Roger --<br><br>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. <br>
<br>Incidentally, I directed this originally at Gary, but he seems unwilling to defend torture on its own terms. But I expected better from you. 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. <br>
<br>You concede, now, that we committed torture; that waterboarding is torture. If we wanted to torture, there would be a legal way to do it: withdraw from the UN Convention Against Torture, repeal the 8th Amendment, and repeal 18 USC<span class="ptext-1"> 2340A, which makes torture a crime with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Until then, torture (or conspiracy to commit same) remains a crime punishable by life imprisonment in the Hague or life imprisonment in Ft. Leavenworth. It remains such a crime even when committed by the President.<br>
<br>And, yes. I believe Hayden is both a liar and a torturer. Given that if -- under 18 USC 2340A -- he has authorized torture, he is subject to life imprisonment. Do you always believe those accused of crimes over the FBI and the military? <br>
<br></span>-- ACS<br><br>P.S. Incidentally, no, I will not "get off the morality bullshit." I'm a citizen in a democracy, and responsible for my government. I will not have my government signing my name to crimes it commits. If you had the most rudimentary understanding of the facts, you would know that we are not faced with an existential threat: terrorism has killed comparatively few Americans. If you had the most rudimentary understanding of the law, you would understand that torture (which you concede waterboarding is) is punishable under American law criminalizing torture. And if you had even the most rudimentary conscience, you would understand that torture is always wrong; always shameful. <br>
<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:12 AM, lfalen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I never said that there should be an indefinite suspension of habeas corpus. Don't put words in my mouth.<br>
Roger<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5">-----Original message-----<br>
From: Andreas Schou <a href="mailto:ophite@gmail.com">ophite@gmail.com</a><br>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:03:08 -0700<br>
To: lfalen <a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</a><br>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Habeas Corpus at Bagram<br>
<br>
> It was during a time of armed insurrection, as specified in the<br>
> Constitution. The United States was rife with traitors, both to our<br>
> principles and to our government. He did what was necessary. Even accepting<br>
> the counterfactual that 9/11 was an armed insurrection, the Constitution<br>
> cannot possibly permit the indefinite suspension of habeas corpus during a<br>
> permanent war.<br>
><br>
> -- ACS<br>
><br>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:36 AM, lfalen <<a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > Joe<br>
> > What do you think os Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus?<br>
> > Roger<br>
> > -----Original message-----<br>
> > From: Joe Campbell <a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a><br>
> > Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:05:13 -0800<br>
> > To: Andreas Schou <a href="mailto:ophite@gmail.com">ophite@gmail.com</a><br>
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Habeas Corpus at Bagram<br>
> ><br>
> > > FYI Hilary Bok is a philosopher. Works in free will, which is the same<br>
> > > area I work in.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Joe Campbell<br>
> > ><br>
> > > On Feb 24, 2009, at 7:35 PM, Andreas Schou <<a href="mailto:ophite@gmail.com">ophite@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > ><br>
> > > > Hilary Bok at the Washington Monthly has the best piece I've seen<br>
> > > > about the habeas corpus rights of prisoners at Bagram. The previous<br>
> > > > administration's too-clever-by-half reading of U.S. v. Eisentrager<br>
> > > > (the case upon which the detention regime at Guantanamo) has led to<br>
> > > > some serious, and intentional, confusion of the respective<br>
> > > > jurisdictions of our military and federal courts.<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/</a><br>
> > > > 2009_02/017017.php<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > This article pretty much sums up what I think about Bagram.<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > -- ACS<br>
> > > > =======================================================<br>
> > > > List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
> > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
> > > > <a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
> > > > mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
> > > > =======================================================<br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> ><br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>