RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] what waterboarding looks like [Politics]

["Hargus, Diana" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Mike Miller
>
>On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>
>> Jonathan King wrote:
>>
>>> There is evidently some question about whether 
>waterboarding is or is 
>>> not banned by recent legislation addressing how we can interrogate 
>>> and try certain enemy combatants (and what an enemy 
>combatant really 
>>> is, and that's very worrisome, because there are no hard standards).
>>
>> Let me address just this issue of what constitutes an enemy 
>combatant. 
>> I am not an expert on the Geneva convention by any means.  
>Being a US 
>> citizen incurs certain rights (due process, etc), and also 
>being a POW 
>> incurs certain rights (Geneva convention, etc).
>
>Does being a US citizen mean that you cannot be an enemy 
>combatant?  I don't know and am wondering about that issue.  
>OK, I guess a US citizen can be considered an enemy combatant...
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaser_Esam_Hamdi
>
>If someone is detained as an enemy combatant and habeas corpus 
>is suspended, how do we ever know that they are an enemy 
>combatant?  There is no trial.
>
>I often hear people say "look, these people are trying to kill 
>us -- why should we do things for them, like give them 
>hearings?"  The obvious answer is that we have not established 
>that they are trying to kill us -- that is merely a claim, and 
>it is a claim that should be tested in a hearing.  Who is Maher Arar?
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar
>
>What, except for public outrage, would stop the President from 
>claiming that some US Senator is an enemy combatant, 
>imprisoning that Senator and refusing him a hearing?  Instead 
>of telling me that is ridiculous, tell me how the *law* 
>prevents it from happening.

<sarcasm on>

Mike, how dare you question the authority of the Legislative branch to
usurp the powers of the Judicial...
If Congress wants to make unconstitutional laws and exempt them from
judicial review, and if the president signs them, then that is all that
matters; there is a 2/3 majority of the government branches, right?

<sarcasm off>
>
>Mike 
 
***********************
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: 
This e-mail and any attachments are intended only for those to which it is addressed and may contain information which is privileged, confidential and prohibited from disclosure and unauthorized use under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, or copying of this e-mail or the information contained in this e-mail is strictly prohibited by the sender. If you have received this transmission in error, please return the material received to the sender and delete all copies from your system.

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion