The act.

The US Senate has passed controversial legislation endorsing President George W Bush's proposals to interrogate and prosecute foreign terror suspects.

why?

The legislation is a response to a Supreme Court ruling in June that the original military tribunals set up by the Bush administration to prosecute detainees were in violation of American and international law.

Questions:

Is that democracy? Break the law till someone protests and if they do just change it?

The supreme court ruled that the prosecution of detainees was in violation with international law. Is it suddenly ok now?

Is this another step to alienate the world by the USA?



also:
The bill forbids treatment of detainees that would constitute war crimes - such as torture, rape and biological experiments - but gives the president the authority to decide which other techniques interrogators can use.

Ever heard of fascism?

"This bill gives an administration that lobbied for torture exactly what it wanted," said Senator John Kerry.

I guess the philosophy is, if there's a need, allow it. If the's no need, create one.

i believe john mccain endorsed it.

edit
check out this video on the C-SPAN website (requires realplayer)
Congressional Republicans News Conference on Detainees

i believe john mccain endorsed it.


Who is that?

Who is that?
senator from arizona.
held and tortured for 5 years as a prisoner of war during vietnam.

edit.
this might be of some relevance:
http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=NewsCenter.ViewPressRelease&Content_id=2456

Is that democracy? Break the law till someone protests and if they do just change it?

Interesting comment, Spurious. And isn't that precisely what you've been preaching here about illegal drugs? About changing the law that was passed by congress to go to war against Iraq? About changing the laws to take away our guns? What else? I'm sure that there are other similar cases that you've posted about where you want to change the law, right?

Or are those ONLY things that YOU want ....and all others are bad?? :)

Baron Max

Or are those ONLY things that YOU want ....and all others are bad?? :)


Yes. Obviously. Didn't you know?

Yes. Obviously. Didn't you know?

Yeah, I suspected it, Spurious, but I had hoped that you were above that sort of thing. I guess not.

Baron Max

Yeah, I suspected it, Spurious, but I had hoped that you were above that sort of thing. I guess not.

Baron Max

Yes, I am also sorry to hear you prefer fascism above what I think it good.

Yes, I am also sorry to hear you prefer fascism above what I think it good.

Facism? How so? Did we change forms of government while I was banned unjustly? Or is this just another one of your methods of throwing out any terms that you want to throw off the discussion of the topic?

Baron Max

Facism? How so? Did we change forms of government while I was banned unjustly? Or is this just another one of your methods of throwing out any terms that you want to throw off the discussion of the topic?



No, you already threw the discussion off topic.

This is just gettin' ridiculous now ....no reason to continue the discussion since you obviously can't answer my original points on the topic.

Thanks, Spurious, for showing me your true nature.

Baron Max

yes, just fuck off troll so the grown ups can discuss something.

BACK ON TOPIC

Is that democracy? Break the law till someone protests and if they do just change it?

Isn't that what protestors do all the time? Isn't that what they want when they protest in the streets?

And if so, if you don't want congressmen to do the same, what are you asking of them exactly?

Ever heard of fascism?

Yeah, but what does that have to do with anything?

Baron Max

BACK ON TOPIC



Isn't that what protestors do all the time? Isn't that what they want when they protest in the streets?

No. People have the right to protest. In some occasions the protesters have to file for a permission to protest. All according to the law. No laws are broken. Jesus, you really are an ignoramus.





Yeah, but what does that have to do with anything?

Yes, the american educational system has produced another failure.

The President and Congress clearly have the power to do this. The question is whether they have the right. They were both elected by people of whom (at the time) a majority supported their broad intentions to create a government that verges close to a dictionary definition of fascist. Fascist governments can be created by a democracy just as easily as socialist governments or theocratic governments can be, if that's what the voters want.

However in a constitutional democracy the additional question remains as to whether their power is granted by constitutional authority, or just populist manipulation of a temporarily undereducated populace. The judicial branch of the government is supposed to sort that out. Judges who are appointed for life have the advantage over legislators who must be reelected every two to six years and executives who can serve no more than ten, when it comes to chastising the electorate for being distracted by an endless series of "crises" into forgetting the Constitution.

