From the King Of Blogging, Sean Conners. Various articles and op/ed's on just about anything from A to Z. Politics, religion, entertainment and whatever else seems interesting at the moment. Members and non-members alike are welcomed to participate in th
History Repeats Itself
Published on October 19, 2006 By Sean Conners aka SConn1 In War on Terror
This week, President Bush signed the War Commissions Act. The GOP, in an attempt to reframe the election debates once again, heralded the signing as another nail in the coffin to democrats more so than any terrorist at home or abroad. Funny, I thought that the war was against terrorists, not democrats.

Dennis Hastert, amongst others, desperate to hold onto power, bragged that this bill would stop those pesky democrats from "coddling and pampering" terrorists. yeah, that's what's been happening.

Hastert, along with the rest of his desperate party, has seemed to have forgotten that the war is against terrorists, not democrats. But this bill is more against Americans than anything else. Democrats aren't interested in pampering terrorists any more than the republicans are interested in realizing the dramatic implications of what they have done in the spirit of holding absolute power.

A specific part of this act lists the definition of an "enemy combatant" as " a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a combatant status review tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the president or the secretary of defense.”

What does this mean? According to Constitutional Law proffessor Johnathan Turley, it means that you, I or any other American can be called a terrorist or enemy comatant at the president's whims. In other words, if he doesn't like you.

Turley: ... it says that if you even give material support to an organization that the president deems connected to one of these groups, you too can be an enemy combatant.

And the fact that he appoints this tribunal is meaningless. You know, standing behind him at the signing ceremony was his attorney general, who signed a memo that said that you could torture people, that you could do harm to them to the point of organ failure or death.

So if he appoints someone like that to be attorney general, you can imagine who he‘s going be putting on this board.
...The framers created a system where we did not have to rely on the good graces or good mood of the president. In fact, Madison said that he created a system essentially to be run by devils, where they could not do harm, because we didn‘t rely on their good motivations.

Now we must. And people have no idea how significant this is. What, really, a time of shame this is for the American system. What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values.

It couldn‘t be more significant. And the strange thing is, we‘ve become sort of constitutional couch potatoes. I mean, the Congress just gave the president despotic powers, and you could hear the yawn across the country as people turned to, you know, “Dancing with the Stars.” I mean, it‘s otherworldly.


Some have argued that they could care less about "terrorist rights" to the point where they skew anyone who defends the basic principles of Habeas Corpus as someone who wats to "give MORE rights to terrorists." then go on to make all kinds of false, inflamatory accusations. None of which are true.

President Adams signed a declaration similair to this. The end result was a rounding up of journalists. President Grant issued his own suspension of Habeas to rid us of the KKK. That still hasn't happened, but again innocent people wre jailed and given no opportunity to defend their innocence until wiser heads prevailed and like Adams's power grab, was reversed.

It happened again when President Wilson insisted that the espionage Act was necessary. the end result was that public speakers we re jailed unjustly and with no opportunity to defend their innocence.

FDR also exceeded the constitution with executive order #9066. that act imprisoned any Japanese -American during world war II in concentration camp like settings for the crime of their ancestors coming to America. As General DeWitt said at the time to Congress, "“It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen—he is still a Japanese.” This was not only the biggest blunder on FDR's record, it was so bad that ronald reagan had to formally apologize to the Japanese people and goverment for the lives we had ruined.

In all these cases, all that ever happened were Americans being unjustly imprisoned for nothing more than speaking or writing about their country or for just being here. No crimes were committed, no enemies were stopped. The only people who were terrorized were the innocent americans being jailed.

Senator Patrick lehey wisely said this is "a sad day when the rubber-stamp Congress undercuts our freedoms,” and Senator Feingold added that “We will look back on this day as a stain on our nation‘s history.”

Indeed we will.

But in the past, either the Congress or the Courts have stepped in to save our precious rights. So, they will again, right? let's ask Mr Turley...

