|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 7:39 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
The US is nothing like the South American dicatorships.
And Gitmo isn't a gulag nor do prisoners have it so bad there. and Gitmo isn't just a legal problem but also a national security problem.
The US is still a very tolerant and free nation and also the US did many of the same things and perhaps even more during other wars. |
American PEOPLE are generally very tolerant and free when compared to other countries. I think the actions of the American GOVERNMENT are at odd s with the American PEOPLE. I see a huge difference between these two entities nowadays.
I've never been to Gitmo so I can't comment. Have you been there?
I'm not suggesting America is a dictatorship. If steps 9 and 10 occur, I would have a hard time not considering it to be a dictatorship. |
American is still one of the most free nations in the world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Canada under the Liberals was much closer to a dictatorship than is the US. Britain has much more stringent surveilajce and lesser trial provisions than does the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
The US is nothing like the South American dicatorships.
And Gitmo isn't a gulag nor do prisoners have it so bad there. and Gitmo isn't just a legal problem but also a national security problem.
The US is still a very tolerant and free nation and also the US did many of the same things and perhaps even more during other wars. |
American PEOPLE are generally very tolerant and free when compared to other countries. I think the actions of the American GOVERNMENT are at odd s with the American PEOPLE. I see a huge difference between these two entities nowadays.
I've never been to Gitmo so I can't comment. Have you been there?
I'm not suggesting America is a dictatorship. If steps 9 and 10 occur, I would have a hard time not considering it to be a dictatorship. |
American is still one of the most free nations in the world. |
i agree with you joo.
could you imagine a situation occuring in the US that would make 9 and 10 true?
and if that occured, would you be worried or would you consider it necessary? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| American is still one of the most free nations in the world. |
In what other nations can:
- the president have you sent away indefinitely with no representation, hearings or trial?
- the government intercept any and all of your electronic communications with no warrant?
- can your daily behaviors be monitored without a warrant?
just to name a few...
I await your list, with specifics. Oh, and we're talking OECD nations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
keane"
| Quote: |
In what other nations can:
- the president have you sent away indefinitely with no representation, hearings or trial?
- the government intercept any and all of your electronic communications with no warrant?
- can your daily behaviors be monitored without a warrant?
just to name a few...
I await your list, with specifics. Oh, and we're talking OECD nations. |
[/quote]
During wartime? I would guess most of them.
Compare US laws to South Korea's national security law. South Korea is an OECD. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
The president cannot send American citizens away. Point in issue John Walker Lindh.
What are you hiding that the government would want to read? Your last post, perhaps?
Your daily behavior has always been opening to monitoring, if the authorities want to expend the effort. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| contrarian wrote: |
| The president cannot send American citizens away. Point in issue John Walker Lindh. |
I suggest you read the MCA and the Patriot Act, because you are wrong. Joo has made this claim before. He was wrong, too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo was right. I am right. Keane is a bit dull and wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| contrarian wrote: |
| Joo was right. I am right. |
Prove it, boy.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15220450/
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/12/04/061204fa_fact?currentPage=3
| Quote: |
This time, Graham sought to ban habeas cases by the detainees at a moment when Congress was considering a host of other legal changes pertaining to their treatment. Under the Administration�s initial plan to hold military trials at Guant�namo, evidence obtained through torture could be admissible. Graham, along with his Republican colleagues John Warner and John McCain, rejected that notion and proposed an alternative. The Bush Administration responded by offering several concessions, including allowing detainees to see all the evidence against them and outlawing the use of evidence that had been obtained by torture or �cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment��a change meant to assure compliance with the Geneva Conventions. (In the final version of that measure, however, the three Republican legislators agreed to let the military determine whether the conventions had been violated, a significant concession to the Bush Administration.)
