Air Force chief: Test weapons on testy U.S. mobs

[ryoder 1,384]

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/09/12/usaf.weapons.ap/index.html

If this moron can't grasp the fact the armed forces are supposed to be *defending* citizens, and not using them as guinea pigs, then he should be re-assigned to cleaning latrines.

It's unfathomable that he is more concerned about the welfare of our enemies than the welfare of the citizens he is supposed to be protecting.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/09/12/usaf.weapons.ap/index.html

If this moron can't grasp the fact the armed forces are supposed to be *defending* citizens, and not using them as guinea pigs, then he should be re-assigned to cleaning latrines.

It's unfathomable that he is more concerned about the welfare of our enemies than the welfare of the citizens he is supposed to be protecting.

Failing to grasp the purpose of government is a problem that goes all the way to the very top.

Our fearless leaders should be required to read the Bill of Rights aloud every morning.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

He's just taking a cue from the ACLU and many other groups who want to bestow rights on terrorists even to the detriment of the safety and security of Americans.

[matthewcline 0]

And yet another of the appointed civilian leadership causing the military hardship.

Maybe he said a whole lot more that the article left out, but damn it looks bad.

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[StreetScooby 5]

Simply unbelievable...

We are all engines of karma

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

He's just taking a cue from the ACLU and many other groups who want to bestow rights on terrorists even to the detriment of the safety and security of Americans.

Yawn.
What a tired, old sound byte.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

He's just taking a cue from the ACLU and many other groups who want to bestow rights on terrorists even to the detriment of the safety and security of Americans.

Not trying to hijack the thread but I think that the ACLU wants to make sure that the people who are being tried, convicted and executed as terrorists are actually terrorists. Right now the bar has been lowered to the level of "because Bush or his justice dept said so". That's pretty low.
Here's an example. Gonzales says "Gravitymaster was involved in a plot to yadayadayada". Now Gravitymaster is in prison but is not actually charged with anything and if Gravitymaster is allowed a lawyer that lawyer can't get access to the justice dept's files. Now the court/tribunal date shows up and Gravitymaster and his lawyer have to leave the courtroom (or maybe they weren't even required to attend because Gravitymaster is in some secret detention facility overseas getting waterboarded) while Gonzales goes in a back room with the judge to show him/her some "evidence" of Gravitymaster's crime. Everyone gets called back into the courtroom, a guilty verdict is read and "Justice" is served. Now GM's siblings, neighbors and friends are pissed off and swear that they'll do everything in their power to see that real justice is served and vow to organize and undo the great wrong and make sure that this sort of thing never happens to anyone else.
Here's a few questions to think about.
Is the word of the Executive branch sufficient to capture, incarcerate and convict a person? What if that executive was Hillary, still ok?
How do you think the justice dept will categorize GM's supporters' jihad....I mean struggle?
And how many "terrorists" were created through the "justice" meted out against GM?
Is the world safer?
Should I have moved this to another thread?

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Quote

He's just taking a cue from the ACLU and many other groups who want to bestow rights on terrorists even to the detriment of the safety and security of Americans.

Not trying to hijack the thread but I think that the ACLU wants to make sure that the people who are being tried, convicted and executed as terrorists are actually terrorists. Right now the bar has been lowered to the level of "because Bush or his justice dept said so". That's pretty low.
Here's an example. Gonzales says "Gravitymaster was involved in a plot to yadayadayada". Now Gravitymaster is in prison but is not actually charged with anything and if Gravitymaster is allowed a lawyer that lawyer can't get access to the justice dept's files. Now the court/tribunal date shows up and Gravitymaster and his lawyer have to leave the courtroom (or maybe they weren't even required to attend because Gravitymaster is in some secret detention facility overseas getting waterboarded) while Gonzales goes in a back room with the judge to show him/her some "evidence" of Gravitymaster's crime. Everyone gets called back into the courtroom, a guilty verdict is read and "Justice" is served. Now GM's siblings, neighbors and friends are pissed off and swear that they'll do everything in their power to see that real justice is served and vow to organize and undo the great wrong and make sure that this sort of thing never happens to anyone else.
Here's a few questions to think about.
Is the word of the Executive branch sufficient to capture, incarcerate and convict a person? What if that executive was Hillary, still ok?
How do you think the justice dept will categorize GM's supporters' jihad....I mean struggle?
And how many "terrorists" were created through the "justice" meted out against GM?
Is the world safer?
Should I have moved this to another thread?

