Scanlyze

The Online Journal of Insight, Satire, Desire, Wit and Observation

US Republican Presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul crushes Gov. Mike Huckabee in debate about the war

US Republican Presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul crushes Gov. Mike Huckabee in debate about the war

Bravo to Ron Paul for standing up for the Constitution. Here’s some highlights:

First, Paul did a fair job of answering the right-wing hack Chris Wallace’s very loaded, pro-Bush questions on Iraq:

MR. WALLACE: Congressman Paul — (interrupted by cheers, applause) — Congressman Paul, your position on the war is pretty simple: Get out. What about, though, trying to minimize the bloodbath that would certainly occur if we pull out in a hurry? What about protecting the thousands of Iraqis who have staked their lives in backing the U.S.? And would you leave troops in the region to take out any al Qaeda camps that are developed after we leave?

REP. PAUL: The people who say there will be a bloodbath are the ones who said it would be a cakewalk, it would be slam dunk, and that it would be paid for by oil. Why believe them? They’ve been wrong on everything they’ve said. Why not ask the people — (interrupted by cheers) — why not ask the people who advise not to go into the region and into the war? The war has not gone well one bit.

Yes, I would leave, I would leave completely. Why leave the troops in the region? The fact that we had troops in Saudi Arabia was one of the three reasons given for the attack on 9/11. So why leave them in the region? They don’t want our troops on the Arabian Peninsula. We have no need for our national security to have troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and going into Iraq and Afghanistan and threatening Iran is the worst thing we can do for our national security.

I am less safe, the American people are less safe for this. It’s the policy that is wrong. Tactical movements and shifting troops around and taking in 30 more and reducing by five, totally irrelevant. We need a new foreign policy that said we ought to mind our own business, bring our troops home, defend this country, defend — (bell sounds) — our borders —

MR. WALLACE: So if —

(Interrupted by cheers, applause.)

MR. WALLACE: So, Congressman Paul, and I’d like you to take 30 seconds to answer this, you’re basically saying that we should take our marching orders from al Qaeda? If they want us off the Arabian Peninsula, we should leave? (Laughter.)

REP. PAUL: No! (Cheers, applause.) I’m saying — (laughter) — I’m saying we should take our marching orders from our Constitution. We should not go to war — (cheers, applause) — we should not go to war without a declaration. We should not go to war when it’s an aggressive war. This is an aggressive invasion. We’ve committed the invasion of this war, and it’s illegal under international law. That’s where I take my marching orders, not from any enemy. (Cheers, boos.)

Here’s the exchange given above in the youtube clip:

MR. WALLACE: Governor Huckabee, the latest National Intelligence Estimate, which is out recently, says that even if we continue the troop surge — and we’re going to put it up on the screen — Iraq’s security will continue to improve modestly during the next six to 12 months, but levels of insurgent and sectarian violence will remain high, and the Iraqi government will continue to struggle to achieve national-level political reconciliation and improved governance.

Governor, if that’s the best we can hope for, should we continue the surge?

MR. HUCKABEE: We have to continue the surge. And let me explain why, Chris. When I was a little kid, if I went into a store with my mother, she had a simple rule for me. If I picked something off the shelf of the store and I broke it, I bought it.

I learned don’t pick something off the shelf I can’t afford to buy.

Well, what we did in Iraq, we essentially broke it. It’s our responsibility to do the best we can to try to fix it before we just turn away because something is at stake. Senator McCain made a great point, and let me make this clear. If there’s anybody on this stage that understands the word honor, I’ve got to say Senator McCain understands that word — (applause, cheers) — because he has given his country a sacrifice the rest of us don’t even comprehend. (Continued applause.)

And on this issue, when he says we can’t leave until we’ve left with honor, I 100 percent agree with him because, Congressman, whether or not we should have gone to Iraq is a discussion that historians can have, but we’re there. We bought it because we broke it. We’ve got a responsibility to the honor of this country and to the honor of every man and woman who has served in Iraq and ever served in our military to not leave them with anything less than the honor that they deserve. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. HUME: Go ahead. You wanted to respond? He just addressed you; you go ahead and respond. (Continued applause.)

