Bush's hubris

know no bounds it seems.  I can't get over the fact that the Supreme Court is saying that it is okay to kidnap anyone Bush wants. So much for treaties between countries which spell out how to extradite people wanted for crimes in the US.

by shanti (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 41 comments) on Sunday, December 2, 2007 at 9:21:46 AM
 

Extraordinary Rendition

Thanks for your news report. The U.S. believes it can kidnap anyone anywhere anytime because Americans are a race of superior beings above the rule of international law and the counsel of other societies. Those who believe this is a New American Century hold views of racial superiority that are more sophisticated than Hitler's but are leading to the same results, invasion, bloodshed, plunder, death, and destruction. President Bush rejects all international treaties and international criminal courts. He has scrapped antiwar treaties brokered by Republican Presidents Nixon and Reagan on biological warfare and nuclear warfare, respectively. America today will go on fighting wars around the world until it abandons this insane philosophy of national superiority or the price in blood and treasure becomes too high. So far, candidates of both political parties have not discussed racism in this context. Of course, this is only the way I see it, and the candidates don't think along these lines. Presidential candidates would do well to listen to the words of the Finnish national anthem. They might learn something about respect for other societies.

Sherwood Ross 

by Sherwood Ross (180 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 116 comments) on Sunday, December 2, 2007 at 9:27:38 AM
 

Asserts

The Administration may assert all it wants but the rest of the world does not have to accept such assertions. This kind of unilateral criminal behaviour will result in those doing the kidnapping being arrested in foreign jurisdictions and being incarcerated for their crimes. When you hear talk about rogue nations you know who they are discussing.

by Archie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1273 comments) on Sunday, December 2, 2007 at 10:55:00 AM
 

Here's a point...

Made in comments elsewhere- the worst consequence will be that foreign nations can assert the same right in kind.  Imagine the conflagration if American citizens start to get abducted for crimes in other countries...

by Mike Kuykendall (36 articles, 60 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 86 comments) on Sunday, December 2, 2007 at 11:12:47 AM
 

American exceptionalism is convincing only to Americans

I'm pro rule of law but think that the rule of law has to apply globally and to date never really has - the UN arose after the failure of the League of Nations and international law needs some sort of hub somewhere. Perhaps the best that the UN could do was make bad behaviour by one of the big 5 conspicuous and it will take a sort of UN version 3 with the League being version 1 and version 2 now hopelessly conspicuously corrupted (with the US re Iraq being internationally televised).

Perhaps one irony of the Bush administration is that it has made American exceptionalism so transparently obvious that the rest of the world can't rationalise it away any longer. Sooner or later there has to be a global rule of law to balance the global trading system with global human rights. Humans with a technological capacity to talk with each other will eventually insist on it. Perhaps Bush in being regressive is actually progressive in effect in that more distrustful eyes are being placed on America now. Perhaps Bush has merely exposed American exceptionalism and its basis in might-makes-right.  As the article points out, its not new that Americans have claimed the right (based on little more than the power) to abduct foreigners internationally. And they aren't the first group of people to argue might makes right, but perhaps, if people are smart enough and connected  enough across geographical distances, they may be one of the last. 

Its likely to take a long time to bring America down, but perhaps Bush has started the process in accidental ernest and starting that process may be a net good to allow something better to emerge than an unbalanced nation democracy in an international trading system.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 1041 comments) on Sunday, December 2, 2007 at 3:59:34 PM
 

Another analysis: NOT a "blunder"

Hello folks

 This goes to show you that, as I suggested in my article "Another Topic in our Political Climate which Nobody Wants to Discuss", Bush and Cheney are abnormal cases where their mental health is concerned. They are murderers on the loose, with nuclear weapons in their hands.

And this is NOT a strategic blunder. Bush had the highest capital punishment case ever recorded in US History, while still governor of Texas. It is no ordinary soul who begs and pleads Congress for freedom to torture without jail in sight (Military COmmissions Act, torture bill). And it is no ordinary soul who rushes to war based on lies, terrifies a nation of people with anthrax hoaxes, and who makes a profiteering business of war.

 Check out the websites of the ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights: MOST Guantanamo detainees have been proven innocent, and are held
"without being charged with so much as a single crime" echo both organizations. The Red Cross estimates that 70% of Guantanamo "terrorists" are innocent.

I don't know the international law, but here is a question for an attorney: I am assuming that if torture is against the Geneva Conventions and US Constitutional law, both alike, then kidnapping must be too?

This Administration has claimed all kinds of "rights" and "executive privilege" belonging only to Red China dictators. We need to see through this for what it is, and publicize it as such. It may or may not be legal to kidnap, and my bet is that it is not, in American and international law, alike.

LIghtbulb: This is one more reason to impeach Bush and Cheney, alike.

What's scary too is that under the Patriot Act, ANY citizen of the USA and non-citizens can be simply dubbed as terrorists, given the "overbroad" definition of "terrorism" in the bill. Check out the websites of the ACLU, Center for Constitutional Rights, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Gun Owners of AMerica, People for the American Way, and more.....they all agree, unanimously. "Terrorist" is defined in the Patriot Act in an "over-broad" way which is drafted specifically to target peace groups, religious groups and activists. And hte ACLU's website is absolutely full of statistics of ordinary citizens being dubbed and targeted as terrorists.

So what's to say who is going to be kidnapped? WIthout habeas corpus, and with warrantless FBI arrests without judicial or Congressional review in the Patriot Act, plus the over-broad definition of terrorism, plus increased capital punishment for non-citizens....what's to say who will be DUBBED as "terrorists" and "criminals" and kidnapped on a whim? Without habeas corpus or non-citizen access to legal counsel, what's to prove their innocence? Nothing. And noone. Except the ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights. And even they can't take on every single kidnap case.

Time for us all to go on an exposee. I suggest reading the ACLU website's content about Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act fact sheets first, and then about statistics of exactly who is cracked down on as terrorists. That is, if you haven't already. Then publicize the information.

Yes, it WILL do some good: AMericans innocently believe that just because they see somebody's photo in the newspaper, it is automatic proof of the CLAIM that they are looking at a terrorist's photo. Not so! Time for us to help raise awareness to the realities, on a public level. Once people see through this Administration (that is, for those who haven't got there yet, which is nobody here on this forum) then they won't be able to get away with...murder. Please help! Thank you.

by Kathryn Smith (97 articles, 2 quicklinks, 42 diaries, 410 comments) on Sunday, December 2, 2007 at 6:37:08 PM