It seems to me that you are a bit too anxious to defend people like that GravityMaster bastard; I think you should come down town for a little chat. We have a litle beam we want to test on you. It wont hurt,..much, and it's completely non-lethal.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Not trying to hijack the thread but I think that the ACLU wants to make sure that the people who are being tried, convicted and executed as terrorists are actually terrorists. Right now the bar has been lowered to the level of "because Bush or his justice dept said so". That's pretty low.
Here's an example. Gonzales says "Gravitymaster was involved in a plot to yadayadayada". Now Gravitymaster is in prison but is not actually charged with anything and if Gravitymaster is allowed a lawyer that lawyer can't get access to the justice dept's files. Now the court/tribunal date shows up and Gravitymaster and his lawyer have to leave the courtroom (or maybe they weren't even required to attend because Gravitymaster is in some secret detention facility overseas getting waterboarded) while Gonzales goes in a back room with the judge to show him/her some "evidence" of Gravitymaster's crime. Everyone gets called back into the courtroom, a guilty verdict is read and "Justice" is served. Now GM's siblings, neighbors and friends are pissed off and swear that they'll do everything in their power to see that real justice is served and vow to organize and undo the great wrong and make sure that this sort of thing never happens to anyone else.
Here's a few questions to think about.
Is the word of the Executive branch sufficient to capture, incarcerate and convict a person? What if that executive was Hillary, still ok?
How do you think the justice dept will categorize GM's supporters' jihad....I mean struggle?
And how many "terrorists" were created through the "justice" meted out against GM?
Is the world safer?

Interesting point, and well put.

Let's not forget that you're a US citizen. You're alleged crime occurred on US soil. This scenario wouldn't happen to you, even with the people in our current adminstration.

The people in Gitmo are not US citizens. Nor are they considered "legal combatants" by our current government. And, they were captured during combat with our troops. Thus, they're "illegal combatants", and we're still figuring out what to do with them.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 2,400]

>Let's not forget that you're a US citizen.

So was Jose Padilla.

> This scenario wouldn't happen to you, even with the people in our
> current adminstration.

Except that it did. The ACLU is one of our last lines of defense against such constitutional violations - and given what's happening now, we need them.

[kallend 1,623]

It is a part of the acceptance of the rule of law that the courts will be able to exercise jurisdiction over the executive. Otherwise the conduct of the executive is not defined and restrained by law. It is because of that principle, that the USA, deliberately seeking to put the detainees beyond the reach of the law in Guantanamo Bay, is so shocking an affront to the principles of democracy. That we disagree on this issue does not detract from the fact that the USA is a close and staunch ally of the UK. Without independent judicial control, we cannot give effect to the essential values of our society. To give effect to our democratic values needs the participation of executive, legislature, and judiciary together. How well they do it, as in every endeavour, depends on the quality of the individual decisions each branch of the state takes. The ability to give effect to these values is not just the morally correct position to take, though I believe it is most certainly that. It is also a vital part of providing security for our peoples.

9/13/2006 - Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom, Britains highest ranking government lawyer, with the approval of Prime Minister Blair.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

The people in Gitmo are not US citizens. Nor are they considered "legal combatants" by our current government. And, they were captured during combat with our troops. Thus, they're "illegal combatants", and we're still figuring out what to do with them.

Yeah, but you see – and I've written about this a couple times before – the Bush Admin is (IMHO) unlawfully fabricating a category of detainee where one does not exist. If these prisoners are recognized combatants, they're entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention. If they're non-combatant civilians in a combat zone, they're entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention. If they are non-military combatants carrying out acts of armed violence, then they are "criminal defendants", and they are entitled to be promptly charged under civilian law and advised of their charges (such as homicide, aggravated assault and weapons offenses); they're entitled to representation by lawyers; they're entitled to a judicial preliminary determination as to their status, charges and detention; and they're entitled to a speedy trial.

THERE ARE NO OTHER LAWFUL CATEGORIES OF DETAINEES, despite the Bush Administration's attempts to fabricate one out of thin air; because, heck, if they're not in any previously-defined category, then they're not entitled to any protections under any system of laws or treaties, right?

Also: who has made this "determination" that these prisoners are "illegal combatants"? Does the US govt charge them as such and then allow a judicial hearing at which this will be formally determined? No. The US Govt simply says "we're qualified to make that judgment for ourselves."

