This is not a dictatorship

[Lanya]

    MR. RUSSERT: And joining us now is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont. Good morning and welcome.

    SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT): Good morning, Tim.

    MR. RUSSERT: As you well know, you have issued subpoenas on the Bush White House regarding the eavesdropping, wiretapping put in place by the president after September 11th. Critics this morning will say, senator, that this plan is so essential to monitoring contacts between international terrorists and people here in the United States that subpoenas now is very, very counterproductive and could affect our anti-terrorism situation.

    SEN. LEAHY: Well, of course, that?s the kind of talking point that the White House has tried to put out, and they, the White House has chosen confrontation over cooperation. I think that?s unfortunate. Nobody on my committee, Republican or, or Democrat, is trying to subpoena the operations of what?s been done in wiretapping terrorists. And I was a prosecutor for eight years. I believe in going after criminals, terrorists or anything else. Use wiretaps, use search warrants, whatever. What we?re asking is, what was the legal justification they tried to follow, when, for years, they were wiretapping ordinary Americans and everybody else without a warrant. We have a FISA court. We can, we can redesign the FISA law, if need be, if they need help to go after terrorists.

    MR. RUSSERT: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance ACT, FISA.

    SEN. LEAHY: Yes. And, and, and moot to that, I mean, everybody wants us to get somebody who wants to strike at the United States.

    MR. RUSSERT: So you have no problem with the plan of eavesdropping as such?

    SEN. LEAHY: Provided it follows the law. What I don?t want is this open-ended idea that they had at the White House, until the press found out about it, which would allow, for example, if they didn?t like some comment that you made on NBC, they could then go without any warrant, wiretap your phone, check out your bank account, surveil you. Well, we don?t want that in America.

    MR. RUSSERT: Even if I had no contact with someone overseas?

    SEN. LEAHY: Even if you had no contact with someone overseas under the broad way that they were talking about. So what, what we?ve asked is, what was their legal justification for it? Their answers, as we?ve asked these questions, as the press has asked these questions, has changed so many times, some of it in testimony under oath, we?d kind of like to find out what is the basic reason for it. And we will work with them. I?ve talked to Senator Rockefeller, who?s a chairman of the Intelligence Committee. We will work with whatever changes are needed in the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act, so there?d be no question you can go after potential terrorists with wiretaps and all. But we?ll do it with a check and balance. I don?t want us to ever go back to the situation that we had 30 years ago when we put into place this FISA court, as you called it, where they were wiretapping somebody who disagreed with the government on the Vietnam war. In this case, somebody disagrees with the administration on the Iraq war, under their broad views, you could just go in and wiretap them. This, this is America. This is not a, this is not a dictatorship.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19508551/page/2/

[BT]

The die is cast.

Let's see who blinks.

[sirs]

Strange how the eavesdropping on suspected foreign terrorists has yet to be judicially reprimanded.  Strange how the program still hasn't had 1 legal ruling of being deemed unconstitutional.  Strange how all my rights are still grounded on my side, though the effort to repeal them layer by layer over the last half century hasn't gone unnoticed. 

And yet the hyperbolic cries of "dictatorship" still sewer the arena we used to call civil dialogue     

[_JS]

While dictatorship is certainly hyperbole, I think throwing individuals in prison for years without charges or any legal recourse is definitely a poor testament to a nation that is supposedly built on the concepts of freedom and liberty.

The constitution was definitely urinated on with that decision.

[sirs]

While dictatorship is certainly hyperbole, I think throwing individuals in prison for years without charges or any legal recourse is definitely a poor testament to a nation that is supposedly built on the concepts of freedom and liberty.  The constitution was definitely urinated on with that decision.

Ahh, so your saying that when we detained axis soldiers for years after their capture in WWII, we were "urinating on the Constitution."  Gotcha

[_JS]

Ahh, so your saying that when we detained axis soldiers for years after their capture in WWII, we were "urinating on the Constitution."  Gotcha

I'm not even sure that merits a response.

We've let a number of the detainees go after years of imprisonment with nothing more than a half-ass apology. They did nothing to warrant such treatment. Nothing.

Of course you know the difference between that and Germand and Japanese soldiers with whom we were at war.

[Universe Prince]

Ahh, so your saying that when we detained axis soldiers for years after their capture in WWII, we were "urinating on the Constitution."  Gotcha

You realize of course that those soldiers were prisoners of war and were treated accordingly. Something we refuse to do for the "enemy combatants". You do comprehend the difference there, right?

