Cafferty: Torture, anti-habeas corpus, Bush-pardoning Bill

[centurion180ad]

We are the nazis.

I don't care what that God damn bill says, and neither should you. Abuse of POWs is a capital crime and will remain so with no statute of limitation, no matter what that crime gang and their whores write down on their own little pieces of paper.

[veggie786]

cant this guy be charged for war crimes now.

im sure saddam did similar, bush is still a war crminal...

[BloodNGutts]

Sure he can but Congress has no balls.They fear Bush running to a camera pointing his finger at them and saying you don't support the troops. They might not get reelected if they are not spinless pussys In their bought off little brains.

[2tall4Ub4]

"When the power of love over comes the love of power, the world will know peace"

~Jimi Hendrix~

[billeatsnatchnrack]

wow... that basically sums up everything that is necessary to know

[neil5568]

There is no American King. A fundamantal proposition of Anglo-Saxon liberty is that NO-ONE is above the law. The English Parliament cut King Charles' head off for thinking he was above the law he was meant to and had sworn to defend.

[brianlaw1888]

how did bush manage to to turn americans into a race of people who no longer believe in cival rights ,and are willing to part with the liberties they have left ,very soon they will be tearing up thier constitution and thier bill of rights ,one look tells you that bush is a liar ,its written on his face ,how could they be so dumb .

[VictorLaszloLives]

Americans are not a "race of people who no longer believe in civil rights". Many of us are fighting very hard to hold the ground. We have rebounded from worse times, and we will again, because patriots still live. Many have been in denial, but the masses are awakening. The United Kingdom is also going through many of the same issues, sacrificing liberty for a false sense of security. Don't live in denial, liberty can only be held by constant vigilance. Defend freedom at all times!

[bostonbruins4]

George W Bush is the Real War Criminal, He is just another Hitler Wannabe Dictator, set on taking over the world one Oil rich country at a time....

[TeamCannabis]

The Bush government is a disgrace to humanity, a law unto themselves. The crimes have been committed,i.e. Abu Graib,Guantanamo,secret CIA prisons.With the cloak of immunity and the magic wand of executive privelege, they still feel the need to cover their asses,for when the real truths are finally exposed. They hold the rights of Americans in as much distain.

[Damnrepublicans]

The Emperor Wears No Clothes

by Jack Herer

[awakenedstate]

Torture or inhumane acts of pows is illegal by international law. What we did is pass a law stating unlawful or "enemy combatitants" are not afforded those rights. Who is an unlawful combatitant? Anyone, including Americans, not guilty, only suspected. No due process, no habeus corpus. So, in effect anyone a kangaroo court decides can be tortured. This goes even beyond what is morally wrong with POWS, because now it includes just about anyone the government feels.

[UncleIrv]

Ridiculous leftist propaganda. Nothing but. If you believe this shit, you're an idiot.

[bombdrop91]

If you think bush is a god president,YOU ARE A FUCKING RETARD!

[awakenedstate]

Propoganda? It either is or isn't. The fact is the bill pardons himself for war crimes so that he may continue to do them.  Tell me how this is propoganda.

[UncleIrv]

The entire claim of "war crimes" has no legal grounds. Those prisoners were never under the Geneva Convention; this was just the "big lie" of the left. The Supreme Court decision is limited and has no retroactive power (NO court decision EVER acts retroactively---this is Constitutional Law 101---you idiots!). The media propagandists repeat the lie because they know it will hurt Bush politically, even though it's frivolous.

[ricketsons]

"No court ruling is ever retroactive..."

So, that means I can kill someone, and as long as a court hasn't convicted me BEFOREHAND, I'm not guilty. Great!

Read your fricking Constitution. It's CONGRESSS that can't pass retroactive legislation. The idea of a "retroactive" court ruling is nonsense, because they don't change the law, they only interpret it.

[UncleIrv]

If you're too stupid to understand the meaning of "retroactive" in this context, then I won't justify your post with a serious response.

Your analogy is the work of a feeble mind.

[turborewind]

Now we know who the real terrorists are

[KingLuchieus]

yes

[metalinstatic]

Bush, neo-cons, and the so called Christian Coalition whom took away good conservatism

[jerm001]

HOW DO U PARDON YOURSELF?

[dfoofnik]

You say, "excuse me for voting Democrat, but I grew up without any intellectual stimulation and believed anything that bolstered my own uninformed opinions."