There's a reason why, in most countries with genuine rule of law, the police/ prosecution are in one branch of the govt, while the judiciary is in another: BECAUSE YOU CAN'T TRUST THE FOX TO RUN THE HENHOUSE.

In every democratic country with a valid system of law & justice, there is some sort of pre-trial, judicial or quasi-judicial determination that there is at least minimally-sufficient evidence (in the US it's called "probable cause") to compel the person to stand trial. There's also a judicial hearing to determine whether the person should, pending trial, continue to be detained or should have reasonable bail set. In the US, probable cause is formally determined, depending on the jurisdiction, either by a judge at a preliminary hearing or by a grand jury (an "arm" of the court) via indictment.

Most importantly: the issues of probable cause and detention status are not formally ruled upon by the police or the prosecution; they are ruled upon by the court or an arm of the court.

When the Bush Administration is willing to stop circumventing both US and international laws and treaties, and stop acting like it is above the law, I'll listen to what they have to say. Until then, they're abusing their power and diminishing the role of the United States of America as a champion of the rule of law. And the government lawyers who - with straight faces! - argue in favor of this being done are an embarrassment to their profession.

[lawrocket 3]

I agree wholeheartedly with Andy. By the way, this isn't about democracy - it's about the 4th Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

It turns out that I do not like about half of what the ACLU stands for (their whole problem of screwing freedom of speech and religion if somebody is offended). But I strongly support their 4th Amendment policies.

The Bush admin is doing what I call the "criminal defense attorney strategy." They create whatever loopholes they can to make whatever laws they violate inapplicable or impossible to enforce.

For example, they have argued that Gitmo is on foreign soil, so the Bill of Rights doesn't apply so there is no problem. Oh! Since Gitmo is US soil, international law doesn't apply, so no need to comply with the Geneva Convention. Neither apply, though, so we can do what we want. But if you think both apply, we call them something different.

It's kinda like how legislatures don't raise taxes anymore - the only raise "fees." Some places require a supermajority for a tax increase. So instead of calling it what it is - a "tax" - they call it a "fee" which requires only a simple majority. It looks, sounds, smells, and acts like a tax, but in calling it a "fee" they can eviscerate the law.

What the Bush Admin is doing is wrong. PRocedural Due Process is what makes a free country a free country. To deny that makes a police state, and that's a slippery slope...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Oh! Since Gitmo is US soil, international law doesn't apply, so no need to comply with the Geneva Convention.

well, the Geneva Convention protections would not apply to members of Al Quaeda, regardless.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[freethefly 6]

Would this moron be willing to stand in front of such weapons? What a freaking Nazi.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Botellines 0]

Quote

Quote

Oh! Since Gitmo is US soil, international law doesn't apply, so no need to comply with the Geneva Convention.

well, the Geneva Convention protections would not apply to members of Al Quaeda, regardless.

Neither would apply to american mercenaries, errr contractors.

I am sure you wouldn´t like for any to be captured and forced to stand in "uncomfortable positions"

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Oh! Since Gitmo is US soil, international law doesn't apply, so no need to comply with the Geneva Convention.

well, the Geneva Convention protections would not apply to members of Al Quaeda, regardless.

See? That's the point. What they do is argue that nothing applies to them. Since there are no protections in place for them, they shouldn't get any protections.

I call that "lack of standards." Assuming they are right and nothing says that they "have" to afford protections, the question of whether they "should" afford those protections arises.

In a fair and just society, the answer is an unequivocal "yes they shouls."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Botellines 0]

Quote

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/09/12/usaf.weapons.ap/index.html

If this moron can't grasp the fact the armed forces are supposed to be *defending* citizens, and not using them as guinea pigs, then he should be re-assigned to cleaning latrines.

It's unfathomable that he is more concerned about the welfare of our enemies than the welfare of the citizens he is supposed to be protecting.

Maybe he is trying to avoid that the testing of such weapons become an incentive to use them, like what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Besides, for your "enemies" you don´t need non-lethal weapons, I think that this weapons wouldn´t be used only on enemies, me thinks.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Oh! Since Gitmo is US soil, international law doesn't apply, so no need to comply with the Geneva Convention.

well, the Geneva Convention protections would not apply to members of Al Quaeda, regardless.