REP. PAUL: The American people didn’t go in. A few people advising this administration, a small number of people called the neoconservative hijacked our foreign policy. They’re responsible, not the American people. They’re not responsible. We shouldn’t punish them. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. HUCKABEE: Congressman, we are one nation. We can’t be divided. We have to be one nation under God. That means if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country, the United States of America, not the divided states of America. (Cheers.)

REP. PAUL: No. When we make a mistake — (interrupted by applause) — when we make a mistake, it is the obligation of the people through their representatives to correct the mistake, not to continue the mistake! (Cheers, applause.)

MR. HUCKABEE: And that’s what we do on the floor of the —

REP. PAUL: No! We’ve dug a hole for ourselves and we dug a hole for our party!

We’re losing elections and we’re going down next year if we don’t change it, and it has all to do with foreign policy, and we have to wake up to this fact.

MR. HUCKABEE: Even if we lose elections, we should not lose our honor, and that is more important to the Republican Party.

REP. PAUL: We’re losing — we’ve lost over — (cheers, applause) — we have lost — we have lost 5,000 Americans killed in — we’ve lost over 5,000 Americans over there in Afghanistan and Iraq and plus the civilians killed. How many more do you want to lose? How long are we going to be there? How long — what do we have to pay to save face? That’s all we’re doing is saving face. It’s time we came home!

MR. HUME: Okay, gentlemen. Gentlemen, thank you. (Cheers, applause.)

Scanlyze: Gov. Huckabee, “we” didn’t “buy” Iraq. Raping a country doesn’t mean you own it. Iraq has become one huge theft, corruption, torture and rape operation and your logic, sir, is that of the thief and the rapist.

Rep. Paul. What can I say but right on and, what in the devil are you doing in the neo-conservative, neo-fascist US Republican party? As a left-wing Democrat who is also a liberatarian and a Constitutionalist, I find it curious indeed that you are the only candidate who represents my views on most issues.

Chris Wallace: you disgraced yourself through your blatant pandering to the current administration. You cannot any longer be considered a mainstream journalist, or a journalist of any sort for that matter. Are you shooting for a press position in the lame-duck Bush administration? For shame, sir, for shame!

Full transcript at the Council on Foreign Relations
, from which the above quotes are excerpted.
Ron Paul (wikipedia)
Mike Huckabee (wikipedia)
Chris Wallace (wikipedia)

Copyright © 2007 Henry Edward Hardy

Submit to del.icio.usSubmit to BluedotSubmit to ConnoteaDigg it!Submit to FurlSubmit to newsvineSubmit to RedditSubmit to FurlSubmit to TechnoratiSocial Networking Icons Help

6 September, 2007 Posted by | conservative, constitutionalist, debate, Iraq, media, Mike Huckabee, news, peace, politics, Republican, Ron Paul, scanlyze, US, US Constitution, USA | 1 Comment

Letter to the youth of America

Next year, some of you will die. Horribly. In the war.

Not all of you. But the draft will start again, and your generation will be drenched in blood.

You will become victims, and victimizers.

You will kill, rape, pillage.

You will laugh, cry, and die calling for your mother.

Your friends will be taken away, and never return. Or their body will come back, but they won’t. Someone else will be there in their place, looking through the prison of their eyes at a world which no longer makes sense.

I went to a pancake breakfast this morning honoring the senior member of the US House of Representatives, John Dingell. The event was a fundraiser for the University of Michigan College Democrats at a local brewpub in Ann Arbor, MI. There were easily more than a hundred people there, including the mayor, state legislators, council members and a former congressman.

John Dingell is a great politician. He looks right at you (unless he wants you to vanish) and he is a very good listener. He remembers names and faces and events with great precision. His father sat in Congress before him, and he’s been there more than 50 years now.

He gave a nice speech recognizing the usefulness of the flying squads of students who helped in swing districts when the Demos swept the governorship and legislative bodies. He spoke nicely about the local officials there. He said not word one about Iraq.

Then his wife Debbie spoke. More platitudes, less substance even than John.

When the mic went back to the student MC, I said loudly Tell us about your plan to stop the war, John!

People started shushing me and saying be quiet.

I said, While we have been happily stuffing our faces and congratulating ourselves, another 8 people have died in Iraq. Two were children. That’s right, your pancakes are drenched in the blood of the children of Iraq!

Some guy was grabbing me and pulling on me and I told him Let go of me or I will call the police and ask that you be charged with assault and battery. There was a minor-to-medium uproar (which is to say, no chairs or fists flying).

