"duplicate topic," but it is not. It posts a different article, with a quote by Secretary of Occupation Robert Gates, which I wanted to comment on. Here'st the other OP, and my comment:
----------------------------------------------------------
Post by Amerigo Vespucci Fri Jun-13-08 07:28 AM
Original message
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3350834Mukasey says detainee ruling won't stop trials
Source: MSNBC
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court's decision on Guantanamo Bay will unleash a torrent of court filings from detainees seeking their freedom but won't affect the military trials planned for some terrorism suspects, Attorney General Michael Mukasey said Friday.
The Bush administration disagrees strongly with the high court's decision that the foreigners held under indefinite detention at the Guantanamo naval base in Cuba have the right to seek release in civilian court. President Bush said Thursday he would abide by the decision, but also said his administration was evaluating whether to respond to the court's ruling with new legislation.
In Brussels, Belgium, on Friday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he would reserve judgment on "what we ought to do next" at Guantanamo until he received briefings on the ruling.
"I have often said that ... we would like to close Guantanamo," Gates said. "I think that despite the fact that in many respects Guantanamo has become a state-of-the-art prison now, early reports of abuses and so on unquestionably were a black eye for the United States."Read more:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25137855 /
-------------------------------------------
My comment:
"...a black eye for the United States" --and beaten to a bloody pulp, drowned,....
electrocuted, injected with toxins, kept awake for days, kept standing for hours, deprived of food and clothing, overheated, frozen, hooded and shackled for long flights and other purposes, driven insane by indefinite detention without trial and by these and tortures we haven't heard about, cut off from all contact with the outside world for 3-5 years, and in some cases murdered--for the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay
and prisoners at known and unknown prisons and torture dungeons around the world.
Yeah, the only thing we should worry about is that this is a "black eye for the United States."
:puke:
-----
"President Bush said Thursday he would abide by the decision, but also said his administration was evaluating whether to respond to the court's ruling with new legislation."And our 'Democratic' Congress, which can't do enough to support unjust, heinous war, torture, and shredding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and numerous laws and treaties, and is ignoring a list of "high crimes and misdemeanors" long enough to circle the earth ("impeachment is off the table"--since when?), and refuses to defend itself as an independent branch of the government with the sole power to write our laws, allocate our taxes and declare war, and has an approval rating worse than Bush's, will do
what to stop this junta from defying the Supreme Court?
But we have to consider that this may be a shadow game. It really doesn't matter that the Supreme Court loftily grants basic human rights to unlawfully detained prisoners after 3 to 5 years of torture and detention without charge. Some are dead. Many have permanently destroyed psyches. All have been grievously injured. For all we know, most--maybe all--are completely innocent of even the slightest of "crimes" (i.e., such as picking up a rifle when their country was being invaded), some are children, and some, we know, were SOLD to the U.S. military by warlords and drug traffickers. And NONE can be tried in any decently constituted court of law. None!
How dare we "try" them after this? How dare we? It is simply outrageous.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al, accomplished their purposes--whatever they were--and are going scott free after egregiously violating the Constitution of the United States, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Geneva Conventions, and other laws, and after committing mass murder, mass mayhem and massive thievery in two countries.
The damage and the horror have been done. And now that the bloated, war profiteer corporations and the super-rich seem to have decided to put a nicer face on the U.S. Imperium for a while--possibly to get back into South America to destroy their democracies, grab their oil and stop their awesome social justice and regional independence movement--and now that the Bush Junta's purposes in hunting down, torturing and killing anyone along the Al Qaeda/Bush Cartel money trial (my read on their true purpose at Guantanamo Bay and other torture dungeons) have been accomplished--our Corporate Rulers have to be a little worried that a Democratic president might, a) seek prosecution of these war criminals, or b) "pack the Supreme Court" (as FDR tried to do--add justices to better reflect the majority opinion in the country), or c) legislate against the Corporate Rulers on matters of corporate power--or in other ways push back against a fascist Court.
So-o-o, the Court has to try to appear to be independent of the Bush Junta, and put on a show of being all Constitutiony and lawful. (Remember who shredded Florida's election laws, to put Bush/Cheney in power in the first place--never forget!).
We may cry for joy or relief because, hey, the U.S. Supreme Court actually ruled against horrendous presidential lawlessness--too late, much too late. But what happens when a good president--like, say, FDR--tries to enact a critically needed economic reform--say, Social Security--and it encroaches upon corporate slave labor "rights" or corporate PROFITS OR corporate rule?
Not much chance that Senator Barack "win/win" Obama will put up much of a fight for the powerless against the overwhelming power of corporations and war profiteers, but let's say he does. Let's say he seeks to throw the insurance industry out of health care, or outlaws mercenary armies.
They need to write a new narrative in which the Supreme Court is an independent branch of government and
stands up against presidents and congresses, in order to
stop a Democratic president and congress from helping
the people. Is that what this is? More fascist bullshit in disguise? When was it
ever lawful to suspend habeas corpus? Why jump in
now and say, "Oops!"?
:puke: