News Bush's Support of Torture: Global Impact and Un-American Reputation

[Ivan Seeking]

I have said it many times: These clowns [Bush and company] are much of what once defined the enemy. They have shown themselves to be un-American, if not enemies of the Constitution, by nearly every standard that I know.

The amendment that the Senate attached to its defense spending bill ended a legislative silence on how far the administration should go in interrogating prisoners. It also set up a possible confrontation with the White House, which has threatened to veto the bill if the final version contains any language that, in the administration's view, would restrict the president's ability to carry out the war on terror.

...The amendment, offered by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, shouldn't be the least bit controversial. It would prohibit "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" and firmly establish the current U.S. Army Field Manual as the guide for service members when they detain or interrogate prisoners [continued]

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion...,0,3121533.story?coll=ny-editorials-headlines

Google the subject and look at how the rest of the world views this. How does this make us look?

 

[Rabid]

Nays


Allard (R-CO)
Bond (R-MO)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Stevens (R-AK)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00249


Surprise, Surprise.

 

[Brad_1234]

There should always be respectful treatment of prisoners. Your post here indicates an outrage towards inhumane treatment. But then consider Saddams regime? He has surpassed Adolf Hitler in crimes against humanity, torture, murder, and brutalities that cannot even be spoken of.

The democrats/left should have supported the Iraq war 100%, even been demanding the US topple Saddam. It was shocking to observe people PROTESTING THE WAR? On what grounds?? Somebody call Ripley! but then HE wouldn't have believed it!

In the abu Ghraib incident, top intelligence agencies, actual James Bond 007 level groups figured out hey, Arab men have an incredible phobia of being naked in public. In the US and much of nude Europe, people cannot imagine being so bashful. So what? But to Arab men, its a social taboo and neurotic hangup.

Instead of use Saddams torture, Intelligence agents stripped Arab men and took photos. New arrivals, supposedly, were shown the photos saying cooperate or you will be humiliated like this. It was highly effective. Men who were toughened to pain could not stand to be humiliated, and they sang like pidgeons

The intelligence folks setup the lower soldiers to take the blame, were gone, and so it went. The hearings on the matter which I studied many times came out to show top intelligence folks "got away" so nobody high up was in trouble.

They used humiliation instead of torture, seems like a good choice, no?

 

[Astronuc]

The amendment, offered by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, shouldn't be the least bit controversial. It would prohibit "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" and firmly establish the current U.S. Army Field Manual as the guide for service members when they detain or interrogate prisoners.

I'd have to read the amendment, but there is a potential loophole if the amendment does not apply to any and all agents of the US government. If the law only applies to service members, then the administration can circumvent the law by allowing non-service members to do the interrogation (or torture). The Bush administration can also use mercenaries, which it has done in Iraq and Afghanistan because they are not contrained as are service members.

Indeed, it is troubling if the US government allows torture or any means deemed necessary, while promoting 'American values'.

Now I have heard several members of Congress express no regrets about the treatment of the detainees - the assumption seemingly being that the detainees are obviously terrorists! However, most of the detainees have been released - therefore I cannot believe that even the majority are terrorists.

Torture is unacceptable - period - and more so if the person is innocent.

To torture innocent persons puts the Bush administration in the same spot as Saddam Hussein and other dictators and terrorists.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ah, but perhaps God told him to torture prisoners if needed.

 

[loseyourname]

The White House has said that torture is not administration policy, so there is no reason to resist the legislative language clarifying for service members what is and is not acceptable.

If this is true, it doesn't sound like Bush will veto this, or that he has any problem with the amendment. (It's from your link.) I certainly hope that's the case.

 

[Anttech]

He has surpassed Adolf Hitler in crimes against humanity, torture, murder, and brutalities that cannot even be spoken of.