"Well, you know what? I think people are fooling themselves if they believe that the courts will once again stop this president from taking over—taking almost absolute power. It basically comes down to a single vote on the Supreme Court, Justice Kennedy. And he indicated that if Congress gave the president these types of powers, that he might go along.

And so we may have, in this country, some type of ueber-president, some absolute ruler, and it‘ll be up to him who gets put away as an enemy combatant, held without trial.

It‘s something that no one thought—certainly I didn‘t think—was possible in the United States. And I am not too sure how we got to this point. But people clearly don‘t realize what a fundamental change it is about who we are as a country. What happened today changed us. And I‘m not too sure we‘re going to change back anytime soon".


But we don't torture, right?

"That‘s actually when I turned off my TV set, because I couldn‘t believe it. You know, the United States has engaged in torture. And the whole world community has denounced the views of this administration, its early views that the president could order torture, could cause injury up to organ failure or death.

The administration has already established that it has engaged in things like waterboarding, which is not just torture. We prosecuted people after World War II for waterboarding prisoners. We treated it as a war crime. And my God, what a change of fate, where we are now embracing the very thing that we once prosecuted people for.

Who are we now? I know who we were then. But when the president said that we don‘t torture, that was, frankly, when I had to turn off my TV set."


You weren't the only one, i'm sure.

Some Americans think that to beat the terrorists that we have to become more like them. We've made that mistake before, like when some thought that to beat the Soviet Union, we had to be more like them. Or the japanese. Or the Germans. Or the Socialists. Or the Anarchists. Or the Immigrants. Or the British. Or the Aliens. etc, etc,,,,

In every case, despite some folks good intentions, they were always wrong. America wins when Americans stand up to tyranny and at the same time defends our freedoms and rights with equal, if not a greater vigor.

Is this hyperbole? Keith Olbermann, in his special comments yesterday, nailed it...

"We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who has insisted again that “the United States does not torture. It’s against our laws and it’s against our values” and who has said it with a straight face while the pictures from Abu Ghraib Prison and the stories of Waterboarding figuratively fade in and out, around him.

We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who may now, if he so decides, declare not merely any non-American citizens “unlawful enemy combatants” and ship them somewhere—anywhere -- but may now, if he so decides, declare you an “unlawful enemy combatant” and ship you somewhere - anywhere.

And if you think this hyperbole or hysteria, ask the newspaper editors when John Adams was president or the pacifists when Woodrow Wilson was president or the Japanese at Manzanar when Franklin Roosevelt was president.

And if you somehow think habeas corpus has not been suspended for American citizens but only for everybody else, ask yourself this: If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an “unlawful enemy combatant”—exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not? Do you think this attorney general is going to help you?"


I don't think so either Keith.















"

Comments (Page 2)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Oct 19, 2006
it's not about the guilty, it's about protection of the innocent. rmember innocent until proven guilty? it used to be the whole basis of our justice system. if you were arrested and declared an enemy combatant, how would you defend yourself?


Name ONE war we have ever fought where "innocent til proven guilty" was used as any kind of protection? There haven't been. People who are identified as the enemy are killed or taken prisoner... prisoners are held until the end of the war. Plain and simple. (((at least it was until some moron decided that we should let our rights become the best weapon in the enemy's arsenal))).


Historyishere:
Ted, there has ALWAYS been an enemy in the United States ready to kill at any time. It is just the name that changes is all.


There is a difference between wartime and peacetime.

The thing that pisses me off here is, people who applauded Clinton for the totally and blatantly illegal actions at Ruby Ridge and Waco have somehow grown a backbone now. For NO other reason than politics.

Quit lying about caring, it only makes you look stupid.
on Oct 19, 2006

In my opinion, only extreme ignorance in relation to the checks, balances, and remedies afforded by the Constitution, and an almost hysterical distrust of, and antipathy towards, the American system of government.

again, it all boils down to name calling.


I would take stuff like this a lot more seriously if the people who are complaining aren't people who are constantly looking for the sky to fall so they can run around warning people about it.


lol,,,more of the name callin...next.