Dingell got kind of red in the face and looked pissed but he came back to the mic and said I’ll answer that.

Dingell said that he had met with Bush before the war and told him to his face that the war would be a disaster, that there was no planning for the post-war situation. He voted against the war authorization. He had done all he could within the Congress against the war. But there were divisions within the Democratic caucus. He said there was no simple solution to the war. He said if you have a better idea I’d like to hear it.

I said I do have a better idea. (people shouting)

He said if I had a better idea he wanted to hear it.

I said are you [the students] going to let me speak or will you carry on like a bunch of Young Republicans?

Yes, Congressman there is a simple answer, you just don’t want to acknowledge it. Don’t vote for any more war appropriations! You must not vote for a two-year appropriation for an illegal aggressive war which was authorized based on lies, lies, propaganda, and more lies. Tell us you won’t vote to pay for war any more!

He said that Bush was the worst President of his lifetime, perhaps of all time. He said I think something to the effect that his [Bush’s] people are amateurs. (very noisy at this point much chaos)

I didn’t persist and they ended the event. Several people including one councilperson and some party officials came to thank me for what I said and a few students also said they respected my right to speak out but most of them wouldn’t meet my eye. They were all mostly wearing identical blue tee shirts which said, “Democrats make better lovers” on the front and “who ever heard of a good piece of elephant” on the back. Way to go dudes and dudesses. When I was a teenager it was about peace and love. Now its about tits and ass, apparently.

You people are so square (the students I mean, not the old radicals turned politicians) if you rubbed your head you would cut yourself on the corners. We old radicals are still trying to deal with this mess of neocons left by Reagan and Nixon, why don’t you rebel and give us a hand a bit. Having everyone look and act the same, that is not democracy, that is fascism. It is also very boring.

People think Iraq is as bad as it can get, but it isn’t, not nearly. It is not even near as bad as Korea or the Second Indochina War (what people call in the US, the Viet Nam War). The US has lost 3,135 killed in Iraq so far. In Korea or Viet Nam, that figure was over 50 thousand. And most of those dead will be you, the students, who will be enslaved by the draft and forced to become war criminals and murderers.

You must demand today that John Dingell and the rest of the US Congress stop voting money for this illegal war, or else tomorrow it will be you and your friends who will be murdering and dying in a foreign land where everyone hates you, and you hate yourself as well.

Please wake up and demand an end to funding this war before it escalates still further.

If you want to support someone, don’t fund sending them somewhere to be killed!

Continued funding for this war is both stupid and evil. It must stop now.

More Action Necessary?
Kicking Ass Ann Arbor
University of Michigan College Democrats

Oh, BTW if someone has video of the event they could send me, I’d love to post it here as well as get a better transcript of what was said rather than my approximate paraphrases above.

Copyright © 2007 Henry Edward Hardy

Submit to del.icio.usSubmit to BluedotSubmit to ConnoteaDigg it!Submit to FurlSubmit to newsvineSubmit to RedditSubmit to FurlSubmit to TechnoratiSocial Networking Icons Help

17 February, 2007 Posted by | America, Ann Arbor, appropriations, breakfast, Bush, college, Congress, Constitution, democrat, democratic, Dingell, dissent, draft, essay, events, funding, fundraiser, government, House of Representatives, Iraq, media, Michigan, military, news, pancakes, peace, politics, protest, scanlyze, students, university, University of Michigan, US Congress, US Constitution, USA, war, youth | 14 Comments

America the Beautiful and Rabih Haddad

America the Beautiful

O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!

O beautiful for pilgrim feet
Whose stern, impassioned stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
America! America!
God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law!

America the Beautiful
1st and 2nd verses,
Catherine Lee Bates
1913

I sang these verses in a somewhat quavery but fairly on-key voice to a high school auditorium full of people at a town meeting called by US Rep. Lynn Rivers (D-Mich) after 9/11. One brave lady in the crowd sang with me.