[sirs]

Ahh, so your saying that when we detained axis soldiers for years after their capture in WWII, we were "urinating on the Constitution."  Gotcha

We've let a number of the detainees go after years of imprisonment with nothing more than a half-ass apology. They did nothing to warrant such treatment. Nothing.

Detaining is hardly this massive claim of mistreatment.  There were likely WWII folks detained who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Likely even detained thru-out the war.  Doesn't excuse the fact it was done, simply that it likely did happen, and those innocently detained is truely unfortunate.  Yet my original query remains valid.  You believe we were "urinating on the Constitution" when we indefinately held all those soldiers??  Because if not, I'm noting a distinct double standard you seem to be applying

Of course you know the difference between that and Germand and Japanese soldiers with whom we were at war.

The difference being that in this war, the enemy aren't wearing the same uniforms.  Otherwise, there's pretty much no difference between "the soldiers"

Ahh, so your saying that when we detained axis soldiers for years after their capture in WWII, we were "urinating on the Constitution."  Gotcha

You realize of course that those soldiers were prisoners of war and were treated accordingly. Something we refuse to do for the "enemy combatants". You do comprehend the difference there, right?

Those POW were treated according to the Geneva Convention, which applied to uniformed soldiers representative of a specific country.  Last time I checked, AlQeada and Militant Islamofascists neither wear the same uniform nor represent any specific country, thus the term enemy combatants.  You do comprehend the difference, right?

[Universe Prince]

Those POW were treated according to the Geneva Convention, which applied to uniformed soldiers representative of a specific country.  Last time I checked, AlQeada and Militant Islamofascists neither wear the same uniform nor represent any specific country, thus the term enemy combatants.  You do comprehend the difference, right?

Yes, I understand the difference, but do you? I realize we have conveniently set aside all "enemy combatants" as unworthy of basic things like being charged or having legal council or even seeing the evidence against them because we have decided to call them something other than "prisoners of war" or even just "criminals". As if a lack of a term or a uniform makes them something less than human beings. But that isn't what I was talking about.

You're trying to compare the treatment of prisoners of war to the treatment of "enemy combatants" as if they are equal things. Clearly, and even your own words highlight this, they are not equal. So suggesting there is some how a double standard to complain about indefinite incarceration of "enemy combatants" but not about the imprisonment of prisoners of war is ridiculous.

Again, I understand the difference, but do you?

[sirs]

Those POW were treated according to the Geneva Convention, which applied to uniformed soldiers representative of a specific country.  Last time I checked, AlQeada and Militant Islamofascists neither wear the same uniform nor represent any specific country, thus the term enemy combatants.  You do comprehend the difference, right?

Yes, I understand the difference, but do you?

YES.  Geneva Convention pretty much applying to uniformed enemy combatants.  Those that have chosen not to abide by the Geneva convention of warfare, not be a uniformed member of a country's standing army, do not get the luxury of the Geneva Convention applied to them

 

I realize we have conveniently set aside all "enemy combatants" as unworthy of basic things like being charged or having legal council or even seeing the evidence against them because we have decided to call them something other than "prisoners of war" or even just "criminals". As if a lack of a term or a uniform makes them something less than human beings. But that isn't what I was talking about.

Not really, but I concede that those who act out as Islamofascist terrorists, such as AlQeada, targeting & killing innocent women & children don't get my stamp of appoval for them to be treated much more than the enemy combatants they have been designated as.  They frequently hide amongst civilians putting them at grave risk for collateral death, hold themselves up in Mosques, when they're not blowing them up.  And I can't help but recollect that recent story of members of AlQeada/Taliban who attempted to persuade some child to "open up his bag full of butterflies" as soon as he got close to a bunch of U.S. soldiers.  The bag of course being a bomb pack.  It's quite simple Prince, folks like these get no more sympathy from me than a child rapist.  I have NO problems with them being detained indefinately, so long as they're out of the picture in trying to kill not just our soldiers and civilians, but Muslim children as well.

You're trying to compare the treatment of prisoners of war to the treatment of "enemy combatants" as if they are equal things. Clearly, and even your own words highlight this, they are not equal.

Yes, I do believe I've made that reference numerous times.  The former were enemy soldiers who were fighting for a specific country.  That latter are enemy soldiers who have no specific country they fight for, merely the notion of a global Muslim world.  They are soldiers none the less, in a war with the U.S.  And when caught should be detained until the duration of the conflict is completed

Again, I understand the difference, but do you?

Yes....exquisately.

[Universe Prince]

It's quite simple Prince, folks like these get no more sympathy from me than a child rapist.

No one is asking you to have sympathy for them. And I should note that even people accused of pedophile rape get charged and legal council and a chance to examine the evidence against them. I see no reason why should not do the same for people accused of terrorism.

