The NYT has a remarkable story about a 29-year-old American working for an Iraqi contractor who became an FBI informant against them, only to have the FBI arrest him for working for the company. He was held as a POW (in the same prison holding Saddam Hussein) and abused for 97 days, denied an attorney, denied a phone call for two weeks, and “tried” before a group of military officials whose identities were kept secret. Even after the military admitted that they were holding him without cause it took 18 days to release him. Do you feel any safer now that we allow our government to do this to us?
Comments are closed.
Technically, the suspension of Habeas Corpus, and other Constitutional protections is supposed to apply to ‘enemy combatants’, which these guys were determined to be, until someone determined that they were not. But practically speaking, I’ve been feeling ‘unsafe’ ever since the Supreme Court of the United States voted to elect George Bush to be our 43rd President.
That’s a really strange story. I don’t understand why the military couldn’t confirm his status as an informant for the FBI more quickly. Might there be more to this? Or, as Yoda would say: “More to this, there might be.”
The answer, dear Judge would be evident had you ever spent any time in the military.
Was that not an amazing and heart-wrenching story?!?
To Judge Smails, the military didn’t want to confirm ANYTHING ’cause they would have then been ‘outed’ after the fact; and right before the all-important elections in ’06, which GOPers actually thought they were going to win.
What’s worse…one of the American sub contractors who was held and treated this way was a whistle blower who had exposed the corruption in the company including selling fire arms and ammo to the “insurgents.”
But then again…the bush administration is known to treat whistle blowers doing the right thing and exposing corruption in a harsh manner….maybe this is their latest whistleblower handling technique?
Buaa…Buaa…Buaa…
Are you guys baiting me? No, I’ve never been in the military. I think the draft ended the year after I was born.
Excuse me if I don’t immediately embrace the “facts” put forward in this NYTimes story. They’ve been wrong before and they’re inveterate haters of all things Bush, so, as lefties are fond of saying when it suits them, let’s not rush to judgment.
Oh, BTW Bubby, the S. Ct. didn’t elect Bush in 2000. When, precisely, was Gore EVER ahead in the final vote count in FLA? There was a count, a recount prescribed by law, and a couple more recounts not prescribed by law. When was Gore ahead? Never. Sorry, I guess you might call it an inconvenient truth.
The military puts personal rights well down the list of priorities, and their administrative infrastructure reflects that reality.
The people of the United States voted overwhelmingly for Al Gore in 2000. Disenfranchised voters in Ohio, Florida, and partial recounts will be a sad footnote to the meddling of the SCOTUS, whose vote ultimately selected the 43rd President. You know, activist judges.
@Bubby
Oh please, please put the Supreme Court vote conspiracy theory in the trash where it belongs. You’re making the intelligent centrists among us cringe.
Recounts were done by independent (including left-leaning) Miami and Florida newspapers after the election. Bush won. Maybe you didn’t hear about it because it didn’t suit their agenda to widely report it.
In case you fell asleep in High School Civics, the president is NOT elected by popular vote. So either you don’t know what the hell your talking about or confusing the issue with red herrings — I don’t know which is worse.
I served a long time in the military, Based on your attitude towards it, I don’t think you ever did.
“Overwhelmingly for Al Gore in 2000” huh? Are you sure that’s what you meant to write? He won the (largely irrelevant under our system) popular vote by half a million votes. By that standard, Bush’s popular vote margin over Kerry of like 3 million would be a freakin’ landslide.
Nobody was disenfranchised in FLA or OH, unless, of course, you’re talking about the military votes that Democratic attorneys took great pains to invalidate in the days after the election. Count every vote my ass.
It’s this kind of revisionist history that drives me crazy because after it’s repeated enough it becomes part of the national lexicon or popular culture, but it’s just crap.
A history lesson.
The margin in Florida — 1,784 votes for Bush — was close enough to warrant a recount, the result of which would decide the election. After running an automated recount of punch card ballots, Bush’s lead narrowed to 327 votes. Gore requested a manual recount of the ballots in three counties, as was provided for under state law. One of those counties announced that it would do so, resulting in a lawsuit by Bush to prevent that recount from occurring.
As the days wore on, the November 14 deadline for ballot certification loomed large, which led the secretary of state to waive that deadline. The Florida supreme court extended the deadline to November 26. Bush appealed that decision to the Supreme Court. Before that court could rule on the matter, the secretary of state declared Bush the winner of the race in Florida and, thus, the winner of the national election. On December 4, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the Florida supreme court’s decision. On December 8, the Florida supreme court ordered a manual recount of selected ballots. Bush appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, who agreed to hear the case and ordered that, in the interim, the counting cease.
In their ruling, the majority determined that no relief was available because the vote count could not be completed by December 18, the date that electors were to be named. But that deadline was a soft deadline — the majority well knew that nothing would happen if that deadline was not met, but chose not to acknowledge that, something that the minority decried.
So the votes were not counted, and the existing mid-count gap of 327 stood. Independent efforts were made by various media organizations to determine what the final count would have been. Some concluded that Bush would have won, while others concluded that Gore would have won.
They’re a couple problems, Waldo. Gore requested the recount only in 3 heavily Democratic counties. He was mining for votes in counties he knew the machinery was controlled by allies.
Please remember that the SCOTUS voted 7-2 (and not 5-4)that the use of different standards of ballot counting violates the Equal Protection Clause.
What of the hundreds? thousands? of military ballots invalidated by Al “Count Every Vote” Gore. That was despicable.
Finally, the vast majority of the media-run recounts found Bush prevailed. To insinuate that about half went one way and the other half the other way is disingenuous.
BTW, I can’t believe we’re re-fighting la debacle 2000. I was only about you’re age then, Waldo, so I know what it’s like to be handicapped by youth and inexperience. ;)
You seem to be confusing Vice President Gore with the court system. Al Gore was free to request recounts wherever he liked, as now-president Bush was free to ask for recounts wherever he liked. Al Gore could not invalidate ballots. Neither could his campaign nor his party. Only the court system could do that.
I must remind you that a 2001 investigation into those counted overseas ballots found that 27% were invalid, a result of “Florida election officials…facing intense GOP pressure to accept military votes.”
umm…while you’re all arguing over the 2000 election, you’re missing the real point. Bush and Rumsfeld are both criminals for their unconstitutional actions, and should face both criminal and civil charges for their behavior.