Talk:Global detention system


 * Jack Gohn, Baltimore Daily Record Commentary:
 * Part VI: "War Off the Books" (July 8, 2005).
 * Part VII: "Captive Taxonomy" (August 5, 2005).
 * Part VIII: "Playbook" (August 26, 2005).

New Stub?
Revisiting The Gulag of Our Times - or - Disassembling The Bush Administration's Terror Denials

Related stub: Bush administration flip flops: Amnesty International

comments?

i am presently pulling some relative references because of a bit of guest blogging i committed to for a short time.

Plus, here's a recent antiwar.com blog post.


 * Does it bother anyone that the US government is using former Soviet gulags in Eastern Europe to torture the people they kidnap? That our leader, Dick Cheney, is actively pressuring the senate to exempt the CIA from the new torture ban as his stooge threatens to veto?

Here's a transcription a possible McCain Amendment Change proposed by Cheney, I transcribed from Human Rights Watcch:


 * Possible Change To Section $155 Of The Senate Amendment To H.R. 1863 Department Of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006


 * Presidential Exclusion to Exclude Lawful Non-DoD Clandenstine Operations Abroad Against Alien Terrorists


 * Add to section $155 the following new subsection:


 * (c) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION ON NON-DOD CLANDESTINE OPERATIONS AGAINST ALIEN TERRIRSISTS-


 * Subsection (a) shall not apply to clandestine counterterrorism operations conducted abroad, with respect to terrorists who are not citizens of the United States, that are carried out by an element of the United States Government other that the Department of Defense and are consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and treaties to which the United States is a party, if the President determines that such operations are vital to the protection of the United States or its citizens from terrorist attack.

Sounds kinda warm and fuzzed with the "consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States" clause and the nod to treaties, but remember that this administration claims that the president's war powers trumps the constitution, and that this concept is constitutionally sound, if that absurdity makes any sense. Even if it doesn't, the new SCOTUS Chief agreed to just this argument in Hamdan v Rumsfield appeal to the DC Circuit.

--Hugh Manatee 06:41, 7 Nov 2005 (EST)