You must have a short memory! Hitler ordered and supported the genocide of all Jews killing 6,000,000! He Starting a World War and invading most of Europe, during which almost 60,000,000 people died! If you ever come to Europe, go to Auschmitz.

http://www.remember.org/jacobs/

Your statement is utterly ridiculous, and is offensive. (I hope you retract it)
Anyway if it is true, which it most certainly is NOT, how does that make The American Administration? The people who put him in power!

top intelligence agencies, actual James Bond 007 level groups figured out hey

007 level

 

[deckart]

This tops it, you guys are freakin fanatics.

 

[Astronuc]

This tops it, you guys are freakin fanatics.

No, just vehemently opposed to cruel and inhuman punishment and torture.

 

[pattylou]

The democrats/left should have supported the Iraq war 100%, even been demanding the US topple Saddam. It was shocking to observe people PROTESTING THE WAR? On what grounds?? Somebody call Ripley! but then HE wouldn't have believed it!

You seem to be forgetting, that many of the questions from the left before the supremely shortsighted and flawed invasion of Iraq, were things like:

Why Iraq and not North Korea?
Why Iraq and not Iran?
Will spending resources to promote democratic values abroad, hurt our *own* citizens?

The questions still stand, Brad. How far do you think we should go? SHould we just start nuking any country we think are inhumane??

Do you see any basic problems between this approach, and the ideals of democracy?

An answer would be appreciated.

 

[Gokul43201]

Instead of use Saddams torture, Intelligence agents stripped Arab men and took photos.

Okay, that makes them better than Saddam. Hooray !

 

[Andre]

About who was the biggest mass murderer, Adolf was a mere local gang leader compared to Joseph

 

[Berislav]

Bush favors torture

Odd. I never thought Bush was into SM.

 

[jimmie]

cruel and inhuman punishment and torture.

will always be possible so long as one particular nation holds politcal power to compete with an other particular nation that holds political power, and neither particular nation empowers the whole.

The current way is every nation/man for himself, with their attention always on the 'other' and never the one, always looking to the outside rather to the inside.

Any particular administration (nation/man) that intended to be "right" always scrutinized their own self first, and minded their own business ONLY. Only after their own business had been mastered (only import of materials that are NEEDED, only export of materials that are NEEDED), that particular nation was in the "right" position to do anything, including offering assistance to an other administration.

Any particular administration (nation/man) that intends to be "right" always scrutinizes their self first

and for all human history, I am not aware of ANY particular political nation that intended to be right. It simply was not possible. A system that allows multiple political powers forces every political power to monitor (allocate their attention/energies/monetary funds--see "Defense Budget") an "other" political power. In that type of system, no political power was free to vertically integrate their energies, free from competition or fear of loss.

When a particular political nation that had not mastered its own business intended to have a presence in any way in an other particular political nation that had not mastered its own business, the only ongoing process in that situation was the spreading of chaos, and the symptoms thereof (see Air Pollution, Associations, Borders, Careers, CO2 Emissions, Competition, Consumers, Corporations, Daily Extinction of Animal/Plant Species, Death, Debates, Disease, Fear, Free Offers, Gangs, Illegal Immigrants, Illness, Invasions, Legal Processes, Liberations, Losing, Loss-of-Habitat, Mergers, Non-Renewable Energy, Ozone Depletion, Peace Agreements, Permanent Members, Political Parties, Ratings, Reach Advertising, Rebates, Red-Tape, Religional Sects, Trade Agreements, Trade Sanctions, War, Water Pollution, Winning).

Let it be known: The current political situation everywhere on the planet is chaos; there is not one house in order, and the literal climate is indicative of that, whether (weather) or not the particular nations face the truth and accept it.

"Want" to rule the world? Rule your "self" first.

 

[BobG]

If this is true, it doesn't sound like Bush will veto this, or that he has any problem with the amendment. (It's from your link.) I certainly hope that's the case.

I can't imagine how Bush could veto it without trashing his image beyond repair. I'd consider the early Whitehouse comments to be a major blunder.

Now, the President gets to choose between looking like he's backing down or following through with a fight that will look insane to the average person. The Whitehouse would have to be incredibly creative in how they present their case if the President plans to veto the bill.

