A question I can't answer. RE ACLU and photos..

..a right wing friend asked me what constitutional (IE, American)rights the ACLU et all are protecting by asking for the photos of detainee abuse.

I imagine it has to do with breaking the Geneva Conventions, but I can't find any specific information.

Any specifics? Thanks!

The Geneva Conventions supersede (supposedly) national laws because it brokers war and the rights to the sides in the war. Of course, if Bush and his adminstration is truly to blame for any of it or is connected in anyway, then there is a serious violation of trust to the American public and the United Nations tenets as a whole. In the end, it causes a conflict and one that has to be prosecuted.

For if Slobodan Milosevic was prosecuted for his crimes, then Bush would, in accordance to the Geneva Conventions, be liable and if I'm not mistaken, through neglience even (remember his bullshit about Rove and Libby saying that they heard Plame's name from a reporter) though the President mightn't have known.

...prisoners, and the FUCKING PIGS who tortured them are now using that as an argument to block the release of the photos.

From http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4172046



My head is exploding over this unbelievable hypocrisy.

We did not acknowledge the Geneva argument and now we cannot claim it. It is a contract and each country acknowledges it in good faith and respects it as international law. We broke the law for our own psychotic reasons, we can no longer claim privilege of that law. This is why the Istanbul world forum, Germany, and others have either started proceedings or have found us guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. I am sure they are all just full of Democrats in those countries, or some other fucking argument. These people are so idiotic they think everything that happens around the world has something to do with our internal partisan talking points. Fact is fact and crime is crime. The soldiers committing crimes and their commanders allowing crimes are, I assume, mostly Republican? I mean WTF... does it matter? Would you take that into account in a trial?

Fucking bastards... I am livid about this ... you have no idea.

The withdrawal from the Geneva Conventions was unconstitutional, since it wasn't authorized by Congress.

THEY did. Veterans like myself never violated such treaties. BushCo has. And my military ID still says Geneva Conventions Identification Card on it. Did you know that?? So do all military personnels' cards.

My oath upon joining was also to "defend the Constitution." And right now, that means I am against the Patriot Act, the Homeland Security Act, and executive orders violating constitutional rights.

I started a petition in Connecticut, where I live, to make it a Patriot Act free-zone. So far, I only have 13 signatures. It's sad.

Any suggestions?

"Hate" is a very strong word for me, and I seldom use it seriously. I'm using it seriously this time.

I hate these people. Hate them with every fiber of my being.

Amendment IV - Search and seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI - Right to speedy trial, confrontation of witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII - Trial by jury in civil cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII - Cruel and Unusual punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the peop

good enough?

Detainees are American citizens... hence the Constitution DOES apply!

Associated Press Writer

July 22, 2005, 7:02 PM EDT

NEW YORK -- The American Civil Liberties Union accused the government Friday of putting another legal roadblock in the way of its bid to help the public see photographs and videos stemming from the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal....

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--detaineerecords0722jul22,0,693502.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork

I mean, IANAL, but if they can so easily dismiss the rules of the Geneva Convention by saying they "don't apply to the war on terror"

Then they could also claim that Constitutional protections of "due process" and "cruel and unusual punishment" do not apply in the War on Terror and thus, we could have Americans citizens treated like this. I think they are already doing this.

I don't think a right winger would see the point that we should care when an injustice is done to a prisoner (or detainee) even if that prisoner is not an American.

and then you have no rights... all they have to do is call you a terrorist, got it?

and they are already doing it... read my article full of examples.

I'm crafting a reply right now.

The government can not be secret. It derives its authority from the people and is therefore accountable to the people.

Old friends, from 30 years ago.

Anyway, CNN or some such station was playing the drama leading up to the invasion of Afghanistan. I remember thinking there was something wrong with the Bush Administration's whole approach and the reporter was saying something that didn't really gel with the "official line." One of my friends blurted out, "It's on a need to know basis, and we don't need to know!" I thought this an odd thing to say during this time of national tragedy, but I surmised that she would be perfectly content never to know what the government was up to.

I don't communicate with her anymore...