RINF.COM: HET BREKENDE ALTERNATIEF VAN HET NIEUWS
Dinsdag, 8 Juli, 2008
RINF.COM: HET BREKENDE ALTERNATIEF VAN HET NIEUWS
|
|
BREKEND NIEUWS |
Bewerend dat Bush geen Tyran is
Dinsdag, 1 Juli, 2008
Het Nieuws van het consortium | Helemaal over de wereld neer door geschiedenis, hebben de politieke leiders die in marteling en andere groteske misdaden van staat in dienst hebben genomen hun acties gerechtvaardigd om hun overheden of hun mensen of zelf zonodig te beschermen.
Het was waar toen de Koning Edward I van Engeland William Wallace - „Braveheart“ - die in 1305 voor zich het verzetten van de tegen regel van de kroon in Schotland wordt getrokken en in vieren wordt gedeeld had, en een gruwelijke dood was wat de Koning George III voor de Grondleggers van Amerika in 1776 voorzag toen zij zich tot zijn misbruiken in de Kolonies bevonden.
De koningen en de tyrannen legden vaak speciale pijn op mensen op die zij als uitdaging van hun gezag hebben bekeken en - in dergelijke tijden - zij veegden weg de regels van rechtvaardigheid af. Maar de Verenigde Staten waren verondersteld verschillend om te zijn. De reactie op tirannieke monarchen was namelijk wat de Stichters dwong om een overheid van wetten op te richten, niet mensen, die op „unalienable rechten“ voor al mensheid, met inbegrip van bescherming tegen willekeurig detentie en verbod van „wrede en ongebruikelijke straf worden gebaseerd.“ Welke is waarom het overweldigde om op 26 Juni hoorzitting vóór het Gerechtelijke subcomité van het Huis over de Grondwet als twee vertegenwoordigers van George W. te letten Voorzitterschap van Bush antwoordde met minachting wanneer gedrukt op de buitengewone visie van het beleid van het almachtige Uitvoerende werken zonder wettelijke beperkingen. Terwijl de leider van Ondervoorzitter Dick Cheney van personeel David Addington de commissieDemocraten met haughty contempt behandelde, drukte de vroegere advocaat John Yoo van de Afdeling van de Staat de uiteindelijke arrogantie van macht met zijn verwarde reacties en ontwijkingen van directe vragen uit.
Soft-spoken Yoo, die enkele zeer belangrijke wettelijke adviezen authored die het misbruik van gevangenen rechtvaardigen, zou zelfs geen duidelijk antwoord op de eenvoudige vraag geven van welke wreedheid voorbij de bevoegdheid van President zou kunnen zijn Bush's op te leggen. Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, haalde een nieuwsrapport aan dat een dubbelzinnige reactie citeert van Yoo, die nu een wetsprofessor bij de Universiteit van Californië in Berkeley, is over of de Voorzitter het kind kon martelen van een „oorlogs op verschrikking“ verdachte om tot de verdachte te bewegen om te spreken. De gerechtelijke voorzitter van het Comité vroeg: „Is daar om het even wat, Professor Yoo, kan de Voorzitter opdracht geven tot niet om aan een verdachte worden gedaan als hij gelooft het voor nationale defensie?“ noodzakelijk is Toen Yoo veinste, stelde Conyers pointedly de vraag: „Kon de Voorzitter tot een levende begraven verdachte?“ opdracht geven Yoo continued to fence with the congressman, avoiding a direct answer.
“I don’t think I ever gave advice that the President could bury somebody alive,” Yoo said, adding he believed that “no American President would ever have to order that or feel it necessary to order that.” Pointedly, however, Yoo avoided a direct response to the question of whether he believed the President had the authority to do it. Pulling Fingernails Later in the hearing, Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tennessee, returned to the administration’s legal theories that Bush holds “plenary” – or unlimited – power at a time of war and that the President’s motivation, i.e. protecting the country, justifies taking extreme actions.
