Garrison Kiellor on the state of our Union

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by mburbank

I can't find the passage of an what I believe are unconstitutional laws outrageous? Why? And if I think not passing any law is better than passing a really awful one, that means what, now? Laws don't get passed every day. Most laws don't get apssed. I don't understand what you're saying.

So then your choice is, presumably, the status quo (which could be just about anything under the sun, right?) over a bill that actually allows for trials of detainees and outlines what is considered unacceptable and a "grave breach" of the 3rd Geneva Convention?

Don't just tell me where I'm wrong. THAT's th arrognt part. Show me where I'm wrong.

Seriously, stop for a second and re-read these three sentences a couple of times. Arrogance=disagreement.

I believe you alrady know what I'd do. I'd propose alternative legislation, and I'd vote against any compromise I thought was awful, like, say, legalizing torture.

ok, so your legislation never makes it out of committee (really happened). This bill comes forward, and you vote against it because it "legalizes torture". I don't believe it does this, to put it lightly, but I'll get to that later.

That's what I'd do. Does this seem an unfathomable course to you? Am I missing some basic points of civics that you can enlighten me on? Do you not see why I find your method of discourse arrogant?

If it takes a little arrogance to get an actual alternative out of you, as opposed to the usual "gotcha, Bushy!", well than call me arrogant.

"Max, the other side of the argument believes you're a Nazi and a totalitarian if you don't agree with him. Should I respect that argument? "

Deliberate sophistry. You choose to diagree with the most extreme aspects of an extreme argument so you don't have to adress your own.

I chose to disagree with the content of the article you posted. Ya know, you post an article on I-Mockery, people pick it apart, you either agree/disagree? It's pretty old hat at this point, but you somehow seem surprised.

This wasn't about what I thought. You made it that way when you didn't like what I had to say. That doesn't change the fact that you posted the commentary of an unhinged hack. I'll pass on his book, thanks.

"I'm not ecstatic about this bill."

You've also stated you think it's better than no bill at all, which I think is ytroubling. Would you care to say why you think that, or will you just say it again?

I said it above, and I've said it before, but this bill acknowledges that their is at least a small degree of due process entitled to stateless combatants. The president can interpret a "non-grave breach" in the Geneva provisions, and the bill painstakingly lists which actions don't fall into that category:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...47wlI:e106690:

1) IN GENERAL- Section 2441 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(A) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following new paragraph (3):

`(3) which constitutes a grave breach of common Article 3 as defined in subsection (d) when committed in the context of and in association with an armed conflict not of an international character; or'; and

(B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`(d) Common Article 3 Violations-

`(1) PROHIBITED CONDUCT- In subsection (c)(3), the term `grave breach of common Article 3' means any conduct (such conduct constituting a grave breach of common Article 3 of the international conventions done at Geneva August 12, 1949), as follows:

`(A) TORTURE- The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.

`(B) CRUEL OR INHUMAN TREATMENT- The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions), including serious physical abuse, upon another within his custody or control.

`(C) PERFORMING BIOLOGICAL EXPERIMENTS- The act of a person who subjects, or conspires or attempts to subject, one or more persons within his custody or physical control to biological experiments without a legitimate medical or dental purpose and in so doing endangers the body or health of such person or persons.

`(D) MURDER- The act of a person who intentionally kills, or conspires or attempts to kill, or kills whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause.

`(E) MUTILATION OR MAIMING- The act of a person who intentionally injures, or conspires or attempts to injure, or injures whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, by disfiguring the person or persons by any mutilation thereof or by permanently disabling any member, limb, or organ of his body, without any legitimate medical or dental purpose.

`(F) INTENTIONALLY CAUSING SERIOUS BODILY INJURY- The act of a person who intentionally causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, serious bodily injury to one or more persons, including lawful combatants, in violation of the law of war.

`(G) RAPE- The act of a person who forcibly or with coercion or threat of force wrongfully invades, or conspires or attempts to invade, the body of a person by penetrating, however slightly, the anal or genital opening of the victim with any part of the body of the accused, or with any foreign object.

`(H) SEXUAL ASSAULT OR ABUSE- The act of a person who forcibly or with coercion or threat of force engages, or conspires or attempts to engage, in sexual contact with one or more persons, or causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, one or more persons to engage in sexual contact.

`(I) TAKING HOSTAGES- The act of a person who, having knowingly seized or detained one or more persons, threatens to kill, injure, or continue to detain such person or persons with the intent of compelling any nation, person other than the hostage, or group of persons to act or refrain from acting as an explicit or implicit condition for the safety or release of such person or persons.

`(2) DEFINITIONS- In the case of an offense under subsection (a) by reason of subsection (c)(3)--

`(A) the term `severe mental pain or suffering' shall be applied for purposes of paragraphs (1)(A) and (1)(B) in accordance with the meaning given that term in section 2340(2) of this title;

`(B) the term `serious bodily injury' shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(F) in accordance with the meaning given that term in section 113(b)(2) of this title;

`(C) the term `sexual contact' shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(G) in accordance with the meaning given that term in section 2246(3) of this title;

`(D) the term `serious physical pain or suffering' shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(B) as meaning bodily injury that involves--

`(i) a substantial risk of death;

`(ii) extreme physical pain;

`(iii) a burn or physical disfigurement of a serious nature (other than cuts, abrasions, or bruises); or

`(iv) significant loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; and

`(E) the term `serious mental pain or suffering' shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(B) in accordance with the meaning given the term `severe mental pain or suffering' (as defined in section 2340(2) of this title), except that--

`(i) the term `serious' shall replace the term `severe' where it appears; and

`(ii) as to conduct occurring after the date of the enactment of the Military Commission Act of 2006, the term `serious and non-transitory mental harm (which need not be prolonged)' shall replace the term `prolonged mental harm' where it appears.

Would you care to sate in what ways habeus corps has not been disabled? Would you care to state how giving the executive an unchecked ability to delcare enemy combatants is not a dictatorial power? Would you care to state how this bill does not legalize torture? Or would you just like to say again it's hyperbole?

You'll have to citewhere it gives the dictator this fiat. This is what I see:

`(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who--

`(A) is currently in United States custody; and

`(B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

Now tell me what branch of government is empowered to question the executives interpretation of the Geneva convention, or how a branch of government would aquire any information regarding a prisoner? This section of the law, barring oversight, is a toothless sham.

And I agree with you to an extent here. It isn't entirely toothless however, because the bill clearly restricts the president's interpretation, and requires that his "interpretation" be within certain guidelines. If your major gripe is that it leaves him with a massive grey area, well what the hell was that area looking like prior to this bill?