Just initiating this bill is a huge slap to the Bush administration. McCain dissed Frist with the 'Gang of 14' and now he's set his sights on stealing Republican leadership from Bush.

 

[Astronuc]

McCain Rules!

Just initiating this bill is a huge slap to the Bush administration. McCain dissed Frist with the 'Gang of 14' and now he's set his sights on stealing Republican leadership from Bush.

I hope McCain gains momentum. I guess we need pull out the McCain bumper stickers and placards.

I don't necessarily agree with all of McCain's positions, but I'd love to psych out the Bush administration. Muahhahahaaaaa!

 

[edward]

A slight hint of torture here

http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/2005-February/017518.html

Al-Jamadi died in a prison shower room during about a half-hour of
questioning and before interrogators could extract any information,
according to the documents, which consist of statements from army prison
guards to investigators with the military and the CIA's Inspector General's
office.

One army guard, Sgt. Jeffery Frost, said the prisoner's arms were stretched
behind him in a way he had never before seen. Frost told investigators he
was surprised al-Jamadi's arms "didn't pop out of their sockets," according
to a summary of his interview.

Frost and other guards had been summoned to reposition al-Jamadi, who an
interrogator said was not cooperating. As the guards released the shackles
and lowered al-Jamadi, blood gushed from his mouth "as if a faucet had been
turned on," according to the interview summary.

The thing that bothers me the most about the prisoners in Iraq was that most of the torture (or however you want to label it) was done to obtain information about the non existant weapons of mass distruction.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If this is true, it doesn't sound like Bush will veto this, or that he has any problem with the amendment. (It's from your link.) I certainly hope that's the case.

It's just more of the same. This is who they are. This is who the American people elected, twice!

The Bush administration fought tooth and nail against the amendment, claiming that it would tie its hands in the war on terror. Naturally, no administration spokesperson would say that they intended to treat terror suspects in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way, but that's what they mean. The administration has walked a fine line, claiming that techniques such as "waterboarding," forced nudity, "stress positions" and mock executions are legally permitted because they're not technically "torture" (a conclusion shared by few experts) and because they're still "humane" (a conclusion shared by practically no one) [continued]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-brooks8oct08,0,579902.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

The Bush administration is only against saying that it favors torture. But then this has been their game all along: Say what enough people want to hear and then do whatever they want.

 

[loseyourname]

It's just more of the same. This is who they are. This is who the American people elected, twice!

Well, the man is done at this point. Even Ann Coulter turned on him last night on Bill Maher's show.

 

[Gokul43201]

Well, the man is done at this point. Even Ann Coulter turned on him last night on Bill Maher's show.

And this from her website (Smurf, lookee here) :

I eagerly await the announcement of President Bush's real nominee to the Supreme Court. If the president meant Harriet Miers seriously, I have to assume Bush wants to go back to Crawford and let Dick Cheney run the country.

Unfortunately for Bush, he could nominate his Scottish terrier Barney, and some conservatives would rush to defend him, claiming to be in possession of secret information convincing them that the pooch is a true conservative and listing Barney's many virtues — loyalty, courage, never jumps on the furniture ...

 

[Astronuc]

This [Bush/Cheney] is who the American people elected, twice!

Well, only about 36% of eligible voters voted for Bush the second time, roughly 34% voted for Kerry, and about 30% voted Nader, someone else, or not at all.

Those % are based on US population of 174 million elgible voters (age 18 yrs and older), but only 122.3 million votes were cast.

So the majority of the population who are eligible to vote, did not want Bush as President, or at least not strongly so.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So the majority of the population who are eligible to vote, did not want Bush as President, or at least not strongly so.

I think your point is that Bush does not represent the heart of the American people, and I hope that you're right. However, the fact that these guys weren't tossed out on their butts or indicted on any number of criminal charges tells me that the system is broke. I mean really, this whole mess has been much worse than Watergate, but it seemingly went on with the consent of those in power and a significant percentage of the US population. So in mind the criminals aren't just Bush, Cheney, and Rummy, the list includes every Republican Senator and Congressman who supported him on any of twenty or thirty separate occasions.