In light of these new rules for trials at Guant�namo, Graham thought that the habeas-corpus filings by the prisoners should stop. �My goal was to create some form of due process that was not as invasive as a habeas trial, because I do believe they impede the running of the jail,� he said. Graham proposed that rulings against the detainees be appealed only to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. (His legislation thus avoided the district court for the D.C. Circuit, which has generally looked more favorably on detainee claims than has the court of appeals.) In Graham�s view, the court of appeals is an adequate substitute for habeas corpus. �The way I read what the Supreme Court said was that, if there was no system in place to decide someone�s confinement status, you had to let them file habeas petitions,� Graham said. �But I think if you give them the D.C. Circuit, that�s enough. That�s a legitimate alternative. Arlen disagrees. He thinks it�s a constitutional right to file a habeas case. I think our statute gives you enough. That�s what Specter v. Graham is about.�
----------
�That�s just ridiculous,� Specter told me, referring to Graham�s position. �Graham�s legislation does not allow the D.C. Circuit to make any fact-finding at all about what happened to the detainees and whether they are, in fact, enemy combatants. It�s not a �streamline� review; it�s no kind of review at all.� The legislation will almost certainly come before the Supreme Court, but it�s impossible to know whether the Court will uphold it. �The D.C. Circuit would have to be an adequate and effective judicial remedy for reviewing the lawfulness of any detention, because that�s the basic definition of habeas corpus,� Gerald L. Neuman, a professor at Harvard Law School, said. �The law itself isn�t very clear about what the D.C. Circuit should do.�
When Specter learned that Graham, with the Administration�s support, was trying to ban the detainees from filing more habeas cases, he did everything he could as chairman of the Judiciary Committee to stop the idea, including filing an amendment to the bill. With just a few days� notice, he convened a hearing on the plan to strip the courts of jurisdiction in the detainees� cases. The session took place on September 25th, a Monday morning, a time rarely devoted to Senate business.
The scene in the hearing room of the Dirksen Senate Office Building anticipated, in a small way, the spirit of rebellion that would animate the electorate seven weeks later. The session began with bipartisan expressions of outrage at the Administration�s (and Graham�s) plan. �It is inexplicable to me how someone can seek to divest the federal courts of jurisdiction on constitutional issues, just inexplicable to me,� Specter said in his introductory remarks. �If the courts are not open to decide constitutional issues, how is constitutionality going to be tested?� Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat, spoke next. �Today we�re addressing the single most consequential provision in this much discussed bill,� he said. �This provision would perpetuate the indefinite detention of hundreds of individuals, against whom the government has brought no charges and presented no evidence and without any recourse to justice whatsoever. That is un-American. This is un-American.� At that moment, a group of protesters wearing T-shirts saying �Shame,� �End Torture,� and �Save Habeas Corpus� rose from their seats and cheered.
Specter rebuked them gently. �There will be no demonstrations from the people in the room,� he said. �We want you to be here. We want you to listen. But that�s out of order.�
----
With barely concealed rage, Sullivan lectured Senator John Cornyn, the Texas Republican who was defending the Administration�s position at the hearing. �The question is whether they are enemy combatants. And when they started out in these hearings, these C.S.R.T.s, they were presumed guilty. There had already been a finding they were enemy combatants. The determination had been made. No witness or evidence was presented by the government. They would call in and they�d say, �O.K., Mr. Cornyn, here�s the charge against you. What have you got to say about it?� That was it. That was all that they did. And then they put in some classified evidence. I�ve been down to the secure facility. It�s a joke. It�s a sham.�
----------
In introducing the C.S.R.T.s, in 2004, the Department of Defense announced that, as part of the process, �detainees will also be notified of their right to seek a writ of habeas corpus in the courts of the United States.� Because of the new bill, this will no longer be the case. �You�re talking about people who have been in custody for four years, some of them haven�t even been questioned in two years, and the C.S.R.T. is all they have got in terms of a hearing, and it�s all they�re likely ever to get,� Sullivan said. �Their only hope was habeas, where the government would have to justify in some way why they�re being held year after year.�
---------
Kyl asserted that �the consequences of the Specter amendment are unimaginable. We cannot allow enemy war prisoners to sue us in our own courts. Such a system would make it simply impossible for the United States to fight a war.� But Specter had an answer. �Mr. President,� he said, addressing the chair. �I only need one sentence to refute the arguments of the senator from Arizona, and it comes back to Justice O�Connor�s opinion again: �All agree that, absent suspension, the writ of habeas corpus remains available to every individual��every individual��detained within the United States.� Guant�namo was held to be within that concept. But she talks about �every individual.� That includes citizens and noncitizens.�
The outcome of the Specter amendment was in doubt until the day the vote was cast. The final tally was fifty-one to forty-eight against Specter. (Olympia Snowe was absent, attending a funeral.) When the result was announced, Specter, visibly angry, left the Senate chamber. He told reporters that he thought the habeas ban was �patently unconstitutional� and vowed to vote against the detainee bill.
In the chaotic few days before the vote, the Administration�s allies in the Senate had toughened the habeas provision of the law. The bill had originally applied only to alleged enemy combatants who were held at Guant�namo. The final version stated that any alien (that is, non-American citizen) who had been seized anywhere and charged with being an enemy combatant would be denied the right to petition for habeas corpus. The definition of �enemy combatant� was also expanded, to include not just those who took up arms but financial supporters of the terrorist cause as well. Accordingly, the bill made clear that aliens arrested in the United States and charged with knowingly giving money to an alleged terrorist organization would be forbidden to sue for their freedom.
Nevertheless, on September 28th, Specter joined all his Republican colleagues (except Lincoln Chafee) in voting for the Military Commissions Act, which passed by a vote of sixty-five to thirty-four. President Bush signed the law on October 17th, and the next day the government began filing court papers asking for the dismissal of all the petitions for habeas corpus filed by detainees at Guant�namo Bay.
It is hard to believe that the Arlen Specter of the nineteen-eighties�the maverick who defied his party on an issue of the magnitude of the Bork nomination�would have considered yielding on a question as fundamental as habeas corpus. �I was madder than hell when the habeas-corpus amendment went down and was a little hot and spoke prematurely on the vote,� Specter told me. �If we had not passed the bill, we would be going on into next year without having a procedure to try these people.� Thus, he said, he felt obligated to vote for the bill.
-----------
�The bill was severable. It has a severability clause. And I think the courts will invalidate it,� he told me. �They�re not going to give up authority to decide habeas-corpus cases, not a chance.� Others are less sure.
�It�s a pretty odd position for Specter to take,� Amar, of Yale Law School, said. �He trusts the courts to take care of a problem when he�s voting for something that strips them of their jurisdiction to do it. It�s like saying, �I shot at her, but I knew I was going to miss.� Still, he may be right. The Court might strike it down.� According to Amar, the election that cost Specter so much of his clout makes it more likely that his legal position will ultimately be vindicated on habeas corpus.
---------------
The Administration has sought to apply the new law outside Guant�namo. Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a forty-one-year-old citizen of Qatar, was studying at Bradley University, in Peoria, Illinois, when he was detained shortly after September 11, 2001. He has been held in a Navy brig as an enemy combatant for more than three years, and had filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, asking to be freed. On November 13th, the government filed a brief saying that the new law bars Marri�s lawsuit: the act �removes federal court jurisdiction over pending and future habeas corpus actions and any other actions filed by or on behalf of detained aliens determined by the United States to be enemy combatants.� If this motion is granted, Marri could remain in custody on American soil indefinitely, without any further legal recourse. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Habeas Corpus, R.I.P. (1215 - 2006)
| Quote: |
With a smug stroke of his pen, President Bush is set to wipe out a safeguard against illegal imprisonment that has endured as a cornerstone of legal justice since the Magna Carta.
by Molly Ivins
...of the over 700 prisoners sent to Gitmo, only 10 have ever been formally charged with anything. Among other things, this bill is a CYA for torture of the innocent that has already taken place.
