nevermind

your freedom fighters guys the same ones you think have rights under the geneva conventions

almost as funny as “American occupied Cuba”

“Enemy combatants” is an airy-fairy name that never existed until some Bush admin flack dreamed it up. Up until then, you were a prisoner of war, with agreed-on rights. ”

What rights have the islamic loons agreed upon? The Geneva conventions? haha
the term enemy combatants was developed to fight a new kind of war the kind the left has no clue how to engage and sure as hell not win.
Yeah its a airy-fairy name I guess people’s heads getting cut off is airy fairy to

these people represent no country they represent no standing conventional military force and thus do not deserve the rights of the geneva conventions

in addition to that why are you so concerned about these guys being tried in the US justice system? why not the justice systems of where they come from
is it that the ACLU cant come to their defense if they are tried in Bagdhad or Kabul

so no its not so clear as someone said earlier

“I didn’t know that terrorists at Gitmo had rights under the American constitution.”

Well, they do… and the majority of the Supreme Court agrees with me (or, more accurately, I agree with them)… but that has been covered in a previous post.

…and, speaking of previous posts, I second everything that Hugh said about dungeons. I’m glad to see someone can see the bigger picture.

America is much, much better than this regressive and dangerous policy… and it has to be if it wants the world to willingly embrace American global dominance… well, unless we plan to force it on them with superior military power and larger confinement facilities for those who resist.

(And, Pete, Gitmo is in Cuba and it is occupied by Americans. “American occupied Cuba” doesn’t seem like it needs a question mark.)

When the War on Terror started, legal dilemmas such as this were (or should have been) foreseen. Executive imprisonment is, at best, a cobbled-together cheap fix for a problem that should (could) have been solved through proper planning and legal mechanisms consistent with our current system of laws and our constitution.

It is a dangerous step into weakening the power of the Constitution, eroding the foundations of our legal system and removing very-intentionally created checks on executive power… as well as upsetting the balance between the government and the citizens.

Conspiracy theorists make a good point that it is an intentional precedent… as the Bush administration has done as much as possible to weaken habeas corpus… and has had no inhibitions in broadening narrow provisions of the Patriot Act, abusing/misusing current laws, conducting illegal surveillance, setting up “Free Speech Zones”, removing oversight and paper trails, etc, Etc, ETC.

Accusations of Bush-bashing are used to distract from honest appraisals of the administration’s actions.

This all goes back to the original topic of why global focus is on the actions of the remaining superpower as it attempts to project its influence across the globe (and internally) while using rewritten/reinterpreted laws as an unpredictable tool to do it… as opposed to a globally powerless North Korea.

It all seems pretty clear.

From the very first sentence of the Amnesty Internationals Who We Are page:

“Amnesty International is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights for all.”

http://www.amnesty.org/en/who-we-are

This also from their FAQ page:

“The overwhelming majority of our income comes from individuals the world over. These personal and unaffiliated donations allow AI to maintain full independence from any and all governments, political ideologies, economic interests or religions.”

http://www.amnesty.org/en/who-we-are/faq

“Human rights for all” & “independence from any and all governments, political ideologies, economic interests or religions” is clearly not the case and disingenuous.

As far as the Beijing Olympics I don’t think they should be canceled but remember that South Korea was threatened to have the 88 Olympics moved to LA if free and fair elections were held and South Korea agreed. I don’t China is at the stage of its development to hold elections yet without political turmoil.

However, Amnesty International could organize a protest during the Olympics and coordinate with their media allies to give them maximum publicity like they have done with the Gitmo protests. The Olympics is a great opportunity for Amnesty to bring a lot of attention to human rights abuses but how come I think they rather have another “Wear Orange Day” instead?

Also the non-profits you list are national groups whose mission is to focus on their specific issues, Amnesty is a supposed international group who promotes “human rights for all” which isn’t the case. Notice my criticism is on Amnesty because I find Human Rights Watch no where as bad and thus having more creditability.