 

[devil-fire]

im not surprised the bush administration is in favor of removing restrictions on any form of turture. at this point I am thankfull for not having to see in the news they are resuming chemical and biological weapons research, but then again there is still time left

 

[Anttech]

About who was the biggest mass murderer, Adolf was a mere local gang leader compared to Joseph

60 Million is way too many, the Red Army were totally brutal, but not in the effect of 60,000,000

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I hope McCain gains momentum. I guess we need pull out the McCain bumper stickers and placards.

Even as a Democrat [not really but in practice these days...] I would vote for McCain just to help ensure that the power in the Republican party shifts to a credible platform.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Even as a Democrat [not really but in practice these days...] I would vote for McCain just to help ensure that the power in the Republican party shifts to a credible platform.

Don't ever mistake McCain for a moderate. He is a social and national conservative, who looks attractive just because he's compared to the incompetent Bush regime.

If you really think of yourself as a Democrat, then don't fall for the hocum!

 

[EL]

Don't ever mistake McCain for a moderate. He is a social and national conservative, who looks attractive just because he's compared to the incompetent Bush regime.

If you really think of yourself as a Democrat, then don't fall for the hocum!

And don't mistake Democrats for moderates. Remember you live in USA...

 

[Smurf]

And don't mistake Democrats for moderates. Remember you live in USA...

Isn't that the worst thing about the states? They go around bashing Liberals but the truth is they havn't had anyone in office even close to being liberal in over a century.

 

[EL]

Isn't that the worst thing about the states? They go around bashing Liberals but the truth is they havn't had anyone in office even close to being liberal in over a century.

Don't they know that?

 

[Smurf]

Don't they know that?

Pfft, no. Havn't you seen the studies? Most Americans don't even know that there is any world at all outside of the US. As far as they're concerned what's "left" to them is left absolutely. Vice versa.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Oh please, we have more people standing in line at McDonalds than both of your country's populations combined. This is a huge place with political views from every culture found on the planet.

 

[Smurf]

Oh I'm sure they exist... just not in any significant quantities.

I'm not saying it's unique to the USA, although I would suggest that the USA is among the worst. Canada, especially the praries are just as bad as many parts of the states. Getting worse too.

 

[loseyourname]

Isn't that the worst thing about the states? They go around bashing Liberals but the truth is they havn't had anyone in office even close to being liberal in over a century.

You act as if there exists some absolute standard as to what constitutes a "liberal." The sprectrum is different for each country. Are you really that dense about the usage of language, or do you honestly think that whether or not somone is liberal is simply a matter of plugging their beliefs into an equation, and no American president in over a century has come up with the answer that falls into the set marked "liberal?"

 

[Smurf]

You act as if there exists some absolute standard as to what constitutes a "liberal." The sprectrum is different for each country. Are you really that dense about the usage of language, or do you honestly think that whether or not somone is liberal is simply a matter of plugging their beliefs into an equation, and no American president in over a century has come up with the answer that falls into the set marked "liberal?"

I was merely pointing out that, on a non-US centered scale, no American president could ever be considered liberal or left-wing.

Edit: Isn't there an absolute standard of "Liberal"? Say... the http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Liberalism" maybe?
Regardless, my post was more about the left-right spectrum than about liberalism since I consider ideologies to be more On or Off. You either are a liberal, or you arn't. There's no "is more/less liberal than.."

 

[loseyourname]

Regardless, my post was more about the left-right spectrum than about liberalism since I consider ideologies to be more On or Off. You either are a liberal, or you arn't. There's no "is more/less liberal than.."

You should be smart enough to know that that isn't the way the term is used in contemporary politics. If we went by the definition of classical liberalism, then Jefferson is the most liberal president we've ever had. In the US, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are used to denote people who are either left-leaning or right-leaning, with respect to what constitutes the center for the country, with "center" simply being the average political stance. It is something that changes with time, and it is also something that is a nation-specific definition.

