The headline of [http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1111-03.htm|a recent article] at NYT now available over at CommonDreams.org says it all:
Senate Approves Limiting Rights of U.S. Detainees
That's a headline written by NYT not CommonDreams.org, btw.
What's wrong with limiting the rights of US detainees if they're out to kill us?
There's this old document that the United States was founded on--you may have heard of it--it's called The Declaration of Independence. In it, a group of wacky white guys agree that all men are created equal.
They didn't say all American men--they said "all men."
Those same wacky white guys also said that all men had certain inalienable rights that could not be denied without a just and fair trial.
So you tell me how it's OK to limit any human's rights. Oh, the USG tells us these guys want to harm America? Great--um, you want to prove it to me in a court of law like those wacky white guys wanted?
I'm convinced that most CEOs of many corporations are causing serious damage and even death around the world, but would I think it's fair to torture those CEOs? Imprison them without trial? Even take away some of their rights?
Of course, not.
But that's just what the USG has decided to do.
Here's exactly what [http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1111-03.htm|that article] from NYT said the USG did:
The Senate voted Thursday to strip captured "enemy combatants" at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, of the principal legal tool given to them last year by the Supreme Court when it allowed them to challenge their detentions in United States courts.
The vote, 49 to 42, on an amendment to a military budget bill by Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, comes at a time of intense debate over the government's treatment of prisoners in American custody worldwide, and just days after the Senate passed a measure by Senator John McCain banning abusive treatment of them.
So, torture bad, but indefinite imprisonment OK?
Meanwhile, the woman I might have voted for in 2008 has done something to force me to make up my mind now not to vote for her--according to [http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/644798.html|an article] at HaaretzDaily.com, Clinton has apparently decided that giant wall the Israeli government is building is AOK with her. The problem is that the wall is essentially a tool of a new apartheid in Israel and occupied Palestine. Oh yeah and that "occupied" part? That's a violation of at least a couple UN resolutions, but we won't go into that. Here's what [http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/644798.html|that article] says about Hillary:
U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton said Sunday that she supports the separation fence Israel is building along the edges of the West Bank, and that the onus is on the Palestinian Authority to fight terrorism.
"This is not against the Palestinian people," Clinton, a New York Democrat, said during a tour of a section of the barrier being built around Jerusalem.
"This is against the terrorists. The Palestinian people have to help to prevent terrorism. They have to change the attitudes about terrorism."
Uh-huh, so it's OK to punish every Palestinian for the actions of a few?
And while we're on the topic of Israel, what's the deal with their nukes? Everyone's freaking out about Iranian nukes, but Israeli nukes are OK? I've got nothing against Jewish people, just confused as to why Israel gets nukes and gets to violate a bunch of UN resolutions, but it's Iraq and Iran that gets in trouble for it.
Yes, I know Israel is essentially the 51st state, I just wish we could start calling it that.
I mean, why should we trust that Israel has great judgement when it comes to dealing with nukes but assume that Iran doesn't? Hell, the USG has screwed up royally in a number of different ways in the past... oh, since Bush moved into the White House--and America is the most powerful nation on Earth. If we screw up, what are the odds Israel won't?
Of course, we trust Israel to not screw up--but Iran? No way. Which is why the USG is freaking out again when [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/13/international/middleeast/13nukes.html?ei=5094&en=1cf163da1b519f36&hp=&ex=1131858000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print|another article] from NYT tells us how an Iranian laptop has popped up with loads of evidence of Iran's nuke missile program on it's hard drive. Of course, the United States Government is the source for this story, so whether it really has evidence of nuke missiles on it or is just a fabrication is anyone's guess. (Remember the yellowcake from Niger forgeries? Say, who did forge those docs, anyway?)
So, pardon us, Bush 43 Administration, when we don't believe you at all when anything at all comes out of your mouth.
Iraq WMD!
Osama in Afganistan!
Taleban vanquished!
Iraqi Freedom!
Israel cool with nukes!
Iran with nukes very very bad! Look, I've got a laptop to prove it!
Meanwhile, if you need more proof of American leaders peeing all over the American flag and the beliefs stitched into her stripes, [http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1304888|an article] from AP.org available over at ABCNews.com reports on Bush slamming anyone critical of the Iraquagmire. Check out this line of shit:
President Bush strongly rebuked congressional critics of his Iraq war policy Friday, accusing them of being "deeply irresponsible" and sending the wrong signal both to America's enemy and to U.S. troops.
"The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges," Bush said in his most combative defense yet of his rationale for invading Iraq in March 2003.
This anti-dissent stuff is getting out of countrol. Iraq is a mess and everyone knows it. Bush needs to get back on his meds ASAP. Is their no one left in the USG who can stand up and do the right thing?
Here's more from that article:
Bush's speech was part of a coordinated White House effort to bolster the president's waning credibility and dwindling support for the war, in which more than 2,000 U.S. troops have died.
As casualties have climbed, Bush's popularity has dropped. His approval rating now is at 37 percent in the latest AP-Ipsos poll, an all-time low point for his presidency.
"When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support," Bush said in a Veterans Day speech at Tobyhanna Army Depot.
"While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began."
Isn't that getting old, too? The way Republicans dodge the issue by pointing out that Democrats voted for the war, too?
Yes, George, I agree with you--the Democrats were WRONG, TOO.
They should be impeached right after they're done impeaching your lying ass.
All that last quote from him does is boil down to a "you started it!" argument.
We've got a 12-year old in the White House.
Yes, of course, Bush's comments were challenged by Democrats and even other Republicans, but I find it all too little, too late. Two-thirds the number of people who died on 911 is the number of USGIs who have died in Iraq. Are we going to see a full 3000 USGIs dead to avenge the deaths of 3000 American citizens?
Any true conservative can see how totally screwed the US is right now.
A true American fights for the rights of ALL humans regardless of their race, creed, color or anything else.
This is anything but what our leaders in Washington DC are doing.
Oh yeah, and those same humans are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law--PERIOD.
Again, not what's going on...
No comments:
Post a Comment