One of the panelists invited by Rivers, a moderate and well-respected member of the Ann Arbor Muslim community was Rabih Haddad. Mr. Haddad was taken from his Ann Arbor home by US officials on December 14, 2001, terrorizing and traumatizing his wife and young children in the process. Haddad was then held without charges, mostly in solitary confinement, for 19 months. The ranking Democratic member (and now chair) of the House Judiciary Committee, John Conyers (D-Mich), was refused admission to Haddad’s hearing in Detroit for purported reasons of national security. Following a great deal of public demonstrations, controversy, and criticism concerning the government actions, Haddad was then secretly deported. The Ann Arbor News withheld the information about his impending deportation from publication for several days at government request.

My Brother Rabih Haddad
Rabih Haddad Speaks Out

I was inspired to write this by:

I Love America by Shirley Buxton.

This is my response to Shirley:

Is this the America you love?

  • Secret trials and secret prisons?
  • Torture, rape and murder as instruments of state policy?
  • No more habeas corpus?
  • A Government which contemptuously disregards the Geneva Conventions?
  • No right to a lawyer, a trial by jury or even the right to know the charges against you?
  • A President who has utter contempt for the Constitution and the law?
  • A Nation that attacks without provocation, and lies about the putative reasons?

Shame on you, Shirley Buxton.

The patriots and ‘founding fathers’ you pretend to admire were, in fact revolutionaries who took up arms to overthrow a repressive government. That’s why we call it the American Revolutionary War! Furthermore, the original Pledge of Allegiance you quote was written by a socialist, Francis Bellamy in 1892, and did not include the words, “under God”. This phrase was added by Congress in 1954 during the height of the McCarthy repression.

Consider:

Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power.

–Benjamin Franklin

The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing.

–John Adams

Give me liberty or give me death!

–Patrick Henry

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

–Sam Adams

Copyright © 2007 Henry Edward Hardy

Submit to del.icio.usSubmit to BluedotSubmit to ConnoteaDigg it!Submit to FurlSubmit to newsvineSubmit to RedditSubmit to FurlSubmit to TechnoratiSocial Networking Icons Help

3 February, 2007 Posted by | 9/11, America, America the Beautiful, Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor News, Bush, Conyers, democratic, essay, liberty, Lynn Rivers, Michigan, patriot, patriotism, peace, Pledge of Allegiance, politics, quotations, Rabih Haddad, repression, revolution, scanlyze, Shirley Buxton, US Constitution, USA | 3 Comments

With Reporters Like BBC Washington Correspondent Justin Webb, Who Needs Republican Spin-Doctors?

With Reporters Like BBC Washington Correspondent Justin Webb, Who Needs Republican Spin-Doctors?

The BBC’s Washington correspondent Justin Webb is truly a fount of misinformation and undigested, regurgitated White House talking-points. Consider this effusion from the BBC website dated January 6, 2007:

Democrats step up Iraq pressure

But in a letter to the president, Senate Democratic Leader, Harry Reid, and House of Representatives Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, said adding more combat troops would stretch the US military to breaking point with no strategic gain.

They instead urged a phased redeployment of US forces, starting in four to six months, with a re-emphasis on training, logistics and counter-terrorism operations in Iraq.

The BBC’s Justin Webb in Washington says this is an aggressive move from the Democrats, setting the stage for a huge political battle.

Mr Bush cannot be prevented from sending more troops [emphasis mine–HH], our correspondent says, but he may pay a big political cost if the deployment is carried out amid fierce congressional opposition.

(no byline but attributing these views to Webb)

This is wrong constitutionally, factually, and historically. The US Constitution, Article I, Section 7 provides that:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Article I, Section 8 further provides,

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States…

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress…

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

US Constitution

Both the raising of taxes and the war-making power belong to Congress alone (it is this author’s view that the War Powers Act is an unconstitutional surrender and delegation of these powers to the Executive).

Further, as a practical matter, both the Second Indochina War (“Vietnam War” to Americans) and the US incursions into El Salvador and Nicaragua were stopped by Congressional action to disapprove or not approve funding for unauthorized war actions by the executive.

Compare Mr. Webb’s misinformation with this from CNN posted January 30, 2007:

GOP senator challenges Bush on war powers

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Senate Republican on Tuesday directly challenged President Bush’s declaration that “I am the decision-maker” on issues of war.

“I would suggest respectfully to the president that he is not the sole decider,” Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, said during a hearing on Congress’ war powers amid an increasingly harsh debate over Iraq war policy. “The decider is a shared and joint responsibility,” Specter said.

The question of whether to use its power over the government’s purse strings to force an end to the war in Iraq, and under what conditions, is among the issues faced by the Democratic majority in Congress, and even some of the president’s political allies as well.