Unfortunately the U.S. citizenry has been beguiled by populist, manipulative governments for seventy years. Every sitting judge was appointed by one of those governments. Both those judges who are labeled "liberals" and those labeled "conservatives" are ultimately "authoritarians" who believe that only a powerful, bureaucracy-bloated, GDP-siphoning, many-layered structure of government can give Americans the lives which they in their wisdom know, better than we, that we deserve.

America is a signatory to the Geneva convention. Until Congress formally announces our intention to withdraw fom that treaty, our government is legally obligated to abide by it. The President and Congress are at least skirting with--and in the eyes of many of us over the line into--illegality by enacting these new laws that violate the spirit of that treaty if not the letter.

The Supreme Court is supposed to step in and declare those laws null and void. The voters are supposed to gradually toss out of office all the legislators and eventually the President who make a mockery of the Constitution.

Is either of those things going to happen? Until they do, then the answer to the question posed by the originator of this thread is, sadly, "Yes."

The President and Congress are at least skirting with--and in the eyes of many of us over the line into--illegality by enacting these new laws that violate the spirit of that treaty if not the letter.

didn't you read the link i gave?
for example:

I would like to take a few moments to describe some of the key elements of this legislation.

“As is by now well known, Senators Warner, Graham, and I have resisted any redefinition or modification of our Nation’s obligations under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. We did so because we care deeply about legal protections for American fighting men and women, and about America’s moral standing in the world. More than 50 retired military general and flag officers expressed grave concern about redefining our Geneva obligations, including five former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I would like to submit for the Record letters from General Colin Powell, General Jack Vessey, and General Hugh Shelton, and a letter signed by dozens of former officers. These men express one common view: that modifying the Geneva Conventions would be a terrible mistake, and would put our personnel at greater risk in this war and the next. If America is seen to be doing anything other than upholding the letter and spirit of the Conventions, it will be harder, not easier, to defeat our enemies. I am pleased that this legislation before the Senate does not amend, redefine, or modify the Geneva Conventions in any way. The Conventions are preserved intact.
http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=NewsCenter.ViewPressRelease&Content_id=2456

pay particular attention to the last sentence fraggle

The President and Congress clearly have the power to do this. The question is whether they have the right. They were both elected by people of whom (at the time) a majority supported their broad intentions to create a government that verges close to a dictionary definition of fascist. Fascist governments can be created by a democracy just as easily as socialist governments or theocratic governments can be, if that's what the voters want.

However in a constitutional democracy the additional question remains as to whether their power is granted by constitutional authority, or just populist manipulation of a temporarily undereducated populace. The judicial branch of the government is supposed to sort that out. Judges who are appointed for life have the advantage over legislators who must be reelected every two to six years and executives who can serve no more than ten, when it comes to chastising the electorate for being distracted by an endless series of "crises" into forgetting the Constitution.

Unfortunately the U.S. citizenry has been beguiled by populist, manipulative governments for seventy years. Every sitting judge was appointed by one of those governments. Both those judges who are labeled "liberals" and those labeled "conservatives" are ultimately "authoritarians" who believe that only a powerful, bureaucracy-bloated, GDP-siphoning, many-layered structure of government can give Americans the lives which they in their wisdom know, better than we, that we deserve.

America is a signatory to the Geneva convention. Until Congress formally announces our intention to withdraw fom that treaty, our government is legally obligated to abide by it. The President and Congress are at least skirting with--and in the eyes of many of us over the line into--illegality by enacting these new laws that violate the spirit of that treaty if not the letter.

The Supreme Court is supposed to step in and declare those laws null and void. The voters are supposed to gradually toss out of office all the legislators and eventually the President who make a mockery of the Constitution.

Is either of those things going to happen? Until they do, then the answer to the question posed by the originator of this thread is, sadly, "Yes."


The US is a Republic, it always has been.

pay particular attention to the last sentence fraggleLeo, your post gives hope.The US is a Republic, it always has been.TT, by following the strange, thread-clogging convention of reprinting my entire post while adding only nine words of your own, you don't give me a good clue as to what you're referring to. If you're suggesting that a republic is not governed by the same rules as a democracy, the universal dictionary-for-dummies definition of "republic" is "representative democracy." The voters elect a body of more-or-less professional governors to translate their will into the day-to-day mechanics of the governing process. As a practical matter the republican form is inevitable in a democratic community of more than a few thousand extremely well educated citizens with lots of spare time.