|
Military Enabling Act of 2006
As commentator jj pointed out, the Cheney administration is now implementing the military justice enabling act. This law will finally make ALL terrorist supporters likely defendants at military commissions. This without those over-boarding rights they think they deserve.
The issue in itself is not really that important, the Washington Post puts it on A4, but for the fun of it, lets us take a look at their outragious liberal interpretation:
A draft Bush administration plan for special military courts seeks to expand the reach and authority of such "commissions" to include trials, for the first time, of people who are not members of al-Qaeda or the Taliban and are not directly involved in acts of international terrorism, according to officials familiar with the proposal.
The plan, which would replace a military trial system ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in June, would also allow the secretary of defense to add crimes at will to those under the military court’s jurisdiction. The two provisions would be likely to put more individuals than previously expected before military juries, officials and independent experts said.
Hey, we all know there are many more terrorists than just supporters of Al Qaida and the Taliban. So it is obvious that the scope of these commissions has to be extended in several dimensions.
With this plan, such terrorist supporters will be brought to justice, the real justice, the Rummy kind. All their crimes will be prosecuted successfully – despite their never ending lies. If these subhumans did not pay their parking ticket, there will now be an insturment to let them feel justice.
Under the proposed procedures, defendants would lack rights to confront accusers, exclude hearsay accusations, or bar evidence obtained through rough or coercive interrogations. They would not be guaranteed a public or speedy trial and would lack the right to choose their military counsel, who in turn would not be guaranteed equal access to evidence held by prosecutors.
Detainees would also not be guaranteed the right to be present at their own trials, if their absence is deemed necessary to protect national security or individuals.
Finally Cheney is getting it. There can not be guarantees to terrorist supporters but prosecution to death. But then, this is still some waste of all those taxes I am supposed to pay. These terrorists certainly should have no right to be indicted at all. Why anybody would give terrorist supporters the right to waste the precious time of any government employee for longer than a two seconds trigger move is beyond me.
The plan calls for commissions of five military officers appointed by the defense secretary to try defendants for any of 25 listed crimes. It gives the secretary the unilateral right to "specify other violations of the laws of war that may be tried by military commission."
Well, at least no wimpy Congress will get another say on this. Rumsfeld, the Real Man, will make the right decisions.
The U.S. official countered that a military judge "would look hard" at the origins of such evidence and that defendants would have to count on "the trustworthiness of the system."
Please be contained, before you comment on the above paragraph. Since yesterday evening, I was told confidetially, any challenge to the "trustworthiness of the system" is considered a serious crime and has been added to catalog of prosecutable crimes at military commissions by the Secretary of Defense. To avoid any unjust accusation of colaboration, I will therefore delete any inappropriate comment on this detail.
To secure a death penalty under the draft legislation, at least five jurors must agree, two fewer than under the administration’s earlier plan. Courts-martial and federal civilian trials require that 12 jurors agree.
And Yes! To the last liberal out there who didn´t get this in 2004. 5 out of 12 IS a mandate.
Jim Morrison, you mean.
His dad is from Greece, perhaps Kos.
*****************
I know I have ridiculed the Kos site, too, as not being a leftist site, and Democrats today as having no affiliation to the left, but rather standing slightly to the right of cental right on the belief scale. I stand by that statement.
However, that does not mean that there are never good journals on KOS. Or that they don’t, on occasion, advocate for good causes.
Let’s take Net Neutrality, for example. A good cause. But not a leftist cause. That doesn’t mean that leftists can’t support it, it just means that it has nothing to do with the left, nothing to do with economic justice. Far-right Libertarians, anyone who runs a business on the web — including Kos, Instapundit, and porn sites, white militia sites and artists — might all band together and support web neutrality.
So, it is important to distinguish between worthy causes, and worthy leftist causes. If you don’t support any leftist causes, that you probably aren’t a member of the left, and you shouldn’t get upset when someone confronts you about this.
Unless, you think that “leftism” is a style like “hippie.”
“Hippie” — in its mindless reduction to a style — aspect of the word, meant long hair, folk/rock, sex, and pot. All things I approve of, but none of it having to do with the left.
Most middle class hippies were children of privilege, and were more likely to read Tom Wolfe’s “Radical Chic & Mau Mauing the Flak Catchers” (about Leonard Bernstein’s interaction with Black Power & an essay on BP that focussed on intimidation and graft rather than social conditions), than listen to a speech by H. Rap Brown.
I guess “leftism,” as a style, reduces to narrow designer glasses, shopping at Bread & Circus, reading liberal blogs, The New Yorker and The New York Review of Books, and discussing them with friends, griping about Bush and how dumb he is, doing yoga, taking “eco” vacations, thinking fundamental x-tians who take the bible literally are complete nuts but having absolute faith in the divine reincarnation of the Dalai Lama, living in a “cool” city, working in the arts — even if it is for a major corporation, having an I-POD, cellphone, laptop, and listening to indie rock and NPR.
I can’t even generate moderate enthusiasm for the value of this list of identity markers. Ho hum.
Anyway,I still don’t have the energy for a major piece about what the left IS (which will get read by three people and be criticized for being too long), and I agree that the left does not have to be ALL about economic justice, but I submit to you for reflection, that if the left is not, at least, CENTERED on economic justice, then it is not the left.
Take one last example: The environment. We all love it. No one wants trees to be cut down. Neither do I. Its a laudable position. But it is not a leftist position. Most of the leaders and directors of major environmental organizations here in Boston are wealthy blue blood Republicans, and their positions on business issues are in line with that. No contradiction; no circle to painfully square.
You don’t have to be a leftist to support environmental protection. Many sensible people of great wealth and privilege do. And you don’t have to be a leftist to like KOS, because it takes very few leftist stands and certainly no radical ones.
But, if you find yourself getting upset and defensive when people tell you that you aren”t a leftist, then maybe you shold think about it. It isn’t a slur. It doesn’t mean you aren’t a good person, or that you don’t support and work hard on many vital issues.
It just means that you aren’t a leftist.
The good new is that you don’t have to give up the I-POD or designer glasses when you come to terms with this. The “style” package is always an option for anyone who can afford it.
Posted by: Malooga | Aug 3 2006 20:16 utc | 27
|
