be sure they killed a civilian or a combatant. This is one reason why the “civilian death toll” is exaggerated.

More importantly, these above two points (and others) show that the insurgents in Iraq, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban (to some extent) do not meet the criteria of being lawful combatants entitled to the Geneva Convention protections. As an aside, I studied international law under Francis Boyle… yes, that Francis Boyle. It was before the Iraq war but I did quiz him on these provisions. In fact, he was quite fond of saying that US mercenaries such as DynCorp were not entitled to the Geneva Conventions and could be summarily executed if a capturing nation wanted to do so. He also conceded that the tactics employed by Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda and others were illegal under international law. It just seems like the biggest supporters of international law think it only applies when you aren’t killing Jews, Christians, or Americans.

The important point is that unlawful combatants are a defined entity and not subject to a whole lot of interpretation. Article 5 says that everyone is entitled to a status hearing which everyone at Gitmo has had. Article 84 makes a particular emphasis that trials should be conducted by military tribunals. It’s clear what an unlawful combatant is and doesn’t need constant definition. In fact, everyone in military life is fully versed in the difference.

[b]The Habeas Corpus objections are particularly odd. Never… ever… in the history of mankind has an army who has captured an enemy offered that enemy a trial and charged him with some crime, gave him a sentence, and then happily returned him to his home country while hostilities were still ongoing.[/b] In fact, more often than not, history shows when countries capture an enemy and subject them to trial, it’s often a show trial for propaganda purposes and not infrequently results in the execution of the prisoner of war in question.

Article 118 deals with repatriation and it says prisoners will be returned after the cessation of hostilities. [b]There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in international law, the Constitution, state or local laws, or moral law that states we should only hold POWs for a certain time and then return them so they can continue fighting against us.[/b] In fact, the entire section that deals with repatriation before hostilities have ended only allows for returning POWs who no longer serve in a military capacity. The Geneva Conventions fully supports the right of a nation to hold POWs or illegal combatants until hostilities are over. If a war lasts 100 years, then they can be held until they are too sick or elderly to fight anymore. [b]The Geneva Conventions is crystal clear on this point.[/b]

Nowhere in the history of man can it be found that a country held any class of enemy combatant, tried him in a civilian court for a civilian crime, sentenced him, and then returned him to his home nation before hostilities were over. It’s a complete invention of the left. And this skips past the huge jurisdictional issues with trying someone from Afghanistan for what they were doing in Afghanistan.

Last, the cherry-picking of particular sentences or sentence fragments from the Geneva Conventions is a particular bastardization of legal interpretation. [b]The Geneva Convention framework has to be taken as a whole. Yes, torture is illegal and we can haggle over the grey areas, but I’m not a fan of those policies either. However, to skip past the requirements in Article 3 and 4 and then site later articles indicates a selective use of the law. It either all applies or it doesn’t apply at all.[/b]

The particular paranoia that dissenters will be picked up as enemy combatants is patent delusion. [b]I challenge anyone to show me one case of a non-violent dissenter inside the US being picked up. Everyone knows what a combatant is. I don’t fear falling victim to this law because I don’t plan to start shooting at US troops. The canard that Bush is quashing dissent and silencing speech is absurd. I’ve been listening to anti-war agitprop for years, they won’t shut up, and I’ve not seen one of them picked up. They’re loud, they’re public and it wouldn’t be hard to bring up a couple black helicopters to take care of business. The fact remains, they are being allowed to dissent, even when it’s devoid of fact.[/b]

The reason why we have a GOP majority, that will likely remain as much as the GOP deserves to lose, is that the left has abandoned any factual or reasoned approach to issues. The Military Commissions Act is just another example of the hyperventilating hysterics of the Democrats and anti-war Left. It has all but bankrupted any real political discourse in this nation and strikes to the very heart of our democracy. It would be nice if some Election Day I’d have a real serious choice between candidates as opposed to between dumb and insane.[/i]

[Lawman]

Outstanding find bengalrick,

[quote]Last, the cherry-picking of particular sentences or sentence fragments from the Geneva Conventions is a particular bastardization of legal interpretation[/quote]

I was going to post something similar to this from a self proclaimed Centrist Keith Olberman and another liberal left-winger; in order to expose their errors. They actually made it easy


[quote]In short, the tactics employed help ensure that more civilians get killed, and for that matter, it makes it just as hard for the authorities to be sure they killed a civilian or a combatant. This is one reason why the “civilian death toll” is exaggerated.[/quote]

I have another excellent piece to explain how those latest death toll figures released are erroneous due to innacurate sampling methods.

