[Winstonm]

Some things fly so far in the face of the basic concepts of right and wrong actions that by remaining mum one becomes silent participant and therefore basic self dignity drives one to call out such outrageous lies and accusations. It is what drove Edward R. Murrow to call out McCarthy. And it is the case in calling out Liz Cheney and her organization's video advertisement against "The Al-Qaida 7".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-ad...l-qaida-justice

[blackshoe]

I don't get it. Apparently, Cheney and her supporters take the view that Timothy McVeigh is a criminal, but Mohammed Atta is an "enemy combatant" (whatever that is). And the only difference is that McVeigh is an American citizen, and Atta isn't.

If a Muslim from some Middle Eastern country comes to the US, becomes a citizen, and blows up a building, is he still an "enemy combatant", or is his status now downgraded to "criminal"?

BTW, I would agree with the government that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to these "enemy combatants", but I don't buy the government's convoluted reasoning. In my eyes, the Conventions don't apply because they're criminals — and the Geneva Conventions don't apply to criminals.

[kenberg]

I appreciated this response to the video.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0030404181.html


I favor retiring the image of Joe McCarthy in political discussion. I actually remember the first time I saw him, it was on television in 1952. But surely I am in a minority. With most people, you could substitute "Satan" for "McCarthy" with equal effect. They are aware that the name is supposed to bring images of fire and brimstone, but they know little of the details.

[PassedOut]

Thanks for the link, which clarified the situation for me quite a bit. To me, helping military lawyers with complex cases looks like patriotic work.

And I also agree with blackshoe's point.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on Mar 7 2010, 10:29 AM, said:

I favor retiring the image of Joe McCarthy in political discussion.

It may be a little late for your idea to apply to the Liz controversy. (emphasis added)

Quote

Mar 5, 2010 ... The backlash is growing against Liz Cheney after she demonized Department of Justice attorneys as terrorist sympathizers for their past ...
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../conservatives-turn-agains_n_487410.html - CachedAMERICAblog News: CNN repeats Liz Cheney McCarthyite smears about ...
News and opinion about US politics from a liberal perspective.
www.americablog.com/2010/03/cnn-repeats-liz-cheney-mccarthyite.htmlLiz Cheney Accused of McCarthyism - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Keep America Safe` Spot Calling for Identity of Justice Department Lawyers Who Defended Guantanamo Bay Detainees Prompts Outcry, Including From Some on ...
www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/03/05/.../entry6271081.shtml?... - CachedLiz Cheney Accused of McCarthyism - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Mar 5, 2010 ... Keep America Safe` Spot Calling for Identity of Justice Department Lawyers Who Defended Guantanamo Bay Detainees Prompts Outcry, ...
www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6271081-503544.html - CachedThe Gutter McCarthyism Of Liz Cheney - The Daily Dish | By Andrew ...
Mar 6, 2010 ... The Gutter McCarthyism Of Liz Cheney. 06 Mar 2010 01:37 pm. Via Daniel Luban, Colbert's farce becomes O'Reilly's reality. ...
andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.../the-gutter-mccarthyism-of-liz-cheney.html - CachedLiz Cheney group accused of McCarthyism - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com
Mar 2, 2010 ... Josh Gerstein: Under the Radar, Overlooked News on the Courts, Transparency & More.
www.politico.com/.../Liz_Cheney_group_accused_of_McCarthyism.html - CachedLiz Cheney Accused of McCarthyism
50 posts - 40 authors - Last post: 19 hours ago
If McCarthyism is needed, Liz Cheney will do a better job of it than McCarthy himself. She's bright, knows her facts, calm, soft spoken, ...
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2465724/posts - 19 hours ago» Liz Cheney conjures ghost of Joe McCarthy - Blogger News Network
Mar 5, 2010 ... According to Liz Cheney's slant on the terrorist menace, It was the very defense lawyers who were approved by the Bush administration to ...

[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on Mar 7 2010, 03:06 PM, said:

kenberg, on Mar 7 2010, 10:29 AM, said:

I favor retiring the image of Joe McCarthy in political discussion.

It may be a little late for your idea to apply to the Liz controversy. (emphasis added)

Hard for headline writers to resist, given the fact that former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy got this witch hunt going.

[P_Marlowe]

blackshoe, on Mar 7 2010, 12:47 AM, said:

I don't get it. Apparently, Cheney and her supporters take the view that Timothy McVeigh is a criminal, but Mohammed Atta is an "enemy combatant" (whatever that is). And the only difference is that McVeigh is an American citizen, and Atta isn't.

If a Muslim from some Middle Eastern country comes to the US, becomes a citizen, and blows up a building, is he still an "enemy combatant", or is his status now downgraded to "criminal"?

BTW, I would agree with the government that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to these "enemy combatants", but I don't buy the government's convoluted reasoning. In my eyes, the Conventions don't apply because they're criminals — and the Geneva Conventions don't apply to criminals.

But even criminals have rights, the right to have a lawyer and to get heard
before an impartial court.

The way you phrase it, one could think the Genevea Conventions provide
more rights than a crimial has, which I doubt is true, but I dont know
international lawas very well.
As far as I know, the Genevea Conventions are the lowest denominator.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[PassedOut]

P_Marlowe, on Mar 7 2010, 04:36 PM, said:

The way you phrase it, one could think the Geneva Conventions provide more rights than a criminal has, which I doubt is true, but I dont know international laws very well.

I don't thing that blackshoe implied that at all. The point is that there are already two very well-established mechanisms for handling two different situations.

Of course torture is not permitted under either system -- and for damned good reasons in both -- so the US government may have gotten itself into a mess where a really bad actor cannot be convicted in either a criminal trial or a military trial. That's quite a conundrum.