What the US Supreme Court really thinks about detainees
Stardate 5528.3
We already know how much Alberto Gonzales likes torture. In fact, he has time and again suggested that any changes to the way detainees, POWs or whatever you want to call them (depending on which side of the fence you sit on) should exempt CIA agents and their counterparts. He has helped defend the policies of abuse and mistreatment by US forces suggesting that they are necessary for the safety of the US people, even though intelligence gained by the means of torture has been proven to be sketchy at best.
Now we have Justice Antonin Scalia suggesting during an unpublicized March 8th talk, that these detainees should indeed, have no rights. He blasts Europe for their hypocritical reaction to the gulag at Gitmo. Naturally, Scalia's arguement is so full of BS that I had to stop myself from choking myself at his idiocy. When he was questioned about detainee rights at his speech, he went on about how war is war, and enemies captured on the battlefield belong in Gitmo. They have no rights. No jury or trial. Why? Because his son fought in Iraq, and if guys are shooting at his son (in their own country mind you) then they deserve no trial if captured.
So basically, the US is at war. However prisoners captured in this war are not actually prisoners of war. So they are not covered by the Geneva convention or any other human rights policies. Nice. The level of stupidity in the US arguement against giving these detainees humman rights and timely trials is growing on a daily basis. I don't know which is harder to choke down... their excuses or the defending of them by some people in the US.
Mr. Scalia... I pray that if YOUR son is captured by enemy forces, they afford him the rights and conventions set out by international law. It would be a lot more than you would be willing to do for them. One thing he said rings very true with me however... and that was "there may be no end to this war".
In a related story, who is deciding the legality of the Gitmo tribunals? Well, that would be the US Supreme Court.
We already know how much Alberto Gonzales likes torture. In fact, he has time and again suggested that any changes to the way detainees, POWs or whatever you want to call them (depending on which side of the fence you sit on) should exempt CIA agents and their counterparts. He has helped defend the policies of abuse and mistreatment by US forces suggesting that they are necessary for the safety of the US people, even though intelligence gained by the means of torture has been proven to be sketchy at best.
Now we have Justice Antonin Scalia suggesting during an unpublicized March 8th talk, that these detainees should indeed, have no rights. He blasts Europe for their hypocritical reaction to the gulag at Gitmo. Naturally, Scalia's arguement is so full of BS that I had to stop myself from choking myself at his idiocy. When he was questioned about detainee rights at his speech, he went on about how war is war, and enemies captured on the battlefield belong in Gitmo. They have no rights. No jury or trial. Why? Because his son fought in Iraq, and if guys are shooting at his son (in their own country mind you) then they deserve no trial if captured.
So basically, the US is at war. However prisoners captured in this war are not actually prisoners of war. So they are not covered by the Geneva convention or any other human rights policies. Nice. The level of stupidity in the US arguement against giving these detainees humman rights and timely trials is growing on a daily basis. I don't know which is harder to choke down... their excuses or the defending of them by some people in the US.
Mr. Scalia... I pray that if YOUR son is captured by enemy forces, they afford him the rights and conventions set out by international law. It would be a lot more than you would be willing to do for them. One thing he said rings very true with me however... and that was "there may be no end to this war".
In a related story, who is deciding the legality of the Gitmo tribunals? Well, that would be the US Supreme Court.
posted by Zaphod at 7:56 AM
<< Home