[Vision2020] Habeas Corpus at Bagram

[Andreas Schou]

Roger --

No: just until the cessation of hostilities in the "war on terror." Which,
because it is not a "war" in any meaningful sense, but rather a massive
combined military/law enforcement action, cannot ever end.

Incidentally, I directed this originally at Gary, but he seems unwilling to
defend torture on its own terms. You, on the other hand, are not half as
clever (or half as moral; I can't tell which). We did not have an official
policy of torture during WWII, when we were actually faced with destruction
by an opponent of equal strength. In the "War on Terror," we are faced with
an enemy that has killed less than 1/10th the number of Americans that died
at Normandy.

To resort to barbarism in the face of such a comparatively minor threat is
rank cowardice. You should be ashamed.

-- ACS

(Incidentally, Roger: by conceding that waterboarding is torture, you just
conceded that the Bush administration is guilty of a number of crimes. A
single instance of torture, or conspiracy to commit torture, is a federal
crime with a maximum punishment of life imprisonment.)

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:12 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:

> I never said that there should be an indefinite suspension of habeas
> corpus. Don't put words in my mouth.
> Roger
> -----Original message-----
> From: Andreas Schou ophite at gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:03:08 -0700
> To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Habeas Corpus at Bagram
>
> > It was during a time of armed insurrection, as specified in the
> > Constitution. The United States was rife with traitors, both to our
> > principles and to our government. He did what was necessary. Even
> accepting
> > the counterfactual that 9/11 was an armed insurrection, the Constitution
> > cannot possibly permit the indefinite suspension of habeas corpus during
> a
> > permanent war.
> >
> > -- ACS
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:36 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Joe
> > > What do you think os Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus?
> > > Roger
> > > -----Original message-----
> > > From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> > > Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:05:13 -0800
> > > To: Andreas Schou ophite at gmail.com
> > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Habeas Corpus at Bagram
> > >
> > > > FYI Hilary Bok is a philosopher. Works in free will, which is the
> same
> > > > area I work in.
> > > >
> > > > Joe Campbell
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 24, 2009, at 7:35 PM, Andreas Schou <ophite at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hilary Bok at the Washington Monthly has the best piece I've seen
> > > > > about the habeas corpus rights of prisoners at Bagram. The previous
> > > > > administration's too-clever-by-half reading of U.S. v. Eisentrager
> > > > > (the case upon which the detention regime at Guantanamo) has led to
> > > > > some serious, and intentional, confusion of the respective
> > > > > jurisdictions of our military and federal courts.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/
> > > > > 2009_02/017017.php
> > > > >
> > > > > This article pretty much sums up what I think about Bagram.
> > > > >
> > > > > -- ACS
> > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > > >               http://www.fsr.net
> > > > >          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > > =======================================================
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090428/cff613f7/attachment.html