There was no name calling here. If you think that's name calling then I wouldn't start anything with me. Because I "really" get into it.
on Oct 19, 2006
George Bush's motto seems to be "if it's good enough for Abe Lincoln, it's good enough for me"!
on Oct 19, 2006
There was no name calling here. If you think that's name calling then I wouldn't start anything with me. Because I "really" get into it.


huh?
on Oct 19, 2006
There is a difference between wartime and peacetime.

The thing that pisses me off here is, people who applauded Clinton for the totally and blatantly illegal actions at Ruby Ridge and Waco have somehow grown a backbone now. For NO other reason than politics.

Quit lying about caring, it only makes you look stupid.


At any time have I lead you to believe that I am a merely some partisan hack who relentlessly attacks one party while giving the other a get out of jail free card. My collected entries belie that Ted, and this level of personal aggression seems ill-placed. Just because I am disagreeing with your position in a respectful manner, I don't understand the level of anomosity you are reflecting back at me, and it is especially surprising given our previously benign conversational style on a variety of other topics in the past.
on Oct 19, 2006
There was no name calling here. If you think that's name calling then I wouldn't start anything with me. Because I "really" get into it.


huh?


What didn't you understand? You said they were calling names and I pointed out that they hadn't. The second part is even easier. If you thought that they were name calling then you wouldn't want to start a name calling session with me. With me there would be "no" doubt about when names were called! After 6 yrs with the USN, I'm "real" good at the name calling thing.
on Oct 20, 2006
What didn't you understand?

dude, that was sarcasm. do you suffer from memory loss? i'vfe been verbally kicking the crap out of you for some time now.

as far as you saying they weren't "name calling...

In my opinion, only extreme ignorance in relation to the checks, balances, and remedies afforded by the Constitution, and an almost hysterical distrust of, and antipathy towards, the American system of government.

that's essentially calling someone a dumb traitor.

I would take stuff like this a lot more seriously if the people who are complaining aren't people who are constantly looking for the sky to fall so they can run around warning people about it.

that one speaks for itself....i'm gettin tired of having to spell stuff out for ya dr quack.

unlike you, who leads with your face...these guys tried to diplomatically mask their insults...it didn't work.

but what is more obvious about you is that you came in here , presented no facts germaine to the discussion and immediately started making threats.

run along now dr quack...somewhere a village is missing their idiot.

the rest of us are going to go back to talking about issues presented. if you wish to join in like an adult, fine...if you want to keep clammering for attention like a lil brat,,,well, that's your perogative as a wuss with an alias hiding behind his keyboard induced muscles.

on Oct 20, 2006
still waitin on mm and ted to tell us how they would defend themselves if it was declared that they were an enemy combatant.
on Oct 20, 2006
Quote: What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values.

The greatest threat Madison and other founding fathers faced was an armada of ships with cannons.... the threat we are facing today is a nuke, radioactive bomb and minor things like that plane stuck in the side of the building.
We should uphold the founding idea of choice and freedom in principle, but the methodology of upholding it must be changed and if you can’t see it - I pity you.

I have a RIGHT to be FREE and to CHOOSE to stay alive....
on Oct 20, 2006
la riva,,,tell me how you would defend yourself if someone decided you were an enemy combatant.
on Oct 20, 2006
I pity you.


the feeling is mutual,,,so what? stick to the issue. the self important crap is better saved for someone who might care.
on Oct 20, 2006
stick to the issue? I think I did... in case I was not clear enough, let me try once more:

How would I defend myself if someone decided that I was an enemy combatant - the only way i can see someone do that if they catch me with a gun in my hands or a bomb strapped to my chest wondering the desert...
Enemy combatants are those who without uniform come secretly through the lines for waging war by destruction of life or property, since I'm already here and not waging any destruction of life or property I doubt I need to be concerned with it.