 

[Smurf]

You should be smart enough to know that that isn't the way the term is used in contemporary politics. If we went by the definition of classical liberalism, then Jefferson is the most liberal president we've ever had. In the US, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are used to denote people who are either left-leaning or right-leaning, with respect to what constitutes the center for the country, with "center" simply being the average political stance. It is something that changes with time, and it is also something that is a nation-specific definition.

Yes. I am aware. I mean that, on a global scale, the US is among the most right-leaning nations in the world - passed mostly (or maybe exclusively) by dictatorships and developing nations.

I could easily say the reverse about Scandinavia... (except the "passed by dictatorships" part)

 

[ron damon]

Yes. I am aware. I mean that, on a global scale, the US is among the most right-leaning nations in the world - passed mostly (or maybe exclusively) by dictatorships and developing nations.

I could easily say the reverse about Scandinavia... (except the "passed by dictatorships" part)

Actually, America is the most liberal nation that has ever existed, the only country founded on the principles of individual liberty and the free pursuit of happiness. If you want to explore its intellectual roots, go back and read Locke, Hume, and Smith.

Its modern alternative, the Left, is a situation in which the State supersedes the individual and makes choices pursuant to his/her happiness (whether he/she likes it or not). In the conceptual spectrum, it points to the east/past. A dictatorship of any sort thus is infinitely more closely related to it, where a few make moral and subjective decisions that forcefully bind the rest, than to the US, where the power of the government to coerce private individuals is much lower. A measure of this is the share of the country's resources that the government appropriates.

Government expenditures as a share of GDP:

Canada 40.1%
Germany 49.4%
France 54.4%
Italy 48.5%
Sweden 59%
United States 35.9%

But then no argument would convince a Leftist, since his/her view of freedom is the ability to impose subjective judgements on others through government coercion.

 

[Anttech]

I could easily say the reverse about Scandinavia

And if you did you would be wrong :-)

Dont let the high taxes fool you, Denmark has a Center right coliltion party,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/1032760.stm

Norways center left party only just recently took power back from the center right goverment

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/1023276.stm

Anyway :-)

 

[Anttech]

But then no argument would convince a Leftist, since his/her view of freedom is the ability to impose subjective judgements on others through government coercion.

Not true... Again you seem to think that if you believe in social justice, rather than "corporate Justice" then you are a communist..

 

[loseyourname]

Not true... Again you seem to think that if you believe in social justice, rather than "corporate Justice" then you are a communist..

No, but if you believe that social justice must be imposed on a people by its government, giving the people themselves no choice in this matter, then you are at odds with the classical liberal position that men should be free to choose their own lives and do what they please with their property.

That isn't to say that your position is wrong (I am assuming that you do believe social justice should be imposed by the government), but unless every single person in a given society is freely willing to give up what they own to create social justice, then you must use coercive tactics, ultimately backed by the threat of force, to implement that justice.

 

[Anttech]

That isn't to say that your position is wrong (I am assuming that you do believe social justice should be imposed by the government

Actually I believe that the Legal system should "impose" this, not the "goverment" The two are not the same...

Social Justist, like human rights, fair and free trade.. etc etc, are not "imposed" on people per say, they are typically a legislative framework that Business and Goverment have to abidy by, and thus it "protects" people...

 

[Anttech]

Actually, America is the most liberal nation that has ever existed, the only country founded on the principles of individual liberty and the free pursuit of happiness.

This is very narror minded statement, how much reasearch have you done to come to this conclusion? America is no more "free" than any country in the EU... And some people might argue you are less free, I can't think of any other country in the EU that has something like Gutanamo bay, or a clause that allows people to be detained indefinetly without a hearing or trial... It could be interpreted as, you are free as long as you think the correct way!