Death by torture by Americans was first reported in 2003 in a New York Times article by Carlotta Gall. The military had announced the prisoner died of a heart attack, but when Gall saw the death certificate, written in English and issued by the military, it said the cause of death was homicide. The �heart attack� came after he had been beaten so often on this legs that they had �basically been pulpified,� according to the coroner.
...In one change, the original compromise language said a suspect had the right to �examine and respond to� all evidence used against him. The three senators said the clause was necessary to avoid secret trials. The bill has now dropped the word �examine� and left only �respond to.�
...In another change, a clause said that evidence obtained outside the United States could be admitted in court even if it had been gathered without a search warrant. But the bill now drops the words �outside the United States,� which means prosecutors can ignore American legal standards on warrants.
...The bill also expands the definition of an unlawful enemy combatant to cover anyone who has �has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.�
...The bill simply removes a suspect�s right to challenge his detention in court. This is a rule of law that goes back to the Magna Carta in 1215. That pretty much leaves the barn door open. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
��(c) DETERMINATION OF UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT STATUS
DISPOSITIVE.�A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of
the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a
Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal
established under the authority of the President or the Secretary
of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive
for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission
under this chapter. |
This effectively means, "Whoever the President says is an unlawful enemy combatant."
| Quote: |
��� 950q. Principals
��Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter
who�
��(1) commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or
aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission;
��� 950r. Accessory after the fact
��Any person subject to this chapter who, knowing that an
offense punishable by this chapter has been committed, receives,
comforts, or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent
his apprehension, trial, or punishment shall be punished as a
military commission under this chapter may direct.
��(26) WRONGFULLY AIDING THE ENEMY.�Any person subject
to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to
the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy
of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy,
shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter
may direct. |
All the president has to do is claim you helped someone who was an unlawful enemy combatant, and you are toast.
| Quote: |
SEC. 5. TREATY OBLIGATIONS NOT ESTABLISHING GROUNDS FOR CERTAIN
CLAIMS.
(a) IN GENERAL.�No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions
or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil
action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current
or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other
agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in
any court of the United States or its States or territories. |
The issue is not just whether Americans can be charged, but whether anyone can be. It's the slippery slope. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| keane wrote: |
In what other nations can:
- the president have you sent away indefinitely with no representation, hearings or trial?
- the government intercept any and all of your electronic communications with no warrant?
- can your daily behaviors be monitored without a warrant?
just to name a few...
I await your list, with specifics. Oh, and we're talking OECD nations. |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| During wartime? I would guess most of them. |
It's an illegal, unjust & abstract criminal crusade.
NEW WORLD ODOR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_%28conspiracy%29
Seeking to profit from never ending bloody conflict, against always changing enemies.
Habeus corpus.
In common law countries, habeas corpus (Latin: [We command] that you have the body) [1] is the name of a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from unlawful detention of themselves or another person.
The writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeus_corpus |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
| keane wrote: |
In what other nations can:
- the president have you sent away indefinitely with no representation, hearings or trial?
- the government intercept any and all of your electronic communications with no warrant?
- can your daily behaviors be monitored without a warrant?
just to name a few...
I await your list, with specifics. Oh, and we're talking OECD nations. |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| During wartime? I would guess most of them. |
It's an illegal, unjust & abstract criminal crusade.
NEW WORLD ODOR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_%28conspiracy%29
Seeking to profit from never ending bloody conflict, against always changing enemies.
Habeus corpus.
In common law countries, habeas corpus (Latin: [We command] that you have the body) [1] is the name of a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from unlawful detention of themselves or another person.
The writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeus_corpus |
Iamthewitness and Jeff Rense followers would like to overthrow the US government and install a facsist police state so they ought not be allowed to enter the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It was only to be expected that the Great Writ of habeas corpus would be suspended completely after Bill Clinton and Congress first limited it in 1995 with the passage of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. For the first time, prisoners were limited to file their writs to within one year from the date of conviction, regardless even of the discovery of new, exculpatory evidence. The final death of habeas corpus now with the Military Commissions Act of 2006 seems only a natural progression. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wasn't too impressed with Naomi Wolf until I read this. Don't get me wrong, I don't think she's brilliant by half. But even if she is a little shrill and quick to draw partisan blood, she's not inattentive to the roots of our generation's problems.
| Naomi Wolf wrote: |
Here are some actual quotes from otherwise smart, well-meaning young Americans:
"I show my true convictions by refusing to vote."
"The two parties are exactly the same."
"Congress is bought and paid for."
"Elections are just a front for corporations."
My teacher says you shouldn't believe anything you read in the newspapers at all," a 16-year-old from affluent Menlo Park, Calif., told me last week.
Even those who are politically engaged don't have much faith in our system's potential. "I was taught that it's set up for the elites and for old white men and that there's not much you can do about it," said Christopher Le, 28, who works at a suicide hotline in Austin. Le's mother was a "boat person" who fled Vietnam with her 4-month-old son so that he could be raised in freedom. But few Americans in the under-30 set have her kind of faith in the United States. As Le put it, "No one taught us that democracy was this shining, inspiring thing." |
Hrmmmm, who does that sound like?
| Naomi Wolf wrote: |
| But this distressing situation isn't just George W. Bush's fault. |
What?? Bush isn't [the only one] at fault? Could it be you have some insight?
| Naomi Wolf wrote: |
Young Americans have also inherited some strains of thought from the left that have undermined their awareness of and respect for democracy. When New Left activists of the 1960s started the antiwar and free speech student movements, they didn't get their intellectual framework from Montesquieu or Thomas Paine: They looked to Marx, Lenin and Mao. It became fashionable to employ Marxist ways of thinking about social change: not "reform" but "dialectic"; not "citizen engagement" but "ideological correctness"; not working for change but "fighting the man."
During the Vietnam War, the left further weakened itself by abandoning the notion of patriotism. Young antiwar leaders burned the flag instead of invoking the ideals of the republic it represents. By turning their backs on the idea of patriotism -- and even on the brave men who were fighting the unpopular war -- the left abandoned the field to the right to "brand" patriotism as it own, often in a way that means uncritical support for anything the executive branch decides to do.
In the Reagan era, when the Iran-contra scandal showed a disregard for the rule of law, college students were preoccupied with the fashionable theories of post-structuralism and deconstructionism, critical language and psychoanalytic theories developed by French philosophers Jacques Lacan and Jacques Derrida that were often applied to the political world, with disastrous consequences. These theories were often presented to students as an argument that the state -- even in the United States -- is only a network of power structures. This also helped confine to the attic of unfashionable ideas the notion that the state could be a platform for freedom; so much for the fusty old Rights of Man.
In the 1990s and the early years of this century, theories that globalization is the ultimate evil found their ascendancy on college campuses. Young people, informed by movements against sweatshops and the World Trade Organization, have come to see democracy as a mere cosmetic gloss on the rapacious monolith of global capitalism.
All of these legacies have left the young feeling depressed, cynical and powerless. And yet our democracy needs them more than ever now. Young people are always in the vanguard of any movement to sustain or advance liberty. Students led the charge for freedom in Prague and Mexico City in 1968, in Chile in 1973, in Beijing and throughout Eastern Europe in 1989. |
I think its a dangerous road to put this all on the Baby Boomers. But, I do think that the history of the Left and Right, in very different ways, has helped lead our generation into cynicism, digust, and revulsion.
We shall see. I expect if our generation has any impact, it will have it on the most pressing issue of all: global warming. And in some ways, this problem is going to take more than 60s-style grassroots activism and protesting in the streets. Its going to take genuine techological savvy, consumer virture, and a compromising mien towards economic interests. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
