Responding to your post. My new comments are all behind the arrows:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Forgot to respond to this one. Too sleepy last night. Here goes:
"I didn't question anyone's motives (possibly their wisdom, though)"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, I didn't.
This regarded the besmirching comment. Like I said, nothing wrong with criticism, but it must be about specific wrongs and not just hysterical fear mongering. In your own answer you state " "No basis"... well, that's in dispute"
What is the basis?!?!? I would like to talk about it, but since you cannot define it I say that I have a point.
Re: "stating that our military will not give a fair trial"
"A - I didn't"
So do you agree there is no basis for this? Leahy stated rather strongly early on that it was unconstitutional. Was he lying, mistaken or correct? If he was anything other that correct his criticism had NO BASIS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, I didn't. My comments are my own. I don't know about anyone else's comments (like Leahy's... I didn't even listen to his statement). So, I so can't agree or disagree with anything you say Kennedy, Leahey, et al, said.
"You don't allow much constructive criticism in your world, do you? Not even discussions between citizens within a democracy about how that democracy works"
Not true. I personally have not seen it posed as discussions between citizens (or gov't officials). I have seen it portrayed as an executive power grab designed to undermin our civil liberities. In one of you CATO postings I saw a well written paragraph about the issue that was laid out as reasonable discussion. Unfortunately that is not the style of Leahy or Kennedy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we're not just two citizens sitting down and chewing the fat, I don't know who is.
"I think one important thing to realize is that the RULES mentioned so far by our A.G. for these 'tribunals' appear to be quite different than those for a standard military courts martial."
There are no rules set yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Correct, no rules yet. But the PRESIDENT laid out some procedures in his order to set this process up... and those procedures are (so far) very different from the 'standard' military tribunal. That's what I was referring to. So, in criticizing THOSE proposed procedures (contained in the President's authorization) it can not be implied that anyone is criticizing the military's normal legal system. Two different things.
I thought the AG did a pretty good job explaining that this was a military matter and not the repsonsibility of the Justice Department, but that he would be GLAD TO HELP OF ASKED. Sounds so reasonable that I don't see how anyone could have a problem. Leahy did not seem to realize this was a military matter either, whcih gave the impression that this was just an opportunity to roast the AG.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only problem I had with what he said was the part in his written statement where he implied that anyone who criticized his views was treasonously 'aiding the enemy'. That's still totalitarian crap - in my view. The biggest way to 'aid our enemies' is to attack free speach and democracy, because those are our greatest strengths. I'd say he gave more 'aid and comfort to our enemies' than any poor schmoo who argues whether a detainee should or should not be given a lawyer....
"Perhaps the President or A.G. will clarify this (today, for example, was the first day they ever said that there could be ANY KIND of judicial review for these 'tribunal' cases), much is yet unexplained, time will tell"
Again, this is not the AG's job. President Bush has given himself the OPTION of having Tribunals and aske the DoD to draw up the rules. Asking what the rules are is constructive. Suggesting what rules should be is constructive. Blasting rules that are not even formulated and grilling a guy who has nothing to do with them is DESTRUCTIVE. Makes us look like a dysfunctional family to our enenmies imo.
"But imagine this: A 'trial' (show trial, anyone?) where your 'lawyer' is provided to you by the same agency that provides the prosecutor, where the government can exclude any evidence that it wants to on 'national security' grounds"
Imagine someone declaring war on the US from foriegn soil and killing thousands of our citizens and that WAR CRIMINAL getting the exact same rights as a US citizen. Also imagine up to 1,000's (hundreds at least) of Al Quida terrorists bent on destroying our nation clogging OUR courts for the next 10 or more years. It was also quite interesting that our court system has a 90% conviction rate, NYC courts have a 97% rate and Tribunals from the past have an 85% rate. Makes the argument that they are more likely to convict a little silly. And it is a HUGE INSULT to insinuate our military leaders are not honest.
And - I thought you were FOR the tribunals.
"when they hold phonied-up 'show trials' in the future"
You just made my point on the insult. Is this what you think of our military and it's leaders? These are the views expressed by a FEW demos and it fits with what Ascroft said about aiding our enemies. Our own politicians questioning the integrity of people that have more integrity than ANY KENNEDY has EVER displayed. Particularly the one who killed an innocent woman he was cheating on his wife with. They kick you out of the military for that!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Er, you didn't read my post closely enough. I asked you to imagine that show trial in some future FOREIGN country (China, etc.) The point was that they would be able to deflect our criticizm of THEIR behavior, if we do not scrupulously apply the principles of fair play now..
"But apparently you and I disagree on what makes America strong"
Not so. This is true: " I say free speech and democracy (and our constitution and free markets) is what fundamentally makes us strong". Very true.
And I agree with "And that if we turn away from our 'most perfect union' we will only be defeating ourselves", AND particularly this "No external enemy can truly defeat us, only we can do that".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Then we agree on the most important things.
Where we differ is that I think Leahy's and Kennedy's actions do hurt us (and aid the enemy). You have shown no reason why they have not, but have loudly said that our constitution is "being trashed". Its fun talking with you, but I still have not seen an example where this is being done. Only flambouyent allegations that are not true from Leahy and friends. You acknowledge yourself that you don't even know what they have said.
"I'm not familiar with their comments or thoughts - only my own"
And I am still not sure what specifically YOU think has been done to "trash" our constitution. As I said, I will back you if you can show me where it has been done. |