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I can't think of any other country in the EU that has... a clause that allows people to be detained indefinetly without a hearing or trial.

I can. The UK. But only if you're forrun-lookin. That's not the law; that's just the practise. You can also execute forrun-lookin people without even any motive or extenuating circumstances to vaguely warrant it. The UK is also not averse to renditioning prisoners to countries where torture is allowed to extract information, or keep them out of the way, just like (though not to the extent of) the US. In fact, one of those countries is... the US!

51st state indeed.

 

[Anttech]

I can. The UK. But only if you're forrun-lookin. That's not the law; that's just the practise. You can also execute forrun-lookin people without even any motive or extenuating circumstances to vaguely warrant it. The UK is also not averse to renditioning prisoners to countries where torture is allowed to extract information, or keep them out of the way, just like (though not to the extent of) the US. In fact, one of those countries is... the US!

Total nonsence...

The Goverment of the UK is Trying to pass legislations to hold people without trail for 3 months (not indefinetly), which I doubt will get through!

It however Cannot currently deport people back to countries that have bad human rights records! This is becuase of EU Human Rights Law that the UK signed...

You can also execute forrun-lookin people without even any motive or extenuating circumstances to vaguely warrant it.

yes it looks like it, since the Brazilian got shot but legally they cannot do such things

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

The Goverment of the UK is Trying to pass legislations to hold people without trail for 3 months (not indefinetly), which I doubt will get through!

The 2001 Anti-Terrorist act allowed the UK to, among other things, detain foreign nationals on suspicion of terrorist acts or plans without charge indefinitely, and this act has been called upon a number of times. Yes, this is against the European Convention on Human Rights. So how did Blair get around that? He... uh... opted the UK out of that part (article 5). Did you know any of this? The legislation to which you refer is not what I could possibly have been talking about, since it has not been implemented yet.

It however Cannot currently deport people back to countries that have bad human rights records! This is becuase of EU Human Rights Law that the UK signed...

... and subsequently forgot about. There's two separate issues here:
1. deporting someone back to their country of origin where they may be persecuted;
2. renditioning suspects to ANY country, not necessarily their country of origin, for the purposes of interrogation in a way not legally feasible in the UK.

Issue one is generally not a terrorism issue, but an illegal immigration issue. The 1971 Immigration Act allows illegal immigrants to be deported back to their country and to be detained up until their deportation. The Human Rights Act does indeed prohibit a country in the EU from knowingly deporting someone to a country where they will be persecuted. These two acts often come into conflict, and only recently the government were found yet again guilty of erring on the side of recklessness: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4303892.stm.

The second issue is a global scandal. Renditioning is much more quickly associated with the US, but there is evidence that the UK have facilitated this evil practise. About a year ago The New Statesman published an interview with a Briton who was held, then released, on suspicion of terrorist affiliation, and then was arrested on the Afghanistan (I think) border by American authorities, reason unknown. From there he was deported to one of the US' favoured places of torture, I think t=his time it was Syria. He was eventually "rescued" by... ahem... the British who were very nice about the whole thing and probably gave him a cup of tea, but not the reason why the Americans would have thought to have arrested him. Now, I can't cite this article since it was in a magazine, but here's some related stuff, just so you know I'm not making this up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/file_on_4/4246089.stm
http://www.ihrc.org.uk/show.php?id=1309
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4088746.stm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0210-11.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1270541,00.html

yes it looks like it, since the Brazilian got shot but legally they cannot do such things

The home office and the met beg to differ. They maintain it IS legal.

 

[Anttech]

UK Legislation

After much debate, the UK Parliament passed the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act in December 2001.

The Act was intended to make it easier for law enforcement agencies to track terrorist funds and share information.

Most controversially, the Act grants the home secretary the power to detain suspected international terrorists without trial if deportation is not possible because it would endanger the suspects’ lives.

Since this provision violates Article 5 of the Human Rights Act, the home secretary had to assert that the UK is in a 'state of public emergency.' Article 5 guarantees the right to liberty and grants protection against detention without charge of trial.

