The Washington Post discusses a plan currently being considered in the House with strong support from the GOP and the Bush administration.


The international law states:


The law being considered also allows the US to depot non-citizens to countries where they aren't even a citizen.

The justification given is that this law is vital in the toolbox to combat Terrorism.

Questions for debate:
1. Do you agree or disagree with the justification given in support of this proposed law?

2. Is the policy of "we won't torture you, but we'll send you somewhere that will" a policy the United States should pursue?

3. What are the ramifications in terms of international law if this law is passed and utilized?

1. Do you agree or disagree with the justification given in support of this proposed law?

I absolutely disagree. Democratic institutions are only as substantial as our commitment to the rule of law. A law like this undermines the foundation of all criminal justice in this nation. There is a reason we cannot detain suspects indefinitely - because they are suspects, and have not been convicted by a jury of their peers. Of course, the United States has a long and ignoble history of using proxies to engage in extralegal endeavors.

2. Is the policy of "we won't torture you, but we'll send you somewhere that will" a policy the United States should pursue?

Obviously not. It's a horrible idea. Remember, we're not talking about people who have been tried and convicted, merely 'suspects.' What guidelines will we use to define 'suspect?' What sort of evidentiary protocols will be used? Will these criteria be available for public scrutiny? Fat chance. Even if these were people already convicted, this would be an awful precedent.

3. What are the ramifications in terms of international law if this law is passed and utilized?

The US has already shown, in administration after administration, that we only appeal to international law when it supports something we want to do - the rest of the time we ignore it and criticize it. For example, it's plain that, from Kennedy to George W, our administrations can endorse terrorism and despotism, even while fighting it.

You are correct in your assertions quarkhead to think that republicans and even worse the house speaker who happens to come from my state is pushing for this amendment is disgusting. This not only could open the door for other countries holding are POW's in a war to ship them to some country that would torture them and be able to wipe there hands clean of they are not torturing our citizens.

But it goes to one of the core problems we are having with detainees and how long we are and were going to hold them without a trial of some sort. The way the administration first had their policies when it pertained to detainees was that they could be held indefinite, because the war on terror is going to be a war that will be fought for a long time. I am not saying the detainees should be freed but at least give them some sort of trial to figure out there guilt or innocence whether it be thru our court system (i don't prefer this road), military courts or the international court.

For the Bush administration to be supporting this amendment is not surprising as their history of misdirection of what they say and what they do is being unchallenged by our journalists. Like how we really don't know what happened in Abu Gurab prison beyond a few low level people even though evidence by pentagons own investigations shows it goes higher. As well as Seymour Hersh on the Daily Show as well as other shows has said if you think what you know about Abu Gurab prison is bad you have not heard anything yet.

How is it that when the "bad guy" breaks the law or breaks an oath in order to force his will on others, he is bad; but when the "good guy" breaks the law or breaks an oath in order to force his will on others, he is still considered good?

How do the Congressional Republicans, the self-described "Christian" party, justify this base behavior, and still think that they have the right to ask the blessings of a righteous Deity? Something here stinks to high heaven.

There's no way I could agree with this. Substitute the word "rationalization" for "justification" and you get a more accurate picture of what's going on. It's an excuse.

Not unless we want our own citizens treated that way.

How can we hope to gain the trust and cooperation of other nations after we have established that our word is no good and our actions no better than those of the people we are fighting? As the saying goes, "Friends come and friends go, but enemies accumulate." If we can't keep our word because it's the right thing to do, we should keep it in the interest of self-preservation.

-----------------------------
(To lighten this post up a little, I've included a link:

If Bush Were Running Against Jesus)

Questions for debate:
1. Do you agree or disagree with the justification given in support of this proposed law?

The problem with such a rationalization is that it is too broad, and too generally applicable to the general population. As I was reading this "justification," what came to mind was a former co-worker, a couple of ex-supervisors, and my ex-wife. In short order, "We sure don't want THEM in America" could easily be applied to anyone who was a member of the political party which was not in power...

2. Is the policy of "we won't torture you, but we'll send you somewhere that will" a policy the United States should pursue?

There is an old expression, "If you have to ask the price, you can't afford it." Since the time the Mayflower landed, the price of being an American has included being willing to welcome the next immigrant. The American Dream has long meant that you can come here, experience freedom, grow, and make something of yourself.

A basic premise of American Jurisprudence has always been "Innocent Until Proven Guilty." Perhaps a way to rehabilitate some of these "suspected terrorists" for which there is no evidence to build a case, is to find sponsors who can work with them, find them jobs, help them find homes, and help them get accustomed to an American way of life. What on Earth would America hope to gain by sending a potentially innocent person to another country to be tortured?

3. What are the ramifications in terms of international law if this law is passed and utilized?


If the President is not willing to subject American citizens to possible prosecution by an International Court, I cannot see any logic in our claiming a right to send citizens of other countries to "friendly venues" to have them tortured into admitting their "guilt."

1. Do you agree or disagree with the justification given in support of this proposed law?

Now tell me again how Bush is supposedly the stronger of the two candidates in foreign policy. So I assume the Patriot Act doesn’t strip away enough personal rights to be effective in the WoT?

Looking at Feehery’s justification they should be able to use provisions from the Patriot Act to constantly monitor any suspects. I guess that isn’t enough.

2. Is the policy of "we won't torture you, but we'll send you somewhere that will" a policy the United States should pursue?

As pointed out, what goes around comes around. This can and will be used against us in the future. I’m a bit puzzled though, if we’re supposed to be the shinning star of freedom and democracy why on earth would a country want to model their selves after us if this is the direction of our foreign policy?

3. What are the ramifications in terms of international law if this law is passed and utilized?

Since I’m not the international law expert I can only assume that it will be more difficult to build any type of future coalition and once again the Bush administration is clearly demonstrating their lack of foresight.