I deemed both cases were not worth the trouble. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//37.gif[/img]


[quote][u]has all but bankrupted any real political discourse in this nation and strikes to the very heart of our democracy. It would be nice if some Election Day I’d have a real serious choice between candidates as opposed to between dumb and insane.[/u][/quote] Amen


Here is something I found:

Wall Street Journal
October 19, 2006
Pg. 18

Congress To Courts: 'Get Out Of The War On Terror'

By John Yoo

During the bitter controversy over the military commission bill, which President Bush signed into law on Tuesday, most of the press and the professional punditry missed the big story. In the struggle for power between the three branches of government, it is not the presidency that "won." Instead, it is the judiciary that lost.

The new law is, above all, a stinging rebuke to the Supreme Court. It strips the courts of jurisdiction to hear any habeas corpus claim filed by any alien enemy combatant anywhere in the world. It was passed in response to the effort by a five-justice majority in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld to take control over terrorism policy. That majority extended judicial review to Guantanamo Bay, threw the Bush military commissions into doubt, and tried to extend the protections of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions to al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, overturning the traditional understanding that Geneva does not cover terrorists, who are not signatories nor "combatants" in an internal civil war under Article 3.

Hamdan was an unprecedented attempt by the court to rewrite the law of war and intrude into war policy. The court must have thought its stunning power grab would go unchallenged. After all, it has gotten away with many broad assertions of judicial authority before. This has been because Congress is unwilling to take a clear position on controversial issues (like abortion, religion or race) and instead passes ambiguous laws which breed litigation and leave the power to decide to the federal courts.

Until the Supreme Court began trying to make war policy, the writ of habeas corpus had never been understood to benefit enemy prisoners in war. The U.S. held millions of POWs during World War II, with none permitted to use our civilian courts (except for a few cases of U.S. citizens captured fighting for the Axis). Even after hostilities ended, the justices turned away lawsuits by enemy prisoners seeking to challenge their detention. In Johnson v. Eisentrager, the court held that it would not hear habeas claims brought by alien enemy prisoners held outside the U.S., and refused to interpret the Geneva Conventions to give new rights in civilian court against the government. In the case of Gen. Tomoyuki Yamashita, the court refrained from reviewing the operations of military commissions.

In Hamdan, the court moved to sweep aside decades of law and practice so as to forge a grand new role for the courts to open their doors to enemy war prisoners. Led by John Paul Stevens and abetted by Anthony Kennedy, the majority ignored or creatively misread the court's World War II precedents. The approach catered to the legal academy, whose tastes run to swashbuckling assertions of judicial supremacy and radical innovations, rather than hewing to wise but boring precedents.

Thoughtful critics point out that because the enemy fights covertly, the risk of detaining the innocent is greater. But so is the risk of releasing the dangerous. That's why enemy combatants who fight out of uniform, such as wartime spies, have always been considered illegals under the law of war, not entitled to the same protections given to soldiers on the battlefield or ordinary POWs. Disguised suicide- bombers in an age of WMD proliferation and virulent America-hatred are more immediately dangerous than the furtive information-carriers of our Cold War past. We now know that more than a dozen detainees released from Guantanamo have rejoined the jihad. The real question is how much time, energy and money should be diverted from winning the fight toward establishing multiple layers of review for terrorists. Until Hamdan, nothing in the law of war ever suggested that enemy status was anything but a military judgment.

While there may be different ways to strike a balance, this is a decision for the president and Congress, not the courts. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to determine the jurisdiction of federal courts in peacetime, and also declares that habeas corpus can be suspended "in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion" when "the public Safety may require it." Congress's power is even greater when it is correcting the justices' errors. Courts are ill-equipped to decide whether vast resources should be devoted to reviewing military detentions. Or whether military personnel's time should be consumed traveling back to the U.S. for detainee hearings. Or whether we risk revealing information in these hearings that might compromise the intelligence sources and methods that may allow us to win the war.

This time, Congress and the president did not take the court's power grab lying down. They told the courts, in effect, to get out of the war on terror, stripped them of habeas jurisdiction over alien enemy combatants, and said there was nothing wrong with the military commissions. It is the first time since the New Deal that Congress had so completely divested the courts of power over a category of cases. It is also the first time since the Civil War that Congress saw fit to narrow the court's habeas powers in wartime because it disagreed with its decisions.

The law goes farther. It restores to the president command over the management of the war on terror. It directly reverses Hamdan by making clear that the courts cannot take up the Geneva Conventions. Except for some clearly defined war crimes, whose prosecution would also be up to executive discretion, it leaves interpretation and enforcement of the treaties up to the president. It even forbids courts from relying on foreign or international legal decisions in any decisions involving military commissions.