In addition, communications companies will now have the power to retain information on calls and emails made by their customers, though they will not be able to retain their contents.

Liberty, a human rights group, legally challenged Britain's anti-terror laws in July 2002, claiming they breach human rights. Amnesty International has similarly asserted that the new laws breach fundamental human rights.

In total, 17 men have been arrested and held without trial in the UK under the new laws. Of these, 11 are still being detained.

Most are being held at Belmarsh Prison in London, which some human rights groups have termed “Britain’s Guantanamo Bay.”

Home Secretary David Blunkett has admitted that the situation is not ideal, but argues that it is necessary and “the best and most workable way to address the particular problems we face.” But in August, Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights called for an alternative to be found to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act’s internment powers, and said suspected terrorists should be charged and face trial rather than left in legal limbo.

However, just two detainees have so far successfully challenged their detention, with three Appeal Court judges deciding in August the government was legally entitled to hold 10 other men who appealed. Solicitors are currently attempting to overturn this decision in the House Of Lords.

I stand corrected... I was aware of this, but for some reason I was under the impression that people had to be "tried"

 

[loseyourname]

Actually I believe that the Legal system should "impose" this, not the "goverment" The two are not the same...

What country has a judiciary that is not part of the government?

Social Justist, like human rights, fair and free trade.. etc etc, are not "imposed" on people per say, they are typically a legislative framework that Business and Goverment have to abidy by, and thus it "protects" people...

"Legislative framework" presumably means laws. Laws are ruled that are imposed on a group of people by the government. They are enforced using the threat of violent action if one does not comply. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, but it does run contrary to libertarianism. You're just mincing words here to avoid using words like "coerce" and "impose," but that is what the government is doing. It is the only thing that a government can do. The classical liberal position (take Jefferson, for instance) is that the government should do this as little as is possible. For the most part, it should just get out of the way. The modern-day liberal position is the opposite; it states that government should intervene in just about everything.

 

[Anttech]

The modern-day liberal position is the opposite; it states that government should intervene in just about everything.

In a two party system like yours maybe...

What country has a judiciary that is not part of the government?

Is your congress the goverment?

 

[pattylou]

I've only got a minute - and haven't read through the last 2 pages so please forgive me if I am re-stating something.

Back to the OP -

I finally google-news'd this item, and WOW!

What's brought out the threat of the presidential ax is recent legislation stating clearly that U.S. soldiers must not torture prisoners. The overwhelming (90-9) passage by the Senate of Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain's sponsored amendment says clearly that the "cruel, inhumane or degrading" treatment of prisoners under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense was to be prohibited. The potential clash between the administration and Congress has received attention overseas - and was recently reported in the British paper, The Telegraph. According to the story, White House spokesman Scott McClellan warned that, "We have put out a Statement of Administration Policy saying that his advisers would recommend that he vetoes it if it contains such language [as has already been passed by the Senate]."

McClellan makes it sound like Bush will actually veto this thing. OMG.

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=1257

 

[ron damon]

Social Justist, like human rights, fair and free trade.. etc etc, are not "imposed" on people per say, they are typically a legislative framework that Business and Goverment have to abidy by, and thus it "protects" people...

The very concept that government should be pursuing something as ethereal, vague, and ill-defined as "social justice" is anathema to the very principles of personal freedom (and responsibility) that the US stands for.

Of course Europe is nothing but a long history of such projects, from pogroms, to state religions, to socialism, but America was founded by men fleeing from a government that would trample them for the pursuit of a "higher good".

David Hume wrote (I'm paraphrasing) that when thinking about how government should be set up, one must always assume that it will be run by scoundrels, and thus it should be given the less possible authority to interfere with individual liberties.

In Europe you operate basically under the opposite premise, thinking that the government can (and should) remedy every problem (real or imagined), and thus should be given ample authority to play around with citizens' lives as they see fit. A short name for that arrangement is authoritarianism (however democratic it may be).