[dfoofnik]

Okay, Olbermann and Cafferty are about as unobjective as you can get. It's easy to convince people who are too stupid to do their own research...or thinking. That's why every wacko, off-the-wall idea plays well to the Democratic kook fringe. Thank God I'm GOP.

[batguano]

Just a question: Do you trust Bush 100%? 90%? 80%?

[batguano]

Democratic kook fringe now in charge of House and Senate. Wacky! And now sane, moderate types like Sanatorum have to find other ways to save the braindead...

[metalinstatic]

Let me guess your an EVILgelical

[peacepirate]

9/11 was in INSIDE JOB!! Wake up America! You are looking at fascism and a dictatorship! greetings from Germany!

[batguano]

9/11 was the result of Bush incompetence. We are awake. Check back after Nov. 7. Love, America.

[peacepirate]

I just hope things will get better. But I am affraid voting for the democrats will not be enough. It just shows that the majority of America is still asleep. I can asure you that 9/11 was not only due to incompetence of Bush. Go and see 9/11 press for truth,

9/11 mysteries, Everybody`s gotta learn sometime, Evidence to the contrary or who killed john o´neil! You will see what I mean.

peace.

[batguano]

I'm really starting to suspect that this is a message to not vote, a mind-fuck engineered by Republicans to keep those who'd vote against them away from the polls. How's that for a conspiracy theory?

[peacepirate]

i would say you have nothing to back that theory up! Apparently you dont seem to have watched one of those vids. Go and vote for the democrats but also do some research for your own regarding 9/11.

[Nathantok7]

Even conservatives like me hate this bush guy.

[Willy7124]

You seem to ignore the "except as provided in...the Detainee Treatment Act." That act allows detainees to bring suit in the federal district court. It restricts the right to sue, it doesn't eliminate it.

[batguano]

Spin it anyway you want, but it's just another grab at unconstitutional power by the executive branch.

[desspec]

Did you read what the "except as" refers to in the Detainee Treatment Act? Saying it restricts the right to sue is like saying drowning restricts the ability to breathe.

[Willy7124]

Before everyone gets all worked up... this same video is posted somewhere else and we figured out that Cafferty isn't being honest. There's no pardon or immunity in the bill.

[CeleryBlink]

Well, Willy7124, you all were wrong.

[Willy7124]

I'm not wrong. There is no pardon or immunity in the bill. The bill sets up standards against torture and says those apply to future cases--but violations can still be prosecuted and a jury can decide. There's no retoactive immunity.

[CeleryBlink]

sec. 1004.

[Willy7124]

sec. 1004 isn't in this bill. It's in an act passed LAST YEAR. The new bill just modifies it. And even with the modification, you can STILL be charged and tried by a jury. That means its not a pardon. It just means you can defend yourself by saying:

- What you did was officially authorized

- You believed what you did was LEGAL

- A jury of reasonable people believe what you did was LEGAL

You can still be convicted!

[CeleryBlink]

Sorry, I was refering to the Warner-McCain-Graham bill which referenced 1004 on pg. 82, line 12. As far as S3930 goes see SEC. 6. HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS

[Willy7124]

Yeah, I know the text refers to sec.1004 of the Detainee treatment act. But it still allows convictions. There is no pardon in either bill. I've read the habeas corpus section, and that certainly is bad. But it's not a pardon for torture--it just prevents a detainee from suing to be released. That's bad, but we can still convict those that torture or use inhumane treatment.

[CeleryBlink]

Read starting here to the end carefully:

(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of

section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien detained by the United States who...

[Willy7124]

You seem to ignore the "except as provided in...the Detainee Treatment Act." That act allows detainees to bring suit in the federal district court. It restricts the right to sue, it doesn't eliminate it.

[CeleryBlink]

Paragraphs 2 and 3 of 1005(e) are ammendments to US Code Section 2241 of title 28, saying almost the exact same thing as the latter part of Sec. 6 in S. 3930, referring back to itself as a whole as exception, then it gets complicated because I believe there are ammendments to 1005 in S.2930 and...

[CeleryBlink]

I would have to see how US 2241 of title 28 applied with the ammendments added, then see how 1005 was ammended in S. 3930 to determine it 1005 allowed for prosecution of war crimes, which it doesn't seem to do, but which S.3930 seems to pardon for.