All this went overlooked during the fight over the bill by the media, which focused on Sens. McCain, Graham and Warner's opposition to the administration's proposals for the use of classified evidence at terrorist trials and permissible interrogation methods. In its eagerness to magnify an intra-GOP squabble, the media mostly ignored the substance of the bill, which gave current and future administrations, whether Democrat or dumbass, the powers needed to win this war.

Mr. Yoo, professor of law at Berkeley and visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, served in the Bush Justice Department from 2001-03. He is the author of "War By Other Means" (Grove/Atlantic 2006).

[Homer_Rice]

That you fellows cite these two articles, back to back, is propitious. The piece br cites is a layman's take on a doctrine which is strongly advanced by the author of the piece cited by Lawman. For those who wish to probe more deeply the relation between the two, investigate the following, and conclude for yourself:

1) What is the concept of a "unitary executive"? What is it's pedigree?

2) Who is John Yoo? What were those memos all about?

Personally, I support a legal tradition that opposes the notion of a unitary executive, instead taking a more traditional view of Constitution: there are both historical and intellectual reasons for the separation of powers doctrine.

I'll go even a little further: the doctrine put forth by Yoo and others is quite similar to legal doctrines put into place in Germany during the 30s.

It's your country. fight for it. Don't shame yourself in the eyes of Franklin, Washington, Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton, not to mention many others like Gerry, Morris, et al.

[Homer_Rice]

That didn't take long, did it? [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/19/AR2006101901692.html"]Via WaPo[/url]:

[quote]Court Told It Lacks Power in Detainee Cases

By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 20, 2006; Page A18

Moving quickly to implement the bill signed by President Bush this week that authorizes military trials of enemy combatants, the administration has formally notified the U.S. District Court here that it no longer has jurisdiction to consider hundreds of habeas corpus petitions filed by inmates at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.

In a notice dated Wednesday, the Justice Department listed 196 pending habeas cases, some of which cover groups of detainees. The new Military Commissions Act (MCA), it said, provides that "no court, justice, or judge" can consider those petitions or other actions related to treatment or imprisonment filed by anyone designated as an enemy combatant, now or in the future.

Beyond those already imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere, the law applies to all non-U.S. citizens, including permanent U.S. residents.

The new law already has been challenged as unconstitutional by lawyers representing the petitioners. The issue of detainee rights is likely to reach the Supreme Court for a third time.

Habeas corpus, a Latin term meaning "you have the body," is one of the oldest principles of English and American law. It requires the government to show a legal basis for holding a prisoner. A series of unresolved federal court cases brought against the administration over the last several years by lawyers representing the detainees had left the question in limbo.

Two years ago, in Rasul v. Bush, which gave Guantanamo detainees the right to challenge their detention before a U.S. court, and in this year's Hamdan v. Rumsfeld , the Supreme Court appeared to settle the issue in favor of the detainees. But the new legislation approved by Congress last month, which gives Bush the authority to try detainees before military commissions, included a provision removing judicial review for all habeas claims.

Immediately after Bush signed the act into law Tuesday, the Justice Department sent a letter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit asserting the new authorities and informing the court that it no longer had jurisdiction over a combined habeas case that had been under consideration since 2004. The U.S. District Court cases, which had been stayed pending the appeals court decision, were similarly invalid, the administration informed that court on Wednesday.

A number of legal scholars and members of Congress, including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), have said that the habeas provision of the new law violates a clause of the Constitution that says the right to challenge detention "shall not be suspended" except in cases of "rebellion or invasion." Historically, the Constitution has been interpreted to apply equally to citizens and noncitizens under U.S. jurisdiction.

The administration's persistence on the issue "demonstrates how difficult it is for the courts to enforce [the clause] in the face of a resolute executive branch that is bound and determined to resist it," said Joseph Margulies, a Northwestern University law professor involved in the detainee cases.

On Tuesday, the appeals court granted a petition by lawyers for the detainees to argue against the new law. Vincent Warren, the executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents many of the detainees, said yesterday that he expected the administration to file a motion for dismissal of all the cases before the defense challenge is heard.

"We and other habeas counsel are going to vigorously oppose dismissal of these cases," Warren said. "We are going to challenge that law as violating the Constitution on several grounds." Whichever side loses in the upcoming court battles, he said, will then appeal to the Supreme Court.

Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.[/quote]

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='367783' date='Oct 19 2006, 08:14 PM']That you fellows cite these two articles, back to back, is propitious. The piece br cites is a layman's take on a doctrine which is strongly advanced by the author of the piece cited by Lawman. For those who wish to probe more deeply the relation between the two, investigate the following, and conclude for yourself:

1) What is the concept of a "unitary executive"? What is it's pedigree?

2) Who is John Yoo? What were those memos all about?

