The conspiracy theorist in me says that all of last week's hoopla over health care was a ruse, a slight of hand, a misdirection to detract our attention from the goings-on at the Supreme Court. Maybe not. Maybe it was just a coincidence. Either way it happened and very little attention was paid to it. Either way the Obama administration once again intervened in defense of the Bush administration's program of torturing so-called "enemy combatants" held at Guantanamo Bay.
Just in case you missed it:
Here are some frightening words:
Oh I don't know, how about Article VI:
Treaties. That would be the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture, both of which prohibit torture under any circumstances.
There's more:
An important part of that "correct" appeals court decision says that, "torture is a foreseeable consequence of the military's detention of suspected enemy combatants."
Of course, it's all part of the Gitmo experience. No accountability and no consequences for the perpetrators expected or required. Oh I forgot, let's look forward, not back. Never mind.
Just in case you missed it:
"The Supreme Court today [Monday] issued a blow to victims of abuse by U.S. officials during the "war on terror." The high court this morning refused to review a federal appeals court ruling that dismissed a lawsuit by four British citizens who claimed they were wrongly arrested and mistreated at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., had ruled that government officials were immune from suit because it wasn't clear at the time that abusing prisoners at Guantanamo was illegal."
Here are some frightening words:
"The Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, has argued in this case that there is no constitutional right not to be tortured or otherwise abused in a U.S. prison abroad."
Oh I don't know, how about Article VI:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"
Treaties. That would be the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture, both of which prohibit torture under any circumstances.
There's more:
"The Obama administration urged the Supreme Court to reject the appeal. It said the appeals court's decision was correct and that further review of the case was unwarranted."
An important part of that "correct" appeals court decision says that, "torture is a foreseeable consequence of the military's detention of suspected enemy combatants."
Of course, it's all part of the Gitmo experience. No accountability and no consequences for the perpetrators expected or required. Oh I forgot, let's look forward, not back. Never mind.
I am disappointed with the President. I thought I was voting against Bush's 3rd term.
arte is right, as usual. I, too, am probably as upset over this as anything else because Obama does not need congress to correct this "wrong", does he?
It just goes on and on. Too many promises, too little follow up.
Des, the terrorists just have to start a PAC.
Of all of the things that disappoint me about the Obama administration, and Barack Obama in particular, this ticks me off the most. He campaigned against abuses by our government - but now has the audacity (on the basis of what legal technicality) to say, oops, I didn't really mean it.
I want my campaign contributions back, President Obama. Hillary in 2012.
Maybe if the Gitmo prisoners had lobbyists instead of lawyers they might get more favorable treatment.
This is just so wrong on so very many levels, the greatest being the apparent disregard of Article VI of our Constitution.
How can we, as human beings, say that torture is ok? I just don't understand Washington and where their heads are. Wait, I think I know...