“So, if I want to take somebody’s fingernails out if I think it’s for the good of the country, that’s not torture?” Cohen asked. “If I want to cut someone’s appendage off, it’s okay as long as I think it’s important for the country? … “Is there anything you think the President cannot order in terms of interrogation of these prisoners in a state of war?” Again, dodging a direct answer, Yoo responded that those examples “are not addressed in these memos. … I would say there are things I don’t think any American President would order in order to protect the national security and one of those things is the torture of detainees.”
At this point, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, subcommittee chairman, interrupted: “This is the second time today … that you’ve said that you don’t believe an American President would order certain heinous acts. Would you answer the question, not would he order it, but could he order it under the law in your opinion?” Yoo responded, “It’s not fair to ask that question without any kind of facts,” prompting Nadler to rephrase the question again: “There’s nothing conceivable to which you could answer ‘no’ that an American President could not order this without knowing facts and context?” Yoo: “I can’t agree with that because you are trying to put words in my mouth attempting to get me to answer some broad question covering all circumstances and I can’t do that.”
Though refusing to answer, Yoo reaffirmed – through his circumlocution – what has been a central tenet of Bush’s view of presidential power, that there are no limits to his power for the duration of the “war on terror,” even though it is a vague conflict that has no definable end and that is fought on a global battlefield including U.S. territory. In other words, it is the opinion of the right-wing lawyers who have constructed this legal theory that Bush truly can do whatever he wants to whomever he wants anywhere in the world as long as he couches his actions under his Commander-in-Chief authority. And when it comes to torture, other word games come into play, such as categorizing “waterboarding,” a form of simulated drowning that has been regarded as torture for centuries, as something other than torture. Reality is all in the eye of the all-powerful President.
Though this right-wing concept of unlimited presidential power appeals to some Americans who consider their personal safety more important than the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it is so radical a break with American traditions that even its chief advocates, such as Yoo and Addington, duck and weave when the questions are presented directly. Election 2008 This theory of an all-powerful President now is at stake in Election 2008, as was made clear after the Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, on June 12 that the administration couldn’t deny habeas corpus rights to detainees at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, some of whom have been held as long as six years. In his dissent, right-wing Justice Antonin Scalia not only challenged the majority’s legal arguments but pushed the emotional hot button that by recognizing this ancient right for challenging a government’s power to imprison someone, the Supreme Court was putting Americans in danger. The ruling, Scalia said, “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.” Three other right-wing justices – Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito – concurred in Scalia’s dissent.
Reacting to the Supreme Court, Republican presidential candidate John McCain backed the right-wing minority and called the majority’s ruling “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.” By contrast, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama sided with the majority, calling habeas rights for detainees “an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law.” If elected, McCain has vowed to appoint more justices like Roberts and Alito – George W. Bush’s choices – meaning that if a President McCain gets to replace one of the five majority justices, the new court might well reinterpret the Constitution to legalize an all-powerful President who can act much like ancient kings once did. Then, if a President thinks that it might be a good idea to torture someone’s child or bury somebody alive, the questions about the limits of his authority might not be hypothetical anymore. See More:Bush WarfareHave Your Say: Pretending That Bush is Not a Tyrant Please note, only selected comments will be published. Or discuss this report in our new forums 2 Responses to “Pretending That Bush is Not a Tyrant”
|
Translations             
Free Newsletter
Related News
Email This Page To A Friend Latest Headlines
More Breaking News Archive |
The views expressed in the RINF news wire and newsletter are the sole responsibility of the author (s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the webmaster. RINF.COM: Breaking News & Alternative Media is Copyleft - Copy & Distribute Freely. News Forum |
Loading ...
So let me see if I have this correct?
Bush could order an innocent American person to be say abducted & beaten up, the persons still does not confess, so he then orders his fingernails removed.
OK, that seems fair to me. Guilty every time right, just like witch burning and the Spanish inquisition.
So what is the problem - arn’t all Americans guilty of terrorism?
At least it will cut down on legal costs.
Its good to know America has a president we can all trust
to do the right thing.