No one challenges the notion that Congress can stop a war by withholding the money to pay for it. [emphasis mine–HH]

In fact, Vice President Dick Cheney challenged the Democrat-controlled Congress to back up its objections to President Bush’s plan to put 21,500 more troops in Iraq by zeroing out the war budget.

Few expect such a drastic move, but there are other legislative options to force the war’s end, say majority Democrats and some of Bush’s traditional Republican allies.

The alternatives range from capping the number of troops permitted in Iraq to cutting off money for troop deployments beyond a certain date or setting an end date for the war.

[Note: not a permalink: article has changed since the above was quoted]

This is not the first time I have noted Mr. Webb spouting his pro-Republican fantasies, see:

Prophetic Words

And my previous comments to Justin Webb on the BBC:

Balderdash, Rot, and Poppycock

The peculiar assertion by Justin Webb that the Democrats will somehow be blamed for the reputed actions of the Republican Congressman Foley is lacking in any factual basis. This piece is so poorly written it even fails to identify Congressman Foley as the subject, nor does it mention the allegations and evidence pertaining to the issue.

This blog entry is neither news reporting nor news analysis; it is blatant propaganda, pro-Republican pandering and “spin”. Such a preposterous assertion would require more proof than the off-topic quote from a conveniently unnamed and therefore unverifiable “former staffer in the Clinton White House”.

Justin Webb’s reporting is a disgrace to the BBC and to all journalists everywhere and he should resign, or be made redundant immediately.

It is, however, neither the alleged actions of one individual congressman nor of one partisan, biased reporter which will be determinative of the races in other contested Congressional districts. Rather, it will be the fact that the US is bogged down in a war it is losing (Afghanistan) and a war which is already lost (Iraq), coupled with the ongoing assault on the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions and the rolling collapse of the economy and de-industrialization of the US which will drive the American people to vote Democratic this November.

–Henry Edward Hardy, posted at bbc.co.uk 6 October 2006

And:

Bush: No room to hide

“I predict that the Democrats will get the blame for this [Foley scandal] in the end and not quite know how to avoid it.” –Justin Webb, Oct. 6, 2006

Mr. Webb, please have the courtesy and intellectual honesty to admit how wrong you were in writing those words and how utterly foolish, partisan and ill-informed they look in the aftermath of the Democratic landslide.

–Henry Edward Hardy, posted at bbc.co.uk 10 November 2006

See also:

Move Over Scott Mclellan, Justin Webb Has Drunk The Kool-Aid
Webb blogurl:biased-bbc.blogspot.com
Why the internet will revolutionise politics
We are Biased, Admit the Stars of BBC News
Justin Webb [BBC biography]
On The Lam

With “reporters” like Justin Webb, who needs spin-doctors?

Copyright © 2006, 2007 Henry Edward Hardy

Submit to del.icio.usSubmit to BluedotSubmit to ConnoteaDigg it!Submit to FurlSubmit to newsvineSubmit to RedditSubmit to FurlSubmit to TechnoratiSocial Networking Icons Help

30 January, 2007 Posted by | BBC, Bush, Justin Webb, news, politics, power of the purse, scanlyze, separation of powers, television, US Congress, US Constitution, war, web | Leave a comment

The Manual for Military Commissions

The new Manual for Military Commissions published today by the Bush Administration today sets out to retroactively legalize and justify going forward some of their worst abuses of liberty over the last five years, including imprisonment without charges, imprisonment without recourse to habeas corpus, and the use of coerced testimony and hearsay. The Preamble follows, courtesy of BBC:

