Comments for Military Commissions Act Headed for Supreme Court at http://atlanticfreepress.com , comment 1 to 3 out of 3 comments http://atlanticfreepress.com Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:07:14 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/1038-military-commissions-act-headed-for-supreme-court.html#comment-1451 William Fisher's article is an excellent background summary of the Military Commissions Act, and the DC Circuit Court of Appeals recent 2-1 ruling upholding the constitutionality of one of the Act's several controversial provisions. Over a well reasoned dissent, the majority ruled that Congress had validly exercised its power to define (actually, to eliminate) the jurisdiction of the federal courts, by prohibiting judges to review the legality of the confinement, and the conditions of confinement, of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Habeas corpus, habeas corpse. One can only hope and pray that the one vote margin on the United States Supreme Court holds so this injustice can be reversed, and the the Dodd-Leahy-Specter legislation is enacted. I must admit I'm completely baffled by the concluding part of this article. With respect to potential revision of the shameful MCA statute by the new Congress, Mr. Fisher writes: "Cynical observers say congressional Democrats would welcome a Bush veto, since that would leave the issue on the table for the 2008 election. But even if that's true, we can expect some impassioned oratory on this issue when Congress returns next week." I for one have been waiting for oratory of any sort from the leadership of the Democratic Party condemning torture as an instrument of US foreign policy for the last five years. The silence is deafening. Can anybody out there in cyberspace tell me how it was possible, when John Kerry and Little George held their first debate (an hour and a half dedicated solely to international and national security issues) in the 2004 Presidential campaign, that the words "torture", "abu Ghraib", and "Geneva Conventions" were never uttered, not even once, by either candidate or the moderator, Jim Lehrer of PBS? How could it be that the media savvy DNC beltway brain trust persuaded the Kerry campaign to give George Bush a pass on torture? Bush in writing personally made the decision to junk the Geneva protections at Gitmo in February, 2002, based upon Alberto Gonzales' advice. How could the GOP - the political party that proudly promised to restore morality to the Oval Office in 2000 - wind up generating the homoerotic sadism of Abu Ghraib? Indeed, what would Jesus say about water boarding, swathing thine enemies' faces in womens' undies, siccing dogs upon those in handcuffs, or the man-in-the-hood-on-the-box-with-the-electrodes-up-his ass? When handed this "moral values issue" to them on a silver platter in 2004, the Democratic Party pretended not to notice. Poor Dick Durbin. He made a single speech on the Senate floor noting how some of the torture techniques in use in the US military prisons resembled those of the Gestapo and the KGB. The right wing media tore him to bits for making the comparison, and scarcely a colleague came to his aid. I hope Mr. Fisher is right, but when torture was "on the table" as an election issue in 2004 and again in 2006, why did nobody talk about it then? I can easily understand why the GOP wouldn't want to talk about such shocking brutality and sexual degeneracy taking place on George Bush's watch, to the outrage of much of the world. Why the Democrats have NOT spoken out thusfar with "impassioned oratory", or with even the blandest public criticism, about the torture and sexual humiliation of hundreds of Muslim men swept up into US military interrogation centers remains a mystery to me. Stark bipartisan issues of good and evil like this just don't come up very often. On a more serious note (if that's possible), be sure keep an eye on the details within the details of the Dodd-Leahy-Specter bill and the behind scenes amendments. One of the most vile provisions of the Military Commissions Act passed in 2006 was the creation of immunity from civil liability and apparent immunity from criminal prosecution for the torturers and the top policy decisionmakers who created the torture gulag. Mr. Rumsfeld, Gen. Miller, and others have some real, long term Pinochet problems in terms of international travel of course, but the Act as presently written gives a retroactive and prospective immunity bath to all of the individual wrongdoers under US law. The MCA's grant of immunity is probably more important to more people in the real world that the scope of federal habeas corpus jurisdiction, the evidentiary use of hearsay statements obtained by torture, the due process right of detainees to talk in private to a defense lawyer, or any of the other reprehensible parts of this disgusting statute. For some folks, it means they literally get away with murder. - a guest Tue, 27 Feb 2007 02:43:26 +0100 http://atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/1038-military-commissions-act-headed-for-supreme-court.html#comment-1403 That there is no outcry from the American people about issues surrounding the use of torture, extraordinary rendition, and abrogation of habeas corpus, must be taken as reliable evidence that we, as a people, are--quite simply--morally autistic. If those who don't profess to be followers of the Christ do not opposes these things, then it is just a matter of time until this law-of-the-jungle evil under color of law visits itself upon you. If those who do profess to be followers of the Christ do not oppose this patent, obvious, and genuine evil, then all you have to do to see what eternal law will be visited upon you is to simply pick up your favorite Bible and read what Christ said about who said "Lord, Lord" but who did not do the will of the Father. No matter how it is sliced, a society that doesn't stand up against such evils as these--for rational or for moral reasons--is a society upon which such evils will eventually used. --Albert E. Potts - a guest Sat, 24 Feb 2007 07:52:20 +0100 http://atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/1038-military-commissions-act-headed-for-supreme-court.html#comment-1375 got this on my site - a guest Fri, 23 Feb 2007 20:26:27 +0100