Friday, July 29, 2005

pinions of buddy don: whut we stand fer

mayhap yall dun seen thisn but tiz wurth repeatin jes in case ye missed it. tiz the statement made by the judge in the case of the millenium bomber, witch ifn ye dun fergut, thats the plot that wuz foiled durin the clinton administrayshun back when folks bleeved twuz importunt to drop everthang n focus on the threat bein suggested by the 'chatter' we git frum our intelligents. twuz coverd in a articull name of Judge gives millennium bomber 22 years. heres whut U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour -- a truly grate amurkin that bleeves in the eye deals to witch we aspire -- heres whut he had to say at the sentencing:
"The message I would hope to convey in today's sentencing is twofold:

“First, that we have the resolve in this country to deal with the subject of terrorism and people who engage in it should be prepared to sacrifice a major portion of their life in confinement.

"Secondly, though, I would like to convey the message that our system works. We did not need to use a secret military tribunal, or detain the defendant indefinitely as an enemy combatant, or deny him the right to counsel, or invoke any proceedings beyond those guaranteed by or contrary to the United States Constitution.

"I would suggest that the message to the world from today's sentencing is that our courts have not abandoned our commitment to the ideals that set our nation apart. We can deal with the threats to our national security without denying the accused fundamental constitutional protections.

"Despite the fact that Mr. Ressam is not an American citizen and despite the fact that he entered this country intent upon killing American citizens, he received an effective, vigorous defense, and the opportunity to have his guilt or innocence determined by a jury of 12 ordinary citizens.

"Most importantly, all of this occurred in the sunlight of a public trial. There were no secret proceedings, no indefinite detention, no denial of counsel.
“The tragedy of September 11th shook our sense of security and made us realize that we, too, are vulnerable to acts of terrorism.

"Unfortunately, some believe that this threat renders our Constitution obsolete. This is a Constitution for which men and women have died and continue to die and which has made us a model among nations. If that view is allowed to prevail, the terrorists will have won.

"It is my sworn duty, and as long as there is breath in my body I'll perform it, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. We will be in recess."
taint lack we dont have lodes of folks that bleeves in the eye deals of amurka, minny of em in the armed servuses, witch as ye kin see by this articull name of Military's Opposition to Harsh Interrogation Is Outlined, they dint wonta roll over whenever they wuz ast to violate amurkin eye deals:
Senior military lawyers lodged vigorous and detailed dissents in early 2003 as an administration legal task force concluded that President Bush had authority as commander in chief to order harsh interrogations of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, newly disclosed documents show.

Despite the military lawyers' warnings, the task force concluded that military interrogators and their commanders would be immune from prosecution for torture under federal and international law because of the special character of the fight against terrorism.

In memorandums written by several senior uniformed lawyers in each of the military services as the legal review was under way, they had urged a sharply different view and also warned that the position eventually adopted by the task force could endanger American service members.


The documents include one written by the deputy judge advocate general of the Air Force, Maj. Gen. Jack L. Rives, advising the task force that several of the "more extreme interrogation techniques, on their face, amount to violations of domestic criminal law" as well as military law.

General Rives added that many other countries were likely to disagree with the reasoning used by Justice Department lawyers about immunity from prosecution. Instead, he said, the use of many of the interrogation techniques "puts the interrogators and the chain of command at risk of criminal accusations abroad."

Any such crimes, he said, could be prosecuted in other nations' courts, international courts or the International Criminal Court, a body the United States does not formally participate in or recognize.

Other senior military lawyers warned in tones of sharp concern that aggressive interrogation techniques would endanger American soldiers taken prisoner and also diminish the country's standing as a leader in "the moral high road" approach to the laws of war.


Rear Adm. Michael F. Lohr, the Navy's chief lawyer, wrote on Feb. 6, 2003, that while detainees at Guantánamo Bay might not qualify for international protections, "Will the American people find we have missed the forest for the trees by condoning practices that, while technically legal, are inconsistent with our most fundamental values?"

Brig. Gen. Kevin M. Sandkuhler, a senior Marine lawyer, said in a Feb. 27, 2003, memorandum that all the military lawyers believed the harsh interrogation regime could have adverse consequences for American service members. General Sandkuhler said that the Justice Department "does not represent the services; thus, understandably, concern for service members is not reflected in their opinion."

Maj. Gen. Thomas J. Romig, the Army's top-ranking uniformed lawyer, said in a March 3, 2003, memorandum that the approach recommended by the Justice Department "will open us up to criticism that the U.S. is a law unto itself."
are we a nayshun that shines its lite befor the worl, that inspires by its refusal to compromize its eye deals, no matter whut? or do we let the terrsts win by givin up our eye deals?

reminds me of a ole firesign theatre piece, caint member witchn, but a feller sez sumthin lack (pair-a-frazin), 'tiz a power that kin only be used fer good or evil ... n i git to deecide witch.'

tiz whut we all gut, a power that kin only be used fer good or evil ... n we gits to deecide witch. sumbidy else sed sumthin lack, 'by thar fruits ye shall know them.'

do they know us to have the strangth n courage to stick to our eye deals?

No comments: