It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
in a one-line ruling, let stand a lower court decision that declared torture an ordinary, expected consequence of military detention, while introducing a shocking new precedent for all future courts to follow: anyone who is arbitrarily declared a "suspected enemy combatant" by the president or his designated minions is no longer a" person".
And still further: Barack Obama has now declared, openly, of his own free will, that he does not consider these captives to be "persons." They are, literally, sub-humans. And what makes them sub-humans? The fact that someone in the U.S. government has declared them to be "suspected enemy combatants." (And note: even the mere suspicion of being an "enemy combatant" can strip you of your personhood.)
But William Fisher noticed, and gave this report at Antiwar.com:
In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal Monday to review a lower court’s dismissal of a case brought by four British former Guantanamo prisoners against former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the detainees’ lawyers charged Tuesday that the country’s highest court evidently believes that "torture and religious humiliation are permissible tools for a government to use."
Channeling their predecessors in the George W. Bush administration, Obama Justice Department lawyers argued in this case that there is no constitutional right not to be tortured or otherwise abused in a U.S. prison abroad.
The Obama administration had asked the court not to hear the case. By agreeing, the court let stand an earlier opinion by the D.C. Circuit Court, which found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act -- a statute that applies by its terms to all "persons" -- did not apply to detainees at Guantanamo, effectively ruling that the detainees are not persons at all for purposes of U.S. law.
The lower court also dismissed the detainees’ claims under the Alien Tort Statute and the Geneva Conventions, finding defendants immune on the basis that "torture is a foreseeable consequence of the military’s detention of suspected enemy combatants."
The Constitution is clear: no person can be held without due process; no person can be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. And the U.S. law on torture of any kind is crystal clear: it is forbidden, categorically, even in time of "national emergency." And the instigation of torture is, under U.S. law, a capital crime. No person can be tortured, at any time, for any reason, and there are no immunities whatsoever for torture offered anywhere in the law.
And yet this is what Barack Obama -- who, we are told incessantly, is a super-brilliant Constitutional lawyer -- has been arguing in case after case since becoming president: Torturers are immune from prosecution; those who ordered torture are immune from prosecution. They can't even be sued for, in the specific case under review, subjecting uncharged, indefinitely detained captives to "beatings, sleep deprivation, forced nakedness, extreme hot and cold temperatures, death threats, interrogations at gunpoint, and threatened with unmuzzled dogs."
Again, let's be absolutely clear: Barack Obama has taken the freely chosen, public, formal stand -- in court -- that there is nothing wrong with any of these activities. Nothing to answer for, nothing meriting punishment or even civil penalties. What's more, in championing the lower court ruling, Barack Obama is now on record as believing -- insisting -- that torture is an ordinary, "foreseeable consequence" of military detention of all those who are arbitrarily declared "suspected enemy combatants."
This definition as contained in the approved version of the Act, is substantially broader than that included in an earlier version (PDF), according to which a person so designated must also be
(A) part of or affiliated with a force or organization-including but not limited to al Qaeda, the Taliban, any international terrorist organization, or associated forces-engaged in hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents in violation of the law of war;
(B) to have committed a hostile act in aid of such a force or organization so engaged; or
(C) to have supported hostilities in aid of such a force or organization so engaged.
According to the definition approved by the Senate, you don't even have to be part of a terrorist organization. Nor does your "hostile" act have to be done to aid such a force; nor do you have to have supported such acts. Nor do you have to be in violation of the "law of war." Nor is there anywhere in the act where the term "hostilities" has itself been defined. For example, is an anti-war activist an unlawful enemy combatant? What about an American journalist who publishes leaked information damaging to the Bush administration? What about an anti-Bush blogger? In short, the definition is broad (and vague) enough to include any American citizen who is acting in a way the President deems "hostile" to the United States. As such, it is difficult to imagine a single piece of legislation with greater potential to undermine freedom and democracy in America.
Originally posted by habu71
Is there a link to the original decision instead of a blog?
Chris Floyd (1958, Watertown, Tennessee, United States) is an American journalist and author best known for his blog of political news and commentary, Empire Burlesque. Floyd's writing has also appeared in CounterPunch, the The Ecologist, Anderson Valley Advertiser, The Nation, the Columbia Journalism Review, The Christian Science Monitor, the Baltimore Chronicle, the Bergen Record, and Truthout.org, among other publications. His November 2002 story, "Into the Dark: The Pentagon Plan to Foment Terrorism," was chosen as one of Project Censored's "Top 25 Stories of 2002/2003."