Neither would apply to american mercenaries, errr contractors.

I am sure you wouldn´t like for any to be captured and forced to stand in "uncomfortable positions"

I was wondering the samething in concern of merc operations such as Blackwater. Is the execution of mercenaries justified, considering that they fight only for the pay? If a mercenary kills an civilian during a firefight should that person be tried under the laws of the country the killing took place? Should the legal combatants be placed in harms way to rescue mercs? Should mercs be placed on trial in the US or any other country considering that they are, more than less, killers for hire?
If those in Gitmo are in fact mercs and not legal combatants, then they got what they were paid for. If they are not mercs then they should be treated as defined by the Geneva Convention.

Art. 47. Mercenaries
1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; (b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities; (c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party; (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict; (e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and (f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

>Let's not forget that you're a US citizen.

So was Jose Padilla.

> This scenario wouldn't happen to you, even with the people in our
> current adminstration.

Except that it did. The ACLU is one of our last lines of defense against such constitutional violations - and given what's happening now, we need them.

And so does NAMBLA unfortunately

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

>Let's not forget that you're a US citizen.

So was Jose Padilla.

> This scenario wouldn't happen to you, even with the people in our
> current adminstration.

Except that it did. The ACLU is one of our last lines of defense against such constitutional violations - and given what's happening now, we need them.

And so does NAMBLA unfortunately

ACLU appears to have a far better grasp of the meaning of the Bill of Rights than do our President, VP, and Attorney General. ACLU isn't needed to defend popular causes, only just causes.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Could, would, might....Please show me where it has happened.

OTOH there have been terrorists released from Gitmo who killed American Military once they returned to their home countries.

As soon as we start treating them like the enemy they are and quit worrying about their "rights" the sooner we can get this war over with. Every war we have fought in the last century that we worried about the enemies "rights" we have lost. Every war we have fought as a war, we have won.

Prisoners should be treated as Prisioners of War, kept in confinement until the war is over, and dealt with at the appropriate time.

If it's going to take redefining prisoners rights, then so be it. This is a different type of war than those of the past and appropriate changes should be made if that's what's necessary.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

He's just taking a cue from the ACLU and many other groups who want to bestow rights on terrorists even to the detriment of the safety and security of Americans.

Yawn.
What a tired, old sound byte.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Uh, huh. Here's a little tidbit about your beloved ACLU and their hypocrisy.

Quote

ACLU data collection methods lead to charges of hypocrisy
Some members of board say group's values are betrayed
Stephanie Strom, New York Times

Saturday, December 18, 2004


Printable Version
Email This Article




The American Civil Liberties Union is using sophisticated technology to collect a wide variety of information about its members and donors in a fund-raising effort that has ignited a bitter debate over its leaders' commitment to privacy rights.

Some board members say the extensive data collection makes a mockery of the organization's frequent criticism of banks, corporations and government agencies for their practice of accumulating data on people for marketing and other purposes.

The issue has attracted the attention of the New York attorney general, who is looking into whether the group violated its promises to protect the privacy of its donors and members.

"It is part of the ACLU's mandate, part of its mission, to protect consumer privacy," said Wendy Kaminer, an ACLU board member. "It goes against ACLU values to engage in data-mining on people without informing them. It's not illegal, but it is a violation of our values. It is hypocrisy."

The organization has been shaken by infighting since May, when the board learned that Anthony Romero, its executive director, had registered the ACLU for a federal charity drive that required it to certify that it would not knowingly employ people whose names appeared on government terrorism watch lists.

A day after the New York Times disclosed its participation in late July, the organization withdrew from the charity drive and has since filed a lawsuit with other charities to contest the watch list requirement.

The group's new data collection practices were implemented without the board's approval or knowledge and were in violation of the ACLU's privacy policy at the time, according to Michael Meyers, vice president of the organization and a frequent internal critic. He said he had learned about the new research by accident Nov. 7 during a meeting of the committee that is organizing the group's Biennial Conference in July.

He objected to the practices, and the next day, the privacy policy on the group's Web site was changed. "They took out all the language that would show that they were violating their own policy," Meyers said. "In doing so, they sanctified their procedure while still keeping it secret."

New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer appears to be asking the same questions. In a Dec. 3 letter, his office informed the ACLU that it was conducting an inquiry into whether the group had violated its promises to protect the privacy of donors and members.