[Willy7124]

Sen. McCain's take: "Some critics of this legislation have asserted that it gives amnesty to U.S. personnel who may have committed war crimes since the enactment of the War Crimes Act. Nothing--nothing--could be further from the truth.... The specificity that the bill provides to the War Crimes Act--and its retroactive effect--will actually make prosecuting war criminals a realistic goal. None of my colleagues should object to that goal." He is as anti-torture as they come.

[CeleryBlink]

I've seen plenty of other commentary that backs up my argument from mainsteam sources as well as lawyers, but I grant that lawyers may come to different conclusions. I don't feel like becoming one to debate this and my impression of McCain is he sold out. I've never thought he was all that great anyway.

[Willy7124]

Having experience with legislative analysis myself, I am certain that Cafferty and the people who have copied his rant are blowing it out of proportion. There is definitely NOT an amnesty, pardon, or immunity. I think anyone who looks at the bill can see that. How the "protection" will play out in front of a jury is subect to interpretation, I guess. But I agree with McCain that the specific enumeration of inhumane acts will help convict war criminals in the future.

[CeleryBlink]

I think the bill is a total disaster, undermining our American ideals in many ways, making things worse for us in the long run, and unconstitutional as well. I don't think the MSM made a big enough deal of it; they would rather keep us distracted with cop killers and missing white women. I think the Democrats have been acting link a bunch of spineless cowards and the Republicans have sold their souls to the devil.

The future doesn't look promising.

[metalinstatic]

say Willy didn't you know that those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them ie: Japanese internment camps

[Willy7124]

I think you might misunderstand me. There are many problems with the Military Commissions Act, but a presidential immunity is NOT one of them. It's just not there.

By focusing on non-existent provisions, opponents of the bill lose legitimacy. It also distracts from the provisions that ARE objectionable (like the internment camps you're talking about).

I don't support the act--but I think we need to understand it to oppose it.

[metalinstatic]

Okay let me put it to you this way Bush pupoesed that the U.S. outsource dock security to the UNITED ARAB EMERITES. It didn't take long for the populus to reject that, they didn't need to understand it to oppose it so why should we even give it a thought I have some faith in the system but not enough to give up my ability and RIGHTS to question it for a little bit of security.

[Willy7124]

You're totally right that we shouldn't allow our rights to be stolen for "security." But we should deal with real threats to our rights, not imagined threats to our rights. If we're swatting flies that don't exist, we won't be able to tackle the tigers coming at us.

Also, I think you misunderstand the UAE port deal. It wasn't a threat to our security--and it was essentially racism that the Bush administration eventually rejected it.

[metalinstatic]

wow! yes it was about racism but so was the Japanese internment and so IS IRAQ. My point isn't that there is a loophole for the pres. but that this is not an civil and humane thing and should be taken seriously yes there are other things that have passed that strip the american civil rights for instance read the fema charter particularly the part about creating internment camps in times of civil unrest. So what america is already a fascist dictatorship.

[Willy7124]

I totally agree with you and have from the start--detaining individuals without trial and without the benefit of habeas corpus is not a civil and humane thing. This Act should be taken seriously. But we should take it for what it is, not what Cafferty wrongly imagined it to be. Cafferty only talks about pres. immunity--which isn't a real provision. That's all I've said--we shouldn't fight imaginary demons, but rather the real demons confronting us.

[metalinstatic]

Come on think about it man, habeus corpus created in 1215 A.D. has endured for so long because it is the humane and proper way to deal with the "bad guys" think of all the people executed that were innocent just this year in your country given your life is at stake I sure as heck would want that.

[Willy7124]

I don't disagree with you! Habeas corpus rights are an important and long-standing part of our legal system and should be preserved. The Act DOES restrict these rights, and I am opposed to that. It's wrong. The provisions restricting habeas corpus need to be repealed! Liberty, justice, and due process should never be sacrificed for security.

All I'm saying is that there is NO "presidential immunity." It's not in the bill! We should focus our efforts on REAL provisions!

[metalinstatic]

But if the populus does not focus on the phatom threat of presidential pardon they lose focus. Karl Rove and other fascists proved that the only way to mobilize the base (mindless minions ie: EVILgelicals) was to create a phantom enemy whom seems invincible but in reality is easily contained with basic diplomacy ie: muslim fundamentalists