Text 14542, 114 rader
Skriven 2008-04-24 09:07:35 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
  Kommentar till text 14493 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: Guantanamo
==================
24 Apr 08 07:31, Robert Bashe wrote to Roy Witt:

 RB> Roy Witt wrote to Robert Bashe on Tuesday April 22 2008 at 17:27:

 JD>>>> However, those prisoners were sent there because it is NOT US
 JD>>>> territory, and thus not subject to US law...

 RB>>> Roy's wrong on this one, and you're right.

 RW>> Sorry, but you're wrong here. As a leased piece of land with a
 RW>> military base on it, it becomes a US protectorate.

 RB> Not anymore than US bases in, say, Turkey or Germany.

Those are different circumstances. Both are sovereign nations, not
protectorates of the US.

 RB>  A "protectorate" is something more than a mere lease - even a
 RB> perpetual lease - for a military base.

According to the Cuban/American lease of Guantanomo, the US was initially
the protectorate of Cuba. That changed around 1934 when Cuba was given
the freedom to govern herself.

 RW>> So far, you've agreed with everything I've said, including that
 RW>> military law applies there.

 RB> Except for the "protectorate" business.

I've had to clear that up for you...Cuba was different than the examples
you gave.

 RB>>> That was the whole purpose of putting prisoners there, since they
 RB>>> could otherwise have had recourse to US law. And the purpose of
 RB>>> calling them "enemy combatants" was to make sure no rights under
 RB>>> the Geneva Convention could be claimed.

 RW>> Which is also in agreement with what I've said.

 RB> I understood you differently, but if that's what you meant, we
 RB> certainly agree.

This is where the Military Commissions Act of 2006 came into play.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006

 RW>> WW2 prisoners of the European war were kept behind barbed wire
 RW>> fences and they were there for an indefinate period of time.

 RB> But the Geneva Convention applied to them as prisoners of war.

That doesn't mean that the Conventions were followed. The Battan Death
March stands out among lesser acts of cruelty violating the Conventions.

 RW>> Back then, we didn't have the wacko left giving rights to those who
 RW>> don't deserve them.

 RB> The Geneva Convention applied then as now.

I understand that. But the Conventions don't apply to non-uniformed enemy
combantants.

 RB> Defining people as "enemy combatants" allows Mr. Bush to ignore it,

It can't just be Bush, he has to have backing by Congress and the USSC.
The Military Commissions Act of 2006, passed by both houses of Congress
and signed into law by Bush, gives him that. Everytime Bush does something
the whacked left doesn't like, they bitch about it, but support him with
legislation anyway.

 RB> as he ignores other things - for example the requirement that
 RB> wiretaps in the States must be judicially approved (in cases of
 RB> national interest by a secrret judge).

Again, he can't do that on his own. Without the cooperation of Congress,
he's a lame duck.

 RB> Frankly, I think a lot of matters have gone past the point where only
 RB> the "wacko left" objects.

A lot of people object...but a lot more realize what is reality. As long
as there's a 'terrorist' threat, at least we've been safe from it all
because Bush is not afraid to act. I admire him for that. I hold the left
in contempt because they want to do as the Europeons do. And you know
about the unrest in Europe (especially France), so I don't have to tell
you about it.

 RW>> Most recently, they've supported a woman's right to say no during
 RW>> consequential sex and if the man didn't stop right away, he can be
 RW>> charged with rape. One person has already been charged with rape
 RW>> under these circumstances because he took 5 seconds after the
 RW>> woman's request to stop. As a man, you know it's not that easy to
 RW>> abruptly stop that activity.

 RB> True. The question is how things this extreme will stand up in court,
 RB> particularly when medical testimony confirms the physical difficulty
 RB> of compliance.

When you have two women prosecutors explaining this situation, you never
hear the man's part of it. Or if they mention it, it's only in passing. I
haven't followed up on it since first hearing about it, but it would be
interesting to see if the physical difficulty part was ever presented.

 RB> But this is something quite different from the goings-on we were
 RB> discussing above.

Yeup...just more to chew on.

                R\%/itt



--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)