RINF.COM : THE BREAKING NEWS ALTERNATIVE rinf.com ：突发新闻的替代 Tuesday, July 8th, 2008周二， 2008年7月8日 |  |
Breaking News 突发新闻 | | Forum 论坛 | | UK News 英国新闻 | | USA News 美国新闻 | | World News 世界新闻 | | Political News 政治新闻 | | Sci-Tech News 科技新闻 | | War & Terrorism News 战争和恐怖主义新闻 | | Sports News 体育新闻 | | Multimedia 多媒体 | | Set Homepage 设为首页 | |
BREAKING NEWS 突发新闻 |
Pretending That Bush is Not a Tyrant假装布什是不是一个暴君 Tuesday, July 1st, 2008 周二， 2008年7月1日 Consortium News财团新闻 | All over the world down through history, political leaders who have engaged in torture and other grotesque crimes of state have justified their actions as necessary to protect their governments or their people or themselves. |世界各地都透过历史，政治领袖谁从事，在酷刑和其他怪诞的罪行，国家有充分理据他们的行动在必要时保护他们的政府或他们的人或自己。 It was true when England’s King Edward I had William Wallace – “Braveheart” – drawn and quartered in 1305 for resisting the crown’s rule in Scotland, and a gruesome death was what King George III foresaw for America’s Founding Fathers in 1776 when they stood up to his abuses in the Colonies.这是真的时，英格兰国王爱德华一世曾威廉华莱士-“勇敢” -制定和q u artered在1 3 05年为抵制官方的统治在苏格兰，和一个可怕的死因是什么英王乔治三世预见到美国的开国元勋在1776年，当他们站起来，他被滥用的殖民地。 Kings and tyrants often inflicted special pain on people they viewed as challenging their authority and – at such times – they wiped away the rules of justice.国王和暴君，往往造成特别痛的人他们认为具有挑战性的他们的权威和-在这种时候-他们抹去远离规则的正义。 But the United States was supposed to be different.但美国是要有所不同。 Indeed, reaction to tyrannical monarchs was what compelled the Founders to establish a government of laws, not men, based on “unalienable rights” for all mankind, including protection against arbitrary detention and prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment.”事实上，反应暴虐的君主是什么迫使创始人建立一个政府的法律，而不是男人的基础上， “不可分割的权利”为全人类的，包括保护，不受任意拘留和禁止“残酷和不寻常的惩罚” 。 Which is why it was stunning to watch the June 26 hearing before the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution as two representatives of George W. Bush’s presidency responded with disdain when pressed on the administration’s extraordinary vision of an all-powerful Executive operating without legal limits.这就是为什么这是惊人的观看6月26日听证会前，众院司法小组委员会就宪法作为两名代表乔治W布什奇摩主席与不屑回应时，按下对政府当局的不平凡的理想一所有强大的行政作业没有法律的限制。 While Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff David Addington treated the committee Democrats with haughty contempt, former State Department lawyer John Yoo expressed the ultimate arrogance of power with his muddled responses and evasions of direct questions.而副总统切尼的参谋长戴维阿丁顿处理委员会的民主党人与傲慢的蔑视，前国务院的律师约翰柳表示，最终的嚣张气焰，权力与他的糊涂的反应和逃避直接的问题。 The soft-spoken Yoo, who authored some of the key legal opinions justifying the abuse of detainees, wouldn’t even give a clear answer to the simple question of what atrocity might be beyond President Bush’s power to inflict.软发言柳，谁执笔的一些关键的法律意见，理由虐待被拘留者，甚至不给一个明确的答案很简单，回答了什么是暴行可能超出布什总统的权力，所造成的。 Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, cited a news report quoting an ambiguous response from Yoo, who is now a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, about whether the President could torture the child of a “war on terror” suspect to induce the suspect to talk.众议员约翰科尼尔斯，为D -密歇根州，列举了新闻报道引用暧昧的回应，从柳，谁是现在的法学教授在加州大学伯克利分校，约总统是否可以酷刑儿童一个“反恐战争”嫌犯促使嫌疑人交谈。 The Judiciary Committee chairman asked: “Is there anything, Professor Yoo, the President cannot order to be done to a suspect if he believes it’s necessary for national defense?”司法委员会主席问： “有什么，教授柳，总统不能为了做一个怀疑，如果他认为必要的国防” ？ When Yoo dissembled, Conyers posed the question more pointedly: “Could the President order a suspect buried alive?”当柳dissembled ，科尼尔斯造成的问题更尖锐地指出： “请问总统令嫌疑人活埋” ？ Yoo continued to fence with the congressman, avoiding a direct answer.柳继续围栏与国会议员，避免直接回答。 “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.” “我不觉得我以往任何时候都了意见，认为总统可以埋葬有人活着， ”柳补充说，他认为， “没有美国总统都将下令或认为有必要，以便” 。 Pointedly, however, Yoo avoided a direct response to the question of whether he believed the President had the authority to do it.尖锐地指出，不过，柳避免了直接回应，至于是否他表示相信，总统有权这样做。 Pulling Fingernails 拔指甲 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, ie protecting the country, justifies taking extreme actions.稍后在听证会上，众议员史蒂夫科恩，为D -田纳西州，归还给政府的法律理论认为，布什举行“全体会议” -或无限-权力的时候，战争和认为，总统的动机，即保卫国家，有理由采取极端行动。 “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. “所以，如果我想采取有人的指甲，如果我认为这是为良好的国家，这不是酷刑” ？科恩问。 “If I want to cut someone’s appendage off, it’s okay as long as I think it’s important for the country? “如果我要削减别人的附庸起飞，它的好，只要我认为这是非常重要的国家呢？ … “Is there anything you think the President cannot order in terms of interrogation of these prisoners in a state of war?” “有什么，你认为总统不能为了在条款的审讯这些囚犯在一个国家的战争” ？ Again, dodging a direct answer, Yoo responded that those examples “are not addressed in these memos.再次，回避直接回答，柳回应时表示，这些例子“得不到解决，在这些备忘录。 … 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.” … …我会说有一些事情我不认为任何美国总统会秩序，以保障国家安全和的事情之一是被拘留者施加酷刑“ 。 At this point, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, subcommittee chairman, interrupted:在这一点上，众议员纳德勒jerrold ，为D -纽约，小组委员会主席，中断： “This is the second time today … that you’ve said that you don’t believe an American President would order certain heinous acts. “这是第二次，今天…您说，你不相信一位美国总统会为了某些令人发指的行为。 Would you answer the question, not would he order it, but could he order it under the law in your opinion?”你会回答这个问题，而不是将他秩序，但他可以为了它根据法律规定，你认为“ ？ Yoo responded, “It’s not fair to ask that question without any kind of facts,” prompting Nadler to rephrase the question again:柳回应， “这是不公平的问这个问题没有任何种类的事实， ”促使纳德勒重组的问题再次： “There’s nothing conceivable to which you could answer ‘no’ that an American President could not order this without knowing facts and context?” “没有什么可以想象到你可以回答'不' ，一位美国总统不能为了这个不知道的事实和背景” ？ 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.”柳： “我不能同意这一点，因为你正试图把话在我嘴里，企图得到我回答了一些广泛的问题涵盖所有情况下，我不能这样做” 。 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 US territory.虽然拒绝回答，柳重申-通过他的c ircumlocution-什么一直是中央特尼特布什的看法，总统权力，有没有限制他的权力的期限“反恐战争”，即使是一个空泛的冲突并没有明确的结束，这是争取在全球的战场，包括美国领土。 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.在其他换言之，这是民意的右翼律师谁建造了这个法律的理论，布什真正可以为所欲为，他想是谁，他希望在世界上任何地方，只要他沙发他的行动下，他的总指挥官管理局。 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.和当谈到酷刑，其他的文字游戏来发挥作用，如分类“ waterboarding ， ”某种形式的模拟溺水已被视为酷刑，数百年来，由于一些以外的其他酷刑。 Reality is all in the eye of the all-powerful President.现实情况是，在所有的眼睛都强大的总统。 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.虽然这右翼的概念，无限的总统权力的呼吁一些美国人谁考虑他们的人身安全，更重要的宪法和人权法案，它是如此激进的休息与美国的传统，即使其行政主张，如柳和阿丁顿，鸭，编织时，问题直接提交。 Election 2008 2008年选举 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 US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, some of whom have been held as long as six years.这一理论的所有强大的总统现在是在选举的股份，到2008年，作为作出明确后，最高法院裁定， 5月4日， 6月12日表示，政府当局无法否认的人身保护令的权利，被拘留在美国的海军基地在古巴关塔那摩湾，其中一些人已举行了长达六年。 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.在他的异议，右翼司法antonin斯卡利亚不仅质疑，多数人的法律论据，但推情绪的热点按钮，由认识到这个古老的权利，挑战政府的权力，有人下狱，最高法院是把美国人的危险。 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.执政党，斯卡利亚说， “几乎肯定会导致更多的美国人被杀害。 ”其他三个右翼大法官-克拉伦斯托马斯，约翰罗伯茨和塞缪尔阿利托-同意在斯卡利亚的异议。 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.”反应到最高法院，共和党总统候选人麦凯恩的支持右翼少数族裔和所谓多数的执政“最严重的国家之一的决定，在历史上这个国家” 。 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.”相形之下，民主党总统候选人巴拉克奥巴马片面与多数，要求人身保护令的权利被拘留者“迈出了重要的一步，恢复了我们的信誉作为一个国家致力于法治” 。 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.如果当选，麦凯恩已誓言要任命更多的法官一样，罗伯茨和阿利多-乔治W布什奇摩的选择-意思是，如果一个总统麦凯恩得到，以取代其中的5多数大法官，新的法院可能会重新诠释宪法合法化1所有强大的总统谁可以充当很像古代的国王一次也没有。 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.然后，如果总统认为这可能是一个好主意酷刑某人的儿童或埋葬，有人活着，问题的界限，他的权威可能不假设性的了。 See More: 看到更多的： Bush 布什 Warfare 战Have Your Say: Pretending That Bush is Not a Tyrant 你说：假装布什是不是一个暴君 Please note, only selected comments will be published.请注意，只有选定的评论将出版。 Or discuss this report in our new forums 或讨论这个报告在我们的新论坛 2 Responses to “Pretending That Bush is Not a Tyrant” 2反应“假装布什是不是一个暴君”
| Translations 翻译               Free Newsletter 免费通讯 Related News 相关新闻
Email This Page To A Friend 电子邮件此页给朋友 Latest Headlines 最新的新闻标题
More更多 Breaking News突发新闻 Archive 存档
|
About 大约 | | DVD Store DVD的商店 | | Opinion 民意 | | Reviews 评语 | | Special Guests 特别来宾 | | Webmasters 网站管理员 |
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. 所表达的意见，在rinf新闻电线和通讯是唯一的责任作者（ S ）和并不一定反映的意见，网站管理员。 RINF.COM: Breaking News & Alternative Media is Copyleft - Copy & Distribute Freely. rinf.com ：突破新闻与其他的媒体是copyleft的-复制及分发自由。 News Forum 新闻论坛 |
So let me see if I have this correct?因此，让我看到如果我有这是否正确？
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.布什可能为了一个无辜的美国人士说，被绑架及殴打，人还不招供，于是命令他的指甲移除。
OK, that seems fair to me.确定，这似乎是公平的给我。 Guilty every time right, just like witch burning and the Spanish inquisition.承认每一次的权利，就像巫婆燃烧和西班牙宗教裁判所。
So what is the problem - arn’t all Americans guilty of terrorism?因此，问题是什么-a rn't所有的美国人都犯有恐怖主义？
At least it will cut down on legal costs.它至少会降低了法律费用。
Its good to know America has a president we can all trust其良好的知道美国有一个总统，我们都可以信任
to do the right thing.做正确的事。