Emily Whitfield, a spokeswoman for the ACLU, said the organization was confident that its efforts to protect donors' and members' privacy would withstand any scrutiny. "The ACLU certainly feels that data privacy is an extremely important issue, and we will of course work closely with the state attorney general's office to answer any and all questions they may have," she said.

Robert Remar, a member of the board and its smaller executive committee, said he did not think data collection practices had changed markedly. He recalled that the budget included more money to develop donors but said he did not know the specifics.

Remar said he did not know until this week that the organization was using an outside company to collect data or that collection had expanded from major donors to those who contribute as little as $20. "I don't know the details of how they do it, because that's not something a board member would be involved in," he said.

The process is no different than using Google for research, he said, emphasizing that the data firm hired by the ACLU, Grenzebach Glier & Associates, had a contractual obligation to keep information private.

Many nonprofit groups collect information about their donors to help their fund-raising, using technology to figure out people's giving patterns, net worth, health and other details that assist with more targeted pitches.

Because of its strong commitment to privacy rights, however, the ACLU has avoided the most modern techniques, according to minutes of its executive committee from three years ago. "What we did then wasn't very sophisticated because of our stance on privacy rights," said Ira Glasser, Romero's predecessor.

Glasser, who stepped down in 2001, said the organization had done some basic data collection on major donors and a ZIP code analysis of its membership for an endowment campaign while he was there. He said it had done research on Lexis/Nexis and might have looked at SEC filings.

Daniel Lowman, vice president for analytical services at Grenzebach, said that the software the ACLU is using, Prospect Explorer, combed a broad range of publicly available data to compile a file with such things as an individual's wealth, holdings in public corporations, other assets and philanthropic interests.

Meyers said he had learned on Nov. 7 that the ACLU's data collection practices went far beyond what was done previously.

"If I give the ACLU $20, I have not given them permission to investigate my partners, who I'm married to, what they do, what my real estate holdings are, what my wealth is and who else I give my money to," he said.

Slurp slurp....

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Could, would, might....Please show me where it has happened.

OTOH there have been terrorists released from Gitmo who killed American Military once they returned to their home countries.

As soon as we start treating them like the enemy they are and quit worrying about their "rights" the sooner we can get this war over with..

Well, that's a big assumption, isn't it. Apparently a whole lot of them turned out NOT to be enemies at all (at least, they weren't until we imprisoned them).

It's attitudes like yours that are the root cause of our total lack of success in accomplishing the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The greatest military the world has ever seen is being embarrassed by a rag-tag bunch of "insurgents". That indicates to me that our civilian leaders have been totally incompetent in defining the mission, purpose and strategy.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Let's not forget that you're a US citizen.

So was Jose Padilla.

> This scenario wouldn't happen to you, even with the people in our
> current adminstration.

Except that it did. The ACLU is one of our last lines of defense against such constitutional violations - and given what's happening now, we need them.

Oh yes, yes we need the ACLU to protect us from a secretive govt.

Quote

“A.C.L.U. May Block Criticism by Its Board”
From the New York Times:

The American Civil Liberties Union is weighing new standards that would discourage its board members from publicly criticizing the organization’s policies and internal administration.

“Where an individual director disagrees with a board position on matters of civil liberties policy, the director should refrain from publicly highlighting the fact of such disagreement,” the committee that compiled the standards wrote in its proposals.

“Directors should remember that there is always a material prospect that public airing of the disagreement will affect the A.C.L.U. adversely in terms of public support and fund-raising,” the proposals state.

Given the organization’s longtime commitment to defending free speech, some former board members were shocked by the proposals.

Nat Hentoff, a writer and former A.C.L.U. board member, was incredulous. “You sure that didn’t come out of Dick Cheney’s office?” he asked.

“For the national board to consider promulgating a gag order on its members — I can’t think of anything more contrary to the reason the A.C.L.U. exists,” Mr. Hentoff added.

and to protect out right of Free Speech:

Quote

Anthony D. Romero, the A.C.L.U.’s executive director, said that he had not yet read the proposals and that it would be premature to discuss them before the board reviews them at its June meeting.

Mr. Romero said it was not unusual for the A.C.L.U. to grapple with conflicting issues involving civil liberties. “Take hate speech,” he said. “While believing in free speech, we do not believe in or condone speech that attacks minorities.”

Yep good ole ACLU. Needed now more than ever.