Floyd's work has also been anthologized in Media Democracy in Action: Censored 2004, and the I Hate Republicans Reader. A selection of articles from his blog were published as a collection, Empire Burlesque: High Crimes and Low Comedy in the Bush Imperium, 2001-2005.
The Holder Justice Department continued its quest to keep the Bush Administration’s program of extraordinary renditions out of the public eye with oral argument before the en banc Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday. So far the district court bowed to the government’s request to toss the suit out of secrecy concerns, while an appeals court panel saw through the government’s threadbare arguments and reversed, ordering the case to go to trial. The government responded by asking for the entire court of appeals to look at the question.
Thus, what the Justice Department is asking of the Court of Appeals is extremely radical. It proposes to deny the right of individuals to seek compensation for claims that include torture and abuse—claims that they are permitted to bring under U.S. law, and which the government committed to allow them to bring by signing and ratifying the Convention Against Torture. Barack Obama delivered a ringing reaffirmation of those principles in Oslo last week. But Douglas Letter and his team are working feverishly to make President Obama into a liar. You’ll scan their briefs in vain for any recognition of the international commitments the United States has made not to torture, not to “disappear” individuals by holding them outside the course of law, and to hold government actors who engage in such criminal conduct to account for their misdeeds. Letter is working to subvert each of these commitments, and he starts by ignoring the fact that the commitments were ever made.
I may run for president of Texas
Posted: March 09, 2009
1:00 am Eastern
On Glenn Beck's radio show last week, I quipped in response to our wayward federal government, "I may run for president of Texas."
That need may be a reality sooner than we think. If not me, someone someday may again be running for president of the Lone Star state, if the state of the union continues to turn into the enemy of the state.
From the East Coast to the "Left Coast," America seems to be moving further and further from its founders' vision and government.
George Washington advised, "The great rule of conduct in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations [and] having with them as little political connection as possible." Yet the Obama administration just pledged $900 million in U.S. taxpayer-funded aid to Hamas-controlled Gaza and Mahmoud Abbas' Palestinian Authority.
The Report specifically mentions the following political beliefs that law enforcement should use to determine whether someone is a "rightwing extremist"?:
* Opposes restrictions on firearms
* Opposes lax immigration
* Opposes the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship and the expansion of social programs
* Opposes continuation of free trade agreements
* Opposes same-sex marriage
* Has paranoia of foreign regimes
* Fear of Communist regimes
* Opposes one world government
* Bemoans the decline of U.S. stature in the world.
* Upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India
* . . . and the list goes on
The Law Center is asking the court to declare that the DHS policy violates the First and Fifth Amendments, to permanently enjoin the Policy and its application to the plaintiffs' speech and other activities, and to award the plaintiffs their reasonable attorney's fees and costs for having to bring the lawsuit.
Originally posted by joey_hv
Hitler was a conservative.
Taliban is conservative..yeay Uber conservatives.
"We are socialists, we are enemies of todays capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler
(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)
Hitler was intent on having a community of mutual interest that desired mutual success instead of one that was divided over the control of money or differing values.
THE COMMON INTEREST BEFORE SELF-INTEREST -
THAT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE PROGRAM. BREAKING OF THE THRALDOM OF INTEREST - THAT IS THE KERNEL OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM.
Adolf Hitler's Speech at the
1927 Nuremberg Rally
Our fellow party member Rosenberg began his speech by saying that it is critical for a nation that its territory correspond to its population. As he put it so well: "The nation needs space." How well we know that the fulfillment of this sentence has guided and determined the fate of our nation for many centuries. We know further that, save for a relatively short period of German history, we have not succeeded in the task. The question confronts us today as insistently as ever: No government, of whatever kind, can long escape dealing with it. Feeding a nation of 62 million means not only maintaining our agricultural productivity, but enlarging it to meet the needs of a growing population. This is true in many areas. We National Socialists maintain that industrial production is not the most important in terms of the future of the European peoples. In coming decades it will be increasingly difficult to increase production. It will reach a dead end as the governments that presently do not pay great heed to industrial production over time give themselves to industrialization.
Originally posted by joey_hv
Een your signature is long winded.
Originally posted by joey_hv
I will have to say Obama got this one right.
Amazing. He is a conservative when it comes to terrorizers. How cool is that!?