Tuesday digest
- Serving in the office of the Vice-President of the United States and have difficulty recalling who told you what concerning the subject of a "national security leak" you had nothing to do with a few years ago?Two and a half years in jail, 250K and two years probation.
Now, if you're Bill Clinton's former National Security Advisor and you sneak classified documents out of the National Archives and destroy them before the 9/11 Commission can get ahold of them, all you get is a fine of 50K.
Scooter Libby's sentence is a complete and total miscarriage of justice.
- Speaking of American courts, I find it very ironic that Canadian citizen Omar Khadr of the infamous and self-described "al-Qaeda family" had his case tossed out at Gitmo because a US military tribunal found him outside of their jurisdiction. Apparently, he does not constitute an "unlawful" enemy combatant.
Those imperialist Americans, huh?
Amnesty has to be happy with this outcome.
- This week's fortieth anniversary of the Six-Day War is properly commemorated by editorials here and here. To place it into context, be sure to read this piece as well about how well some of Israel's neighbours are doing as they refuse to accept not only that defeat, but the very existence of the Jewish state.
posted by Road Hammer @ 5:47 PM
10 comments
10 Comments:
Maybe it's a moot point if Khadr is found guilty or not by a US military tribunal.
Who cares? He's going to continue to be locked up in Gitmo.
And you know that this case is far from over.
Not if Michael Ignatieff has his way.
Yes the one moment of logic by an American judge wipes out the entire Gitmo fiasco. Glad that's over with.
Fiasco?
You must be talking about the half-inflated balls they force al-Qaeda operatives to play with.
I am also interested to hear the Khadr case equates to "one moment of logic". Certainly embarassing the United States isn't worth opening Canada's doors to bin Laden's dinner guests, or is it?
I guess the availability of copies of the Koran and an arrow that points east negates the illegality of kidnapping people and detaining them indefinately against their will without access to proper due process. No problem that the CIA does the exact same thing* as these unlawful combatants, and what about the thousands of American mercanaries working in Iraq? Can other countries just freely pick these lads up and take them wherever they please and treat them however they like? Fiasco is putting it mildly. It's one of the most shameful stories for a country with a long history of shameful acts.
*And here's your citation -not like you needed one:
"hundreds of employees on a daily basis are directed to break extremely serious laws in counties around the world in the face of
frequently sophisticated efforts by foreign governments to catch them. A safe estimate is that several hundred times every day (easily 100,000 times a year) DO (CIA) officers engage in highly illegal activities (according to foreign law)"
http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house/intel/ic21/ic21009.html
How about a citation for where al-Qaeda signed all of the international treaties governing the treament of POWs?
Very naive.
I don't recall the CIA, or even their proxies, for that matter, beheading al-Qaeda operatives and committing it to tape for all the world to see.
Or since these US soldiers are "mercenaries", do they have such an inhumane demise coming to them?
What do international treaties have to do with kidnapping people and detaining them indefinately?
Naive is right.
A little thing called the Geneva Convention ... perhaps you've heard of it?
By the way, I hear there's an opening on The View you may be interested in. Feel free to use me as a reference.
Please cite the part of the Geneva convention that permits kidnapping and indefinate confinement without legal recourse.
As for the View, I'll hop on so long as you take your righful place beside Sean Hannity.
Kidnapping? Please.
I'll get right on that Geneva assignment after you show me the place where al-Qaeda signed it.
Post a Comment
<< Home