Mark Hickey wrote:
> "damyth" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >Mark Hickey wrote:
> >> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >damyth wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Sigh... I know I forgot something:
> >> >> 10. Extra-ordinary renditions, splitting hairs re definition of
> >> >> "torture", Gitmo, evisceration of Geneva Conventions.
> >> >
> >> >You forgot:
> >> >
> >> >11. Unauthorized wiretaps.
> >>
> >> Hmmmm. Here I already gave you guys the opportunity to show ONE
> >> credible source claiming a specific law (international or otherwise)
> >> had been broken... and nada, zip, zilch.
> >>
> >> Yet you continue to speak with utter conviction.
> >>
> >> Amazing. Cognitive dissonance in its ultimate form.
> >
> >Cognitive dissonance?? Haha! Clearly you have not been paying
> >attention.
> >
> >How about this from the Supreme Court of the United States?
> >"Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld"
> >http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5767777
>
> Doesn't have anything to do with torture or the Geneva Convention.
> Simply a procedural thing that had to be worked out (and that was -
> the Congress passed the appropriate bill to allow military tribunals).
>
> And again, no laws were broken - the SC simply said that what Bush
> WANTED to do needed Congressional approval (which he got).
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame
"Doesn't have anything to do with torture or the Geneva Convention?
Simply a procedural thing that had to be worked out...."
I guess you can't be bothered to read:
"In a 5-3 vote, the Supreme Court ruled on June 29, 2006, that
President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military tribunals
for Guantanamo detainees. The court ruled that the tribunals violate
U.S. laws and the international Geneva Conventions."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5767777
"Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. ___ (2006), is a case in which the
Supreme Court of the United States held that military commissions set
up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay
"violate both the UCMJ and the four Geneva Conventions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld
You think admission of guilt as a precondition to defense doesn't
violate any laws, and more significantly, represents American values?
It about time you get your vision and brain checked by medical
professionals.
You think King George, under the so-called theory of "unitary
executive," had the right and authority do make up his own laws
regarding prisoners w/o Congressional authorization? That he could
determine the rules of evidence (i.e. torture statements are admissible
as evidence)?
"....In August 2005, Katyal filed a brief in the Supreme Court
contending that the rules the president had established for the
tribunals were blatantly unfair and unconstitutional.
In response, the Bush administration changed some of the rules -- for
example, to allow evidence obtained by "coercion" but not "torture."
Katyal then wrote a reply brief contending that these very changes
proved his point: The rules were not rules at all, but an ever-moving
target, a system not approved by Congress, that worked at the whim of
the president."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5767777
And If you think Congress rubber-stamped what King George wanted in
Military Commissions Act of 2006, that's the ultimate historical
revisionism.
