RINF.COM : THE BREAKING NEWS ALTERNATIVE rinf.com ：突發新聞的替代 Monday, July 7th, 2008週一， 2008年7月7日 |  |
Breaking News 突發新聞 | | Forum 論壇 | | UK News 英國新聞 | | USA News 美國新聞 | | World News 世界新聞 | | Political News 政治新聞 | | Sci-Tech News 科技新聞 | | War & Terrorism News 戰爭和恐怖主義新聞 | | Sports News 體育新聞 | | Multimedia 多媒體 | | Set Homepage 設為首頁 | |
BREAKING NEWS 突發新聞 |
Pretending That Bush is Not a Tyrant假裝布什是不是一個暴君 Tuesday, July 1st, 2008 週二， 2008年7月1日 Consortium News財團新聞 | 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. |世界各地都透過歷史，政治領袖誰從事，在酷刑和其他怪誕的罪行，國家有充分理據他們的行動在必要時保護他們的政府或他們的人或自己。 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.這是真的時，英格蘭國王愛德華一世曾威廉華萊士-“勇敢” -制定和q u artered在1 3 05年為抵制官方的統治在蘇格蘭，和一個可怕的死因是什麼英王喬治三世預見到美國的開國元勳在1776年，當他們站起來，他被濫用的殖民地。 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.國王和暴君，往往造成特別痛的人他們認為具有挑戰性的他們的權威和-在這種時候-他們抹去遠離規則的正義。 But the United States was supposed to be different.但美國是要有所不同。 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.”事實上，反應暴虐的君主是什麼迫使創始人建立一個政府的法律，而不是男人的基礎上， “不可分割的權利”為全人類的，包括保護，不受任意拘留和禁止“殘酷和不尋常的懲罰” 。 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.這就是為什麼這是驚人的觀看6月26日聽證會前，眾院司法小組委員會就憲法作為兩名代表喬治W布什奇摩主席與不屑回應時，按下對政府當局的不平凡的理想一所有強大的行政作業沒有法律的限制。 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.而副總統切尼的參謀長戴維阿丁頓處理委員會的民主黨人與傲慢的蔑視，前國務院的律師約翰柳表示，最終的囂張氣焰，權力與他的糊塗的反應和逃避直接的問題。 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.軟發言柳，誰執筆的一些關鍵的法律意見，理由虐待被拘留者，甚至不給一個明確的答案很簡單，回答了什麼是暴行可能超出布什總統的權力，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.眾議員約翰科尼爾斯，為D -密歇根州，列舉了新聞報導引用曖昧的回應，從柳，誰是現在的法學教授在加州大學伯克利分校，約總統是否可以酷刑兒童一個“反恐戰爭”嫌犯促使嫌疑人交談。 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?”司法委員會主席問： “有什麼，教授柳，總統不能為了做一個懷疑，如果他認為必要的國防” ？ When Yoo dissembled, Conyers posed the question more pointedly: “Could the President order a suspect buried alive?”當柳dissembled ，科尼爾斯造成的問題更尖銳地指出： “請問總統令嫌疑人活埋” ？ Yoo continued to fence with the congressman, avoiding a direct answer.柳繼續圍欄與國會議員，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.” “我不覺得我以往任何時候都了意見，認為總統可以埋葬有人活著， ”柳補充說，他認為， “沒有美國總統都將下令或認為有必要，以便” 。 Pointedly, however, Yoo avoided a direct response to the question of whether he believed the President had the authority to do it.尖銳地指出，不過，柳避免了直接回應，至於是否他表示相信，總統有權這樣做。 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.稍後在聽證會上，眾議員史蒂夫科恩，為D -田納西州，歸還給政府的法律理論認為，布什舉行“全體會議” -或無限-權力的時候，戰爭和認為，總統的動機，即保衛國家，有理由採取極端行動。 “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，如果我想採取有人的指甲，如果我認為這是為良好的國家，這不是酷刑” ？科恩問。 “If I want to cut someone’s appendage off, it’s okay as long as I think it’s important for the country? “如果我要削減別人的附庸起飛，它的好，只要我認為這是非常重要的國家呢？ … “Is there anything you think the President cannot order in terms of interrogation of these prisoners in a state of war?” “有什麼，你認為總統不能為了在條款的審訊這些囚犯在一個國家的戰爭” ？ Again, dodging a direct answer, Yoo responded that those examples “are not addressed in these memos.再次，迴避直接回答，柳回應時表示，這些例子“得不到解決，在這些備忘錄。 … 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.” … …我會說有一些事情我不認為任何美國總統會秩序，以保障國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:在這一點上，眾議員納德勒jerrold ，為D -紐約，小組委員會主席，中斷： “This is the second time today … that you’ve said that you don’t believe an American President would order certain heinous acts. “這是第二次，今天…您說，你不相信一位美國總統會為了某些令人髮指的行為。 Would you answer the question, not would he order it, but could he order it under the law in your opinion?”你會回答這個問題，而不是將他秩序，但他可以為了它根據法律規定，你認為“ ？ Yoo responded, “It’s not fair to ask that question without any kind of facts,” prompting Nadler to rephrase the question again:柳回應， “這是不公平的問這個問題沒有任何種類的事實， ”促使納德勒重組的問題再次： “There’s nothing conceivable to which you could answer ‘no’ that an American President could not order this without knowing facts and context?” “沒有什麼可以想像到你可以回答'不' ，一位美國總統不能為了這個不知道的事實和背景” ？ 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： “我不能同意這一點，因為你正試圖把話在我嘴裡，企圖得到我回答了一些廣泛的問題涵蓋所有情況下，我不能這樣做” 。 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.雖然拒絕回答，柳重申-通過他的c ircumlocution-什麼一直是中央特尼特布什的看法，總統權力，有沒有限制他的權力的期限“反恐戰爭”，即使是一個空泛的衝突並沒有明確的結束，這是爭取在全球的戰場，包括美國領土。 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.在其他換言之，這是民意的右翼律師誰建造了這個法律的理論，布什真正可以為所欲為，他想是誰，他希望在世界上任何地方，只要他沙發他的行動下，他的總指揮官管理局。 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.和當談到酷刑，其他的文字遊戲來發揮作用，如分類“ waterboarding ， ”某種形式的模擬溺水已被視為酷刑，數百年來，由於一些以外的其他酷刑。 Reality is all in the eye of the all-powerful President.現實情況是，在所有的眼睛都強大的總統。 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.雖然這右翼的概念，無限的總統權力的呼籲一些美國人誰考慮他們的人身安全，更重要的憲法和人權法案，它是如此激進的休息與美國的傳統，即使其行政主張，如柳和阿丁頓，鴨，編織時，問題直接提交。 Election 2008 2008年選舉 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.這一理論的所有強大的總統現在是在選舉的股份，到2008年，作為作出明確後，最高法院裁定， 5月4日， 6月12日表示，政府當局無法否認的人身保護令的權利，被拘留在美國的海軍基地在古巴關塔那摩灣，其中一些人已舉行了長達六年。 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.在他的異議，右翼司法antonin斯卡利亞不僅質疑，多數人的法律論據，但推情緒的熱點按鈕，由認識到這個古老的權利，挑戰政府的權力，有人下獄，最高法院是把美國人的危險。 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.執政黨，斯卡利亞說， “幾乎肯定會導致更多的美國人被殺害。 ”其他三個右翼大法官-克拉倫斯托馬斯，約翰羅伯茨和塞繆爾阿利托-同意在斯卡利亞的異議。 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.”反應到最高法院，共和黨總統候選人麥凱恩的支持右翼少數族裔和所謂多數的執政“最嚴重的國家之一的決定，在歷史上這個國家” 。 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，民主黨總統候選人巴拉克奧巴馬片面與多數，要求人身保護令的權利被拘留者“邁出了重要的一步，恢復了我們的信譽作為一個國家致力於法治” 。 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.如果當選，麥凱恩已誓言要任命更多的法官一樣，羅伯茨和阿利多-喬治W布什奇摩的選擇-意思是，如果一個總統麥凱恩得到，以取代其中的5多數大法官，新的法院可能會重新詮釋憲法合法化1所有強大的總統誰可以充當很像古代的國王一次也沒有。 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.然後，如果總統認為這可能是一個好主意酷刑某人的兒童或埋葬，有人活著，問題的界限，他的權威可能不假設性的了。 See More: 看到更多的： Bush 布什 Warfare 戰Have Your Say: Pretending That Bush is Not a Tyrant 你說：假裝布什是不是一個暴君 Please note, only selected comments will be published.請注意，只有選定的評論將出版。 Or discuss this report in our new forums 或討論這個報告在我們的新論壇 2 Responses to “Pretending That Bush is Not a Tyrant” 2反應“假裝布什是不是一個暴君”
| Translations 翻譯               Free Newsletter 免費通訊 Related News 相關新聞
Email This Page To A Friend 電子郵件此頁給朋友 Latest Headlines 最新的新聞標題
More更多 Breaking News突發新聞 Archive 存檔
|
About 大約 | | DVD Store DVD的商店 | | Opinion 民意 | | Reviews 評語 | | Special Guests 特別來賓 | | Webmasters 網站管理員 |
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. 所表達的意見，在rinf新聞電線和通訊是唯一的責任作者（ S ）和並不一定反映的意見，網站管理員。 RINF.COM: Breaking News & Alternative Media is Copyleft - Copy & Distribute Freely. rinf.com ：突破新聞與其他的媒體是copyleft的-複製及分發自由。 News Forum 新聞論壇 |
So let me see if I have this correct?因此，讓我看到如果我有這是否正確？
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.布什可能為了一個無辜的美國人士說，被綁架及毆打，人還不招供，於是命令他的指甲移除。
OK, that seems fair to me.確定，這似乎是公平的給我。 Guilty every time right, just like witch burning and the Spanish inquisition.承認每一次的權利，就像巫婆燃燒和西班牙宗教裁判所。
So what is the problem - arn’t all Americans guilty of terrorism?因此，問題是什麼-a rn't所有的美國人都犯有恐怖主義？
At least it will cut down on legal costs.它至少會降低了法律費用。
Its good to know America has a president we can all trust其良好的知道美國有一個總統，我們都可以信任
to do the right thing.做正確的事。