[sirs]

It's quite simple Prince, folks like these get no more sympathy from me than a child rapist.

No one is asking you to have sympathy for them. And I should note that even people accused of pedophile rape get charged and legal council and a chance to examine the evidence against them. I see no reason why should not do the same for people accused of terrorism.

Since indefinate detainment of soldiers and their collaborators accused of acts of aggression and warfare during WWII was a go, again, I have no problem with these uniformed enemy soldiers who are accused of terrorism, also being detained.  As long as their off the battlefield

[Universe Prince]

If all "enemy combatants" were captured as prisoners of war in all but name and then treated like prisoners of war, I might be more inclined to agree with you, Sirs. But they aren't, and I'm not.

[_JS]

Detaining is hardly this massive claim of mistreatment.  There were likely WWII folks detained who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Likely even detained thru-out the war.  Doesn't excuse the fact it was done, simply that it likely did happen, and those innocently detained is truely unfortunate.  Yet my original query remains valid.  You believe we were "urinating on the Constitution" when we indefinately held all those soldiers??  Because if not, I'm noting a distinct double standard you seem to be applying

The only double standard here is coming from you.

1. They are not treated as POW's, so you can stop pretending that their is any similarity between the two.

2. Offenders receive legal counsel, the right to see their accusers, a fair trial, and other basic human rights. That includes Timothy McVeigh, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Tracy Housel, John Elliot, Karl and Walter LaGrand, Andrea Hicks Jackson, Odell Barnes, etc.

3. We have released 340 of the 775 detainees. Of the remaining 435, 110 are scheduled for release and 70 will face some sort of trial (the details of which are unknown). The remainder...well, who knows?

So let's look at your comment:

There were likely WWII folks detained who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

You are implying that some of the detainees were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. An accident of fate. Oops! That might be believable if 58% weren't released! Do you think of the World War II POW's we captured that 58% weren't really Axis soldiers?!?

I know you are more intelligent than that Sirs. By the way, that 58% is conservative because that implies that the entire remainder including that 70 that face trial are all guilty of being al-Qaeda terrorists. It may be a far higher percentage than that.

We have stolen years from some of these people, who have families. Others were 12 or 13 years old when we arrested them. But keep on telling yourself how this all fits in neatly with the constitution. I'm sure millions of people under hundreds of constitutions throughout history have made the same justifications for all sorts of terrible atrocities.

The difference being that in this war, the enemy aren't wearing the same uniforms.  Otherwise, there's pretty much no difference between "the soldiers"

Look up internment. Then look up Operation Demetrius. You'll see why this policy is a failure.

They'll catch a few authentic terrorists, but it won't make up for the ones we'll create through this very process.

[sirs]

1. They are not treated as POW's, so you can stop pretending that their is any similarity between the two.

Yes, they are, but I concede to a point.  Since they aren't uniformed nor represent a specific country, these SOLDIERS don't fall under the spefics of the Geneva Convention

2. Offenders receive legal counsel, the right to see their accusers, a fair trial, and other basic human rights. That includes Timothy McVeigh, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Tracy Housel, John Elliot, Karl and Walter LaGrand, Andrea Hicks Jackson, Odell Barnes, etc.

You're referring to American criminals, NOT foreign soldiers Js.  Apples & Oranges

3. We have released 340 of the 775 detainees. Of the remaining 435, 110 are scheduled for release and 70 will face some sort of trial (the details of which are unknown). The remainder...well, who knows?

And.................?  Appears to me enough inveistigation was performed to determine that they were either not soldiers or that they provided enough information to be deemed no longer a threat

So let's look at your comment:

There were likely WWII folks detained who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

You are implying that some of the detainees were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. An accident of fate. Oops! That might be believable if 58% weren't released! Do you think of the World War II POW's we captured that 58% weren't really Axis soldiers?!?

The uniform was a big help

The difference being that in this war, the enemy aren't wearing the same uniforms.  Otherwise, there's pretty much no difference between "the soldiers"

Look up internment. Then look up Operation Demetrius. You'll see why this policy is a failure.

Were not simply rounding up Muslims Js.  These folks were taken to Gitmo (and elsewhere) because they were either caught while trying to kill our soldiers, while assisting the enemy, or in an area that was rounded up as a suspected terror cell.  Let's be honest here, this is NOTHING like what we were doing with Asian-looking people during WWII

And these SOLDIERS who've been rounded & taken off the battlefield up are still provided 3 meals a day AND their own Korans AND multiple times to pray AND many other perks I'm not sure I'd have provided those who've sworn an oath to kill the great satan.