Personally, I support a legal tradition that opposes the notion of a unitary executive, instead taking a more traditional view of Constitution: there are both historical and intellectual reasons for the separation of powers doctrine.

I'll go even a little further: the doctrine put forth by Yoo and others is quite similar to legal doctrines put into place in Germany during the 30s.

[b]It's your country. fight for it. Don't shame yourself in the eyes of Franklin, Washington, Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton, not to mention many others like Gerry, Morris, et al.[/b][/quote]


You state your case eloquently. I enjoy your deconstruction of Lawman's sophistry. But I'm afraid that it is far too late. It was too late as of 2000, and everything that has transpired since is merely confirmation.

[Lawman]

.... upon further review; the Military Commissions Act of 2006, signed by President Bush on Oct 17th.

The new law establishes the procedures Military Commissions will use in trying [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant"]unlawful enemy combatants[/url] engaged in hostilities against the United States. Al Qaeda and Taliban fall into the definition of unlawful enemy combatants

Wiko:
[i]The term "unlawful combatant" has been used for the past century in legal literature, military manuals and case law. However—unlike the terms "combatant", "prisoner of war", and "civilian"—the term "unlawful combatant", or similar, is not mentioned in either the Hague or the Geneva Conventions. So while the former terms are well understood and clear under international law, the term "unlawful combatant" is not, until now[/i].

This act lays out [b]exactly[/b] how the military commissions are convened, and what [u]procedural safeguards [/u] must be in place:

a) presumption of innocence until proven guilty
proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
c) the right of the accuse to represent himself
d) inadmissibility of statements/evidence obtained through [b]torture[/b].
e) right to call and cross-examine witnesses
f) lawyer/client priveleges
g) no presumption of guilt from remaining silent
h) representation from military council

History of Military Commissions use:

Revoloutionary War, Civil War and during WWII.

As for GITMO Detainees; only those charged with law-of-war violations and other grave charges; ie: killing of innocent civilians. Approx only 75 of the detainees will be subjected to the commissions.

[Homer_Rice]

[url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15361458/"]Gitmo interrogations spark battle over tactics: The inside story of criminal investigators who tried to stop abuse[/url]

[Lawman]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='371024' date='Oct 24 2006, 06:43 AM'][url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15361458/"]Gitmo interrogations spark battle over tactics: The inside story of criminal investigators who tried to stop abuse[/url][/quote]

Barring the message the banner is attempting to imply, the article is pretty good. For myself, little
new or [i]newsworthy[/i].

from the article, in the beggining:

abuse=hold a detainee in a "stress position" by forcing him to sit on a cinder block with his hands chained to the floor. SECDEF Rumsfield approved new rules allowing stress positions for up to four hours, deprivation of light and sound, interrogation for up to 20 hours straight, removal of all comfort items (including the Koran and toilet paper), removal of clothing, forced shaving of facial hair, [u]and use of military dogs to scare detainees.[/u]

One interrogator fancied blaring country and western music and a [u]full cowboy getup [/u] during his sessions.

[i]"Interviews and interrogations are not about making someone talk. They are about making them want to."[/i] Col Mallow . Probably a SERE grad.

fast forward to the present:

Multiple safeguards have been built into the program to assure it's professionalism.
All those involved in the questioning of detainees are carefully chosen and screened for demonstrated professional judgement and maturity; [u]the average age of officers interrogating detainees is 43[/u]. Once selected, they must [u]complete more than 250 hours of specialized training before they are allowed to come face-to-face with a detainee[/u]. Additional fieldwork under the the direct supervision of an experienced officer is required before they can direct an interrogation.

Specific CIA officers, and currently only the Director of the CIA, must approve-prior to use-each and every
one of the lawful interrogation procedures to be used. [b]NO DEVIATION FROM THE APPROVED PROCEDURES AND METHODS IS PERMITTED[/b]. Look someone is held accountable; the CIA Director.

All interrogation sessions in which one of these lawful procedures is authorized for use must be observed by non-participants to ensure the procedures are applied appropriately and safely. These observers are authorizered to TERMINATE an interrogation immediately should they believe anything unauthorized is occuring.

Any deviations from approved program procedures and practices are to be immediately reported and immediate corrective action taken, including referral to CIA's Office of the Inspector General and Department of Justice, as appropriate.

[Homer_Rice]

More to the point:

[url="http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/10/parallel-tracks-in-national.html"]Balkin's response (read through the comments, too, for some intelligent give and take.)[/url]

and...

[url="http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/columnists/jonathan_s_landay/15847918.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_jonathan_s_landay"]Cheney cuts to the chase, in his stylish fashion.[/url]

and...

[url="http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/salon031.html"]for a little pointed humor, Garrison Keillor.[/url]