In an article in the New York Times today, lawyers representing the Obama administration told judges that a case alleging the US government was responsible for utterly horrific torture “could not be litigated” because it would “reveal state secrets.”
This event, if accurately reported by the NYT, should be taken as the very brightest of red flags.
The fifth amendment of our constitution says that “no man… shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself” – this is the clearest of prohibitions against using coercion to force a person to speak. The eighth amendment of our constitution prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments”. The sixth amendment says “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial”.
I cannot express how disappointed I am in the Obama administration.
#1 by futiledemocracy on February 9, 2009 - 6:25 pm
Quote
They really need to stand up and show who’s in power now. The Republicans are acting horribly bitter, as if they still run the show, and the Obama team really isn’t acting tough enough.
#2 by fyngyrz on February 9, 2009 - 6:33 pm
Quote
futiledemocracy,
Is this how you want them to show “who’s in power”?
#3 by towp on February 9, 2009 - 7:00 pm
Quote
Was this “victim” a non-uniformed combatant, if so he should have no rights afforded citizens
#4 by fyngyrz on February 9, 2009 - 7:35 pm
Quote
towp,
The constitution specifically requires the government to recognize that these rights accrue to people in general, and limits government action accordingly.
There are areas in the constitution where it specifies “the people” (where it does indeed mean citizens), and there are areas where it says “no person”, “the accused”, and where it is entirely broad, as in the eighth amendment.
These apply to everyone, regardless of citizenship or lack thereof. They specifically direct the government how it is authorized to proceed.
In the case of the 3rd, 5th, 6th 7th and 8th amendments, the rights laid out apply to everyone, not just citizens. Go read them; it is obvious that the amendments are written exactly that way.
#5 by towp on February 10, 2009 - 4:10 pm
Quote
OK lets try this one more time the constitution is fine but does not apply in this case–try the Geneva Conventions you really need to change your look at this situation.
#6 by fyngyrz on February 10, 2009 - 8:57 pm
Quote
towp,
The constitution was written to apply; you’re simply confused by the difference between legitimate authority, and unauthorized power.
Don’t feel bad; it’s an error the government wants you to make.
Our government does not magically obtain authority to become all-powerful outside its own borders; it still only has the legitimate powers authorized to it. Likewise, it does not magically obtain authority to do things outside its borders that are forbidden to it by its constituting rules. In a similar vein, our government cannot obtain powers forbidden to it as a consequence of a treaty with one or more other nations.
The constitution is the ultimate source of legitimate authority for our system of government. There’s no way around it. The constitution forbids these behaviors; therefore, the government cannot participate in them. That’s the end of the story for legitimate authority.
What you’re seeing here is unauthorized (and therefore, inherently illegal) exercise of power(s) that have not been granted to the government.
#7 by towp on February 11, 2009 - 7:55 am
Quote
I’m really sorry MY country has come to this. This “victim” is the peratrator and his act is not criminal but rather a paramilitary act your failure to see the difference is shame.
#8 by fyngyrz on February 11, 2009 - 8:14 am
Quote
towp,
First of all, it is not “your” country. It is “our” country.
Secondly, whatever the perpetrator did, our justice system is sufficient to deal with it without resorting to torture and rendition. I am not saying that people who assault our country, our infrastructure, our people should be allowed to get away with it.
The point is that when caught, the justice system (or the military equivalent) is the way to handle them. As opposed to sneaking around in foreign countries, slicing into their genitals with scalpels, and pouring caustic liquids into the cuts – which is one of the issues at hand for the case referred to above.
Both the civil and military justice systems are based upon the tenets of the constitution. That’s the authority the citizens have bestowed upon the government. That does not include torturing people, nor does it include giving a free pass to those who use torture for any reason. And that is an idea you really need to wrap your head around.
Paramilitary, military, or straight criminal, there’s no justification to be found here to subvert our own principles. None whatsoever.
#9 by towp on February 11, 2009 - 8:55 am
Quote
Your thinking I’m afraid in the long run will make My country “Their” country.
Someday you’ll have a little more life experience and understand that sometimes “ya gotta do what ya gotta do”
#10 by fyngyrz on February 11, 2009 - 8:57 am
Quote
We will agree to disagree, then.
#11 by towp on February 11, 2009 - 9:20 am
Quote
And that I can agree with.