You talk about torture - I agree there is a difference between what civilized people allow for versus those that can not be tolerated under ANY conditions.
Let me stress on “ANY” definition, - that means that if you are given a choice to use that or sacrifice your family you choose to loose your family to preserve your humanity.

One of the founding fathers you are so quick to point to have suspended Habeas Corpus in 1862 - 1866 for the good of the nation at that time it resulted in some 13000 people being arrested. That happened at the time when the guns weren't shooting straight - today we have ICBMs, biological weapons, radioactive waste - do you truly believe the failure is an option?

Finally, it is easy to bash things - like you and majority of democrats do; could you come up with something constructive?

- If you knew that a captured individual knows the location of the nuclear bomb that would kill your family - what would you do? Would you settle for Rank , name and a Jihad number because thats the only thing Geneva convention allows a POW to respond with...
- if you knew that Iran is developing a nuke and is likely to use it on American or Israel soil or sell it to someone that will - what would you do
- and finally, with full knowledge that North Korea employs the regime that employs torture as a standard practice, where there are no civil liberties of ANY kind would your high moral standards allow you to sit on the sidelines or would you try to council the communist leaders?


Finally, I'm all for world peace - I'd like nothing more then to be free of taxes and government control, to be able to raise my child the way i see fit without social services 'oversight' but the laws exist for the good of the nation as a whole and to protect the values; without laws there would be chaos and if you are in support of it; just let me know - I wont bother replying.

on Oct 20, 2006
the only way i can see someone do that if they catch me with a gun in my hands or a bomb strapped to my chest wondering the desert...


you are dead wrong there...did you bother to read the article? you can be declared an enemy combatant on far less. just for providing material support (like donating money or time to a cause that is deemed a terrorist money raiser).

we had a clergyman arrested for treason before this law was enacted down @ gitmo. fortunately, he was able to use habeas corpus to defend himself. if he were arrested today, he would have no such opportunity.

do you truly believe the failure is an option?


no i don't. but obviously we have much different views on how we will win. pissing on the constitution isn't a key to victory for me.

Finally, it is easy to bash things - like you and majority of democrats do; could you come up with something constructive?


a) you do know i'm not a democrat or a liberal, right?

i have come up with many suggestions and ideas on a whole host of topics including this one. and my compliments or criticizms are not limited to one side.

to be able to raise my child the way i see fit without social services 'oversight' but the laws exist for the good of the nation as a whole and to protect the values; without laws there would be chaos and if you are in support of it; just let me know - I wont bother replying.


i'm a lil confused on the ss oversight. i have 2 children and have never been visited by anyone like that.

and as far as being in support of laws...hell yes i am. that's kinda silly, basically asking me if i am in support of everything the bush administration does, or am i an anarchist. what i don't support are knee jerk responses because of fear that erode our constitution.

and you can reply or not...that's your call. but like insults, the self important declarations don't really hold much water here. "posting and running" is just that regardless of how it's framed.

as far as your box of questions go, those are 3 more entire articles. please keep to the subject at hand which is the loss of habeas corpus for american citizens.

don't worry, you won't be censored here. and i don't ban people or any nonsense like that.






on Oct 20, 2006
History:

While the line:
There is a difference between wartime and peacetime.


Was in direct reply, and directed to you...

[quoteThe thing that pisses me off here is, people who applauded Clinton for the totally and blatantly illegal actions at Ruby Ridge and Waco have somehow grown a backbone now. For NO other reason than politics.

and

Quit lying about caring, it only makes you look stupid.


Were general statemants directed at whomever the shoe fits... not necessarily you, since I have no idea how you feel about Ruby Ridge or Waco.

Sorry that I didn't make that clear before.



At any time have I lead you to believe that I am a merely some partisan hack who relentlessly attacks one party while giving the other a get out of jail free card.
on Oct 20, 2006
Sean:
still waitin on mm and ted to tell us how they would defend themselves if it was declared that they were an enemy combatant.


It was a red herring Sean, not worth answering.

4 Pages1 2 3 4