The Manual For Military Commissions

PART I
PREAMBLE
1. Structural provisions of the M.C.A.
The M.C.A. amends both Articles 21 and 36, Uniform Code of Military Justice
(U.C.M.J.) (10 U.S.C. §§ 821 and 836) to permit greater flexibility in constructing procedural and evidentiary rules for trials of alien unlawful enemy combatants by
military commission. Several key provisions of the M.C.A. demonstrate this
accommodation of military operational and national security considerations:
(a) While the M.C.A. is consistent with the U.C.M.J. in many respects, neither the
U.C.M.J. itself nor “[t]he judicial construction and application of that chapter” is binding
on trials by military commission (10 U.S.C. § 948b(c)).
(b) 10 U.S.C. §§ 810, 831(a), (b), & (d), and 832 do not apply to these military
commissions (10 U.S.C. § 948b(d)(1)).
(c) Other provisions of the U.C.M.J. apply only as specified in the M.C.A. (10 U.S.C.
§ 948b(d)(2)).
(d) The M.C.A. provides that the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Attorney
General, may prescribe rules of evidence and procedure, as well as elements and modes
of proof, for offenses tried by these military commissions (10 U.S.C. § 949a(a)), and that
if the Secretary promulgates regulations, he shall submit them to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives (M.C.A. § 3(b)).
(e) Such rules “shall, so far as the Secretary considers practicable or consistent with
military or intelligence activities, apply the principles of law and the rules of evidence”
for trials by general court-martial, so long as the Secretary’s rules and procedures are not
contrary to or inconsistent with the M.C.A. (10 U.S.C. § 949a(a)).
(f) Implementing rules must be consistent with the M.C.A. and provide for the accused’s
rights to:
(1) be present at trial, examine and respond to evidence admitted against him,
cross-examine witnesses who testify against him, obtain and present evidence, and not be
required to testify against himself at a military commission proceeding (10 U.S.C.
§§ 948r(a), 949a(b)(1)(A) & (B), and 949j(a)); and
(2) assistance by counsel or self-representation (10 U.S.C. § 949a(b)(1)(C) &
(D)).
(g) Statements obtained by torture are not admissible (10 U.S.C. § 948r(b)), but
statements “in which the degree of coercion is disputed” may be admitted if reliable,
probative, and the admission would best serve the interests of justice (10 U.S.C.
I-1
§ 948r(c)). In addition, for such statements obtained after December 30, 2005, the
methods used to obtain those statements must comply with the Detainee Treatment Act of
2005, enacted on that date (10 U.S.C. § 948r(d)(3)).
(h) In addition, rules may provide for:
(1) admission of evidence if determined to have “probative value to a reasonable
person” (10 U.S.C. § 949a(b)(2)(A));
(2) admission of evidence notwithstanding the absence of a search warrant or
other authorization (10 U.S.C. § 949a(b)(2)(B));
(3) admission of an accused’s allegedly coerced statements if they comport with
§ 948r (10 U.S.C. § 949a(b)(2)(C));
(4) authentication of evidence similar to Military Rule of Evidence (Mil. R. Evid.)
901 (10 U.S.C. § 949a(b)(2)(D));
(5) admission of hearsay evidence not meeting an exclusion or exception under
the Mil. R. Evid. if the proponent gives notice and the opposing party does not
demonstrate that the evidence lacks probative value or reliability (10 U.S.C.
§ 949a(b)(2)(E)); and
(6) exclusion of any evidence failing to meet the requirements of Mil. R. Evid.
403 (10 U.S.C. § 949a(b)(2)(F)).
2. Determinations of practicability and consistency with military and intelligence
activities
The rules of evidence and procedure promulgated herein reflect the Secretary’s
determinations of practicability and consistency with military and intelligence activities.
Just as importantly, they provide procedural and evidentiary rules that not only comport
with the M.C.A. and ensure protection of classified information, but extend to the
accused all the “necessary judicial guarantees” as required by Common Article 3. In this
regard, these rules represent a delicate balance similar in concept, but different in detail
from those provided in the Manual for Courts-Martial.

full text at BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/18_01_07_manual.pdf

Evidence gained under torture is not admissible BUT statements “in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted if reliable, probative, and the admission would best serve the interests of justice.”

The Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Geneva Conventions, Hague Conventions, and for that matter, the US Constitution, are pretty much out the window here. This is another act of extreme cynicism and just plain evil by this demented US administration. Please call or fax your Congressmen and Senators today and tell them to repeal the Military Commissions Act.

Copyright © 2007 Henry Edward Hardy

Submit to del.icio.usSubmit to BluedotSubmit to ConnoteaDigg it!Submit to FurlSubmit to newsvineSubmit to RedditSubmit to FurlSubmit to TechnoratiSocial Networking Icons Help

19 January, 2007 Posted by | Afghanistan, archives, Bush, covert operations, intelligence, Iraq, law, media, military, news, politics, scanlyze, torture, US Constitution, war | Leave a comment