?

Log in

No account? Create an account
~生まれた町で夢見てきた...~
"In the city of my birth, I had a dream..."
Is justice being served??? 
22nd-Nov-2005 05:53 pm
Accordion
Student Convicted of Plotting With Al Qaeda to Kill Bush

So, was he plotting to assassinate the President, or was he just another young person critical of the current administration who happened to be studying in Saudi Arabia and got involved with the wrong crowd? Was he tortured, or is he lying through his teeth?

Doncha just love how we're not even sure AFTER the kid's been convicted?
Comments 
23rd-Nov-2005 12:08 am (UTC)
Am I missing something in all this? Since when can an American in the US get convicted on evidence supposedly given voluntarily to Saudi cops? Shouldn’t he have been tried in Saudi Arabia, if anyplace? Did the Saudis read him his Miranda (spelling?) rights before he was questioned? Was he given an American lawyer before questioning?

*shakes head*

He was probably mouthing off in a bar after a few too many drinks...

And don’t you just love the hypocrisy... The United States DOES NOT engage in torture!! (we have friends do it for us).......
23rd-Nov-2005 01:05 am (UTC)
I couldn't help noting how the article left this unpleasant taste of doubt as to whether justice had really been served. I wonder if that was the reality of the case or newspaper/journalist bias? *sighs*

And don’t you just love the hypocrisy... The United States DOES NOT engage in torture!! (we have friends do it for us).......

I know. Especially given the article in this month's Harpers magazine. *sighs again*
23rd-Nov-2005 01:25 am (UTC)
I couldn’t see the Times article, didn’t feel like registering. But the articles I’ve read just leave more questions...

Especially given the article in this month's Harpers magazine.

Didn’t see that one.. It’s amazing, or maybe not, that an administration that wraps itself in Christian morality can somehow miss that if you hand someone over knowing they will be tortured, you are responsible for torture, morally and in fact...
23rd-Nov-2005 01:43 am (UTC)
I guess maybe the media doesn't know what to make of this one, yet. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if it all just gets buried--while the kid spends the rest of his life in jail.

The Harpers article argues that we've past the point of no return by sanctioning torture and details the ways in which the administration has figured out how to get away with torturing without the president getting the electric chair. Forget Geneva Conventions, we have our own law about torture. So, the relabeled prisoners of war "enemy combatants" (whatever in the heck that means) to sidestep the law.
23rd-Nov-2005 10:48 am (UTC)
*sighs*

enemy combatant=non person

I remember two separate statements made by Bush regarding his war on terror. One was that the president has the right to detain enemy combatants for the duration of the war. The second was that the war on terror would last for generations...... His own words.. Of course this is the same administration pushing the idea that the Constitution doesn't apply outside of US government jurisdiction. To an extent I agree, but I don't think an agency of the US government (military) acting on behalf of the US government can ever be outside of US government jurisdiction.. It defies all logic.

Well, Bush and company didn't start the system of using other countries to carry out torture. There's really nothing new there. But, they raised it to an art form, and now flatly proclaim that the CIA should be allowed to torture people.. We have no credibility in the field of human rights left. At. All.....
And to make it worse, go ask a conservative about declining moral values in the US, and you'll probably get some prattle about gay marriage and sex on TV.. But torturing people who don't look or act like us, hey no problem.....

*shakes head*
23rd-Nov-2005 01:30 pm (UTC)
Well, actually, the the rights of the Constitution DON'T apply to non-citizens. However, that's a moot point because we've already passed laws making illegal for US citizens to PRACTICE torture. It's not the Constitution that Bush is trying to avoid; it's a law passed under Clinton. :P

I'm really beginning to think the world is a study in hypocrisy, not just the US. (Though someone explain to me with a REALLY good reason why women can't have the morning-after pill because it encourages "irresponsibile behavior" yet Viagra is EVERYWHERE?)
23rd-Nov-2005 02:09 pm (UTC)
Well, actually, the the rights of the Constitution DON'T apply to non-citizens.

Depends on what you mean.. In the domestic setting the Constitution makes no distinction between citizens and non citizens in terms of basic legal rights and due process, though it does make distinctions between "people" and "citizens" when it comes to voting and holding office, etc.. And even in the case of enemy combatants, the Supreme Court said due process of law is required, though exactly what process was left vague.. Bush's argument was that they weren't covered by the Constitution, US law, or any international agreements, and thus had no rights of any kind at all...

I'm really beginning to think the world is a study in hypocrisy, not just the US.

*groans*

no argument.....
23rd-Nov-2005 02:35 pm (UTC)
The Bill of Rights only applies to citizens. "The people" and phrases like that are synonymous with citizen, which means that even freedom of conscience is not explicitly guaranteed, though in practice we don't bother thought policing non-citizens. I've heard that on several occasions while in college from various professors who are/were not citizens--and this was BEFORE Bush decided it might be fun to push the limits.

Bush's argument was that they weren't covered by the Constitution, US law, or any international agreements, and thus had no rights of any kind at all...

I think that only worked because no one had previously used the term "enemy combatant." At this point, they still just think they can get away with whatever in the Hell they want to. I say impeach 'im. :P
23rd-Nov-2005 03:08 pm (UTC)
"The people" and phrases like that are synonymous with citizen

I'm not sure that would hold up ^^;; The amendment that specifically goes to due process says "no person...".. In other places, the Constitution makes very clear distinctions between person or persons, and citizens..
The first amendment doesn't even say people or person for free speech, it says Congress can't restrict it..
Without the clarity of the word "citizens", I must default to the broad meaning of "people" ^_^

Of course, I could also argue that the people are just white male landowners ^_~

At this point, they still just think they can get away with whatever in the Hell they want to

Granted the question of what you do with captured terrorists is a difficult one, but they've definitely taken the option most guaranteed to fire up more hatred abroad and undermine democracy at home.. I think it shows a basic animosity towards the rule of law....

I say impeach 'im. :P

Sure done more damage than Clinton or Nixon ever did.....

23rd-Nov-2005 03:18 pm (UTC)
That argument doesn't necessarily hold water because, remember, they defined "person" differently back then--and it didn't include women or non-whites. :P There were actually challenges to due process and the like during the period shortly after the Constitution was written from Native Americans--and it was decided that, as they were not citizens, they did not have Constitutional rights. It all depends on how we define the terms NOW, and there's enough leeway in it to make life miserable for non-citizens. It's been done before; it could be done again.

Granted the question of what you do with captured terrorists is a difficult one

It's a power trip. The Patriot Act right now has made it that they can hold any American citizen indefinitely without due process if they CLAIM to think they're involved in terrorist activity.
This page was loaded May 21st 2018, 9:04 am GMT.