The al-Qaeda seven and selective McCarthyism

Discussion in 'US' started by jumpinjarhead, Mar 9, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Although this is not one of the editors at the Washington (Com)post, it is interesting that such an article even appears on its pages--could it be that some of those in the heretofore co-opted media are finally remembering their vital role as journalists in our republic to hold our government (even that of the Anointed One) accountable to the people?

     
  2. As a response to the bit in bold:

    Ok, if I locked up most of the population of Brixton violent crime would drop immediatly. I know if I released them many would go on to commit crimes. However, this does not justify them being locked up in the first place; innocent until proven guilty.

    Guantanamo has created a legal black hole that makes a mockery of American claims to justice. The most frustrating point is that most are indeed terrorists, but we can do nothing about it. Release them and they will return to the fight. Continue to detain them and undermine everything America supposedly stands for. It should never have been created in the first place and has left a legally toxic legacy.
     
  3. I agree that the policies and procedures for handling detainees were flawed from the beginning but that does not mean there are still not alternatives to the misguided approach of the Attorney General. Of course the point of the story is that it demonstrates the apparent attitude of Holder and others in the current administration that they are above the law and well accepted ethics if attorneys on his staff have had any role in the handling of the detainee cases who were also involved in defending them in their previous private practice.
     
  4. Jan. 20th, 2012 the Mongbus known as the Obama Administration will be gone, Holder and all.
     
  5. [My bold in your quote] I believe you'll find that the previous administration also considered itself "above the law" by creating Gitmo in the first place. The present administration has thus been placed in an impossible situation. And all by a psycho who thought the US Constitution was "just a piece of goddamn paper".

    MsG
     
  6. Goldbricker:

    Sad news I am afraid. The date will be Jan 20th, 2013.

    Like the bumpers stickers say "Jan 20, 2013, End of an error"

    It is important to note that the terms "McCarthyite" "Rascist" and Anti-semetic" are only used when a conservative starts to win an argument with a liberal.
     
  7. I've spent decades listening to Americans boasting about how their country is run on the principles of freedom and democracy. It's been a nice change to see the truth revealed since 9/11.

    Americans are a bunch of fascists. You always have been and you always will be. You can't even take on the idea of how civilised legal representation works. You think you have the right to go anywhere you like in the world to kill and arrest whoever you want, and to hell with laws that have taken a thousand years of struggle to gain and protect. Stringing people up from tree branches or throwing them in jail because you don't like their faces is just about your style.

    Except, of course, that America thinks big. Raining thousands of tonnes of bombs down on a neutral little country like Cambodia is where your defence industries make their profits, right? Or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Iran, or whichever country is next in your collective paranoid psyche.

    What the British are doing associating themselves with you I can't imagine. We used to be quite a classy bunch, once.

    And why the hell Australia is killing Muslim children in the 'Ghan when we live next door to 230 million Muslims is beyond my understanding.

    At any event, do please keep on posting in this forum. You're an example to us all.
     
  8. I think you'll find that's Racist and anti-semitic, but congratulations, you got McCarthyite correct. Although what that's got to do with this argument I'm not really sure.
     
  9. You again use too broad a brush. I am on record beyond this thread that the previous administration was wrong in its policies regarding classification of detainees as combatants first and then whether "lawful" of "unlawful" that in turn led to errors in the way some detainees were interrogated etc. This does not, however, meant that putting them at Guantanamo was "illegal." The point of this thread and my comments , however, have less to do with the relative culpability of one administration or the other than the current situation where the chief law enforcement officer of the US and his and-picked staff of lawyers appear (we do not know for sure since the needed information is being withheld in contravention of applicable ethics rules for lawyers in the US as well as the very policies recently announced by Holder Linkyand the Anointed One Linkyabout presumptive disclosure of government information)
    If you will take the time to review the law as it related to the issues about the extent of rights available to foreign nationals (not basic human rights under Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions but the full panoply of rights available to criminal defendants in civilian federal court system once they are on US "soil") you will find the decision to put them at Guantanamo was clearly within the then-existing law (statutes and case law).

    I think you (and others who have said similar things) have taken at face value the PR propaganda campaign against the Guantanamo facility that was run humanely and in accordance with applicable international norms as numerous inspections by the ICRC, EU, US and other agencies have confirmed. The interrogations are another matter and should be analyzed separately. The problem of where to put these detainees and how to try them is extremely difficult as reflected in the fact that many of the home nations of the detainees would not take them and in the difficulty that even the Obama administration is having in coming up with a viable alternative. Also, if you will research the current debate among scholars and governments you will see that the international law in this area is now in flux since the traditional norms embodied in the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 2 subsequent protocols are based on principles (sovereignty etc.) that are not present in the new model of warfare involving parties that are not nation states.
     
  10. I so appreciate your encouragement for posting. I was on the cusp of quitting but now my spirit is renewed. Many thanks Little Jim.
     
  11. Lead us in a song Bolshevik ********......

    Arise, ye workers from your slumber,
    Arise, ye prisoners of want.
    For reason in revolt now thunders,
    and at last ends the age of cant!
    Away with all your superstitions,
    Servile masses, arise, arise!
    We'll change henceforth the old tradition,
    And spurn the dust to win the prize!
    So comrades, come rally,
    And the last fight let us face.
    The Internationale,
    Unites the human race.
    So comrades, come rally,
    And the last fight let us face.
    The Internationale,
    Unites the human race.
     
  12. My cautious optimism about the Washington (Com)post having found its journalistic voice again is tempered by this rejoinder that largely misses the point of the concerns being expressed about the ethical issues raised within the Justice Department. Instead the writer returns to the DC political playbook and attacks some of the more outspoken people who are asking for a meaningful response from Justice.

     
  13. Which is completely irrelevant as, oddly enough, US Federal law doesn't apply outside the US.
    It's quite simple really: they're either POWs, and should be treated as such, or; they criminals and should be treated in accordance with the local legal system.
    Would you like it if foreign nations decided to implement their laws in the US?
     
  14. Hardly irrelevant old man. Other posters and I have said the US (as should all nations) should be a nation of laws--under our Constitution that means US law as well as international law under certain circumstances. You over-simplify the issue of determining POW status and conflate that with the separate issue of dealing with crimes committed by detainees, whether POWs or otherwise. As for the former category, the relevant international law (and the Uniform Code of Military Justice--the relevant US law) provides for trials of POWs who have committed criminal acts in forums other than those provided for civilians in US federal courts and that is where the US government erred in terms of some of the procedures it developed.

    To say, however, that errors were made does not mean, as some have incorrectly argued, that the only alternative is to handle these cases in our civilian system. We have a perfectly good courts martial system that can be used but regrettably, just as those on the left have got it wrong due to prejudice and ignorance of the way the system works, so did the civilian neo-cons in the Bush administration who were largely ignorant of the UCMJ.

    As I have previously noted in other threads, some of the most outspoken and effective critics of these policies were, and continue to be, the senior judge advocates of all the US military services who candidly testified to that effect before Congress. Of course, this factual information does not nicely fit the propaganda template of the anti-US crowd (both within and without the US) so it is largely ignored.

    While the UK may not have a problem subjecting its own military disciplinary system to outside control as we have seen in numerous cases being effectively overturned by the European Court of Human Rights Linky, the US must be more circumspect about such things. This is so due to both our Constitutional system and hard experience since WWII that shows the US it cannot lightly surrender its sovereignty since there are so many nations that are ready to abuse it due to various motives (jealousy, ideology, politics etc.).