Stop the ACLU Blogburst Watch: ACLU Accuses Bush Of Gutting Geneva Conventions Enforcement and Undermining Due Process For Terror DetaineesPosted by Flap in ACLU
America is a nation dedicated to upholding the rule of law. However, President Bushâ€™s draft proposal for military commissions fails to meet the standards recognized by the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The court held the Presidentâ€™s initial military commission scheme was illegal because it violated Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, the most basic standards regarding treatment of detainees. The new proposal has nearly all of the same problems, and will eventually be found to be illegal. For example, it would allow a person to be convicted based on secret evidence and would allow the use of evidence obtained as the result of horrific abuse.
Of course the ACLU automatically accuse the U.S. of using horrific abuse to obtain our evidence without any evidence whatsoever to back that claim up. You can also bet that if one of their terrorist plaintiffs were to go before our court system they would make the claim that any evidence we have against them was obtained through such procedures and argue it was inadmissible. This is only one of hundreds of reasons that Congress needs to pass the legislation the President is requesting so these terrorist creeps, several of which are in the top Al Qaeda chain of command, need to go before a military tribunal. They are not American citizens and we can not afford the dangers involved in allowing them to be represented before the U.S. courts, in all probability represented by the ACLU.
â€œThe president should have listened to the current Judge Advocates General for the four military services, all of whom have urged close adherence to the court-martial procedures, and all of whom oppose the use of secret evidence and coerced evidence. By contrast, Senators John Warner (R-VA), John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are reportedly following the advice of these top generals and admirals and supporting due process protections that are more in line with the time-tested courts-martial procedures.
â€œThe president also proposes to gut enforceability of the Geneva Conventions by amending the War Crimes Act to completely immunize from prosecution civilians who subjected persons to horrific abuse that may have fallen short of the definition of â€˜torture.â€™ As a result, government officials and civilian contractors who authorized or carried out waterboarding, threats of death, and other abuse would get a â€˜get out of jail freeâ€™ card under the presidentâ€™s bill. The nationâ€™s soldiers and sailors would remain liable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but civilians would be immune from prosecution under the only statute that applies to many of these acts. That is simply wrong.
No, what is â€œsimply wrongâ€ is that cowards committed to terrorism and jihad against America that do are not signatories of nor abide by the Geneva Conventions should be afforded the protections of it. The sickening
fact thing in my opinion is that the ACLU would steep low enough to represent an enemy of our nation to sue a military member for doing their job in capturing and interrogating these killers. This is exactly what the President is asking Congress to keep from happening. The President is asking Congress to make it clear what our protectors can and can not do and to protect them from prosecution of being sued by the very scumbuckets they protect us from.
â€œThe new Army Field Manual avoids some of the worst problems with earlier drafts and clarifies that those held by the military or at military facilities must be afforded the protections of the Geneva Conventions. However, it then creates loopholes for so-called â€˜unlawful combatantsâ€™ by depriving them of the same protectionsâ€“and specifically authorizes holding persons in isolation. And, the new manual does not apply to those held by the CIA. The Bush proposal is lip service unless the executive branch actually holds people accountable for violating it.
â€œSo calledâ€ unlawful combatants? If you are not abiding by the rules of being a lawful combatant then you arenâ€™t one. It is that simple. The ACLU are the ones looking for loop holes in the system, and the very reason they are so up and arms on this is that it closes them up. What the President is asking is for Congress to make the definitions clear. In the Hamdan case, which the ACLU played a major part in, the door was left wide open for Congress to clarify and create legislation making military tribunals the main process for due process dealing with terrorists caught on the battle field. What does the ACLU have against bringing these murderers to justice?
The ACLU Defend the enemy. They have a long history of this one. They defended the P.L.O. in 1985. They defended Quadafi in the 1980â€™s. And they continue today. They have told Gitmo detainees they have the right to remain silent, as in not talking to interrogators. One issue that really disturbs me is their refusal of funds from organizations such as the United Way that were concerned the money would be used to support terrorism.
In October of 2004, the ACLU turned down $1.15 million in funding from two of itâ€™s most generous and loyal contributors, the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, saying new anti-terrorism restrictions demanded by the institutions make it unable to accept their funds.
â€œThe Ford Foundation now bars recipients of its funds from engaging in any activity that â€œpromotes violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state.â€
The Rockefeller Foundationâ€™s provisions state that recipients of its funds may not â€œdirectly or indirectly engage in, promote, or support other organizations or individuals who engage in or promote terrorist activity.â€
They have since then demanded that the government release and make public top secret security information regarding not only the activities of our military, but also that of our intelligence forces. They have also initiated one lawsuit after another against the government to stop the searching of individuals for security purposes in mass transit situations, to stop what they call profiling (we will never see a Protestant white middle-aged woman as a terrorist working with an extremist Islamic organization) by race, sex and religion, and to stop the government from detaining and questioning or interrogating individuals who have ties or contact with known terrorist individuals and organizations.
They tried to kill the Patriot Act because they see the rights of an individual who may or may not be an American citizen as more important than the safety of the nation at large. They want the borders open because they see that as an infringement of the rights of non-Americans to become Americans however they can manage it. They want to have military and intelligence sources, activities, and planning revealed to the public so they can â€œwatch dogâ€ and ensure freedoms of individuals and/or groups are not being compromised, but in doing so will enable those very individuals and/or groups under surveillance the ability to avoid surveillance and possible capture before they do something destructive to American citizens.
When it comes to Americaâ€™s enemies you can count on the ACLU to be there to defend them.
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already onboard.
Technorati Tags: ACLU