You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Fifth Column
John Roberts’ Role in the Guantanamo Hunger Strike: One Moonbat's Opinion
2005-09-16
by Mike Whitney
www.dissidentvoice.org
“People will definitely die
. Bobby Sands petitioned the British government to stop the illegitimate internment of Irishmen without trial
. Nobody should believe for one moment that my brothers here have less courage.”
-- Binyam Mohammed, British prisoner at Guantanamo Bay

I doubt you have the courage, but I hope you all die anyways.
When Senate hearings convene this week for Supreme Court candidate John Roberts, let’s hope that they focus on the hunger strike taking place at Guantanamo Bay. It was Robert’s ruling in Rumsfeld vs. Hamdan that hastened a massive 200-man hunger strike that is now in its second month and has hospitalized at least 15 inmates.
He just got my vote.
The prisoners are demanding that they be given the opportunity to challenge the terms of their detention in a court of law, a principle that Roberts does not support. He ruled in the Hamdan case that the President was not constrained by international law and that “the Geneva Conventions do not create judicially enforceable rights.” Roberts ignores the fact that the United States is a signatory of the Geneva Conventions and must comply with its provisions for the humane treatment of prisoners as well as offering prisoners the Convention’s protection “until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.” Rumsfeld’s handpicked military courts do not meet these requirements, and have been rejected by prominent legal organizations and human rights groups alike.
You mean, like the Supreme Court?
Let’s be clear -- the 500 prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are innocent. That is not my contention, but the belief of everyone who still accepts the fundamental principle of American jurisprudence, that men are “innocent until proven guilty.” The inmates have been deprived of due process of law, so we must presume that they are innocent. The language invented at the Defense Department -- “terrorist”, “enemy combatant”, “insurgent” -- should not cloud our reasoning or undermine our commitment to fair play. The prisoners should be allowed to defend themselves according to internationally accepted standards of justice.
...and then fed to the Gitmo sharks.
Roberts does not believe that captives in the war on terror have any rights whatsoever. His ruling in Rumsfeld vs. Hamdan confers absolute authority on the President to imprison suspects indefinitely without any legal process in place to challenge their imprisonment. But, if this is true, than why do we need courts or judges at all? Why not simply resolve these issues by executive fiat?
Condellezza! My signet ring and the wax, please!
Roberts’ ruling has earned him an appointment to the Supreme Court; a souvenir for endorsing the supreme powers of the President. But, his ambition comes at a cost. 200 or more victims of his verdict are presently starving themselves to death demanding the right to have their cases heard in court. The scene at Guantanamo has been described as “dire” by defense attorneys for the detainees with gruesome descriptions of prisoners “vomiting blood or collapsing in their cells.”
Boohoohoo. Where's my violin...
The Defense Department has tried to conceal the details of the hunger strike and has prevented the media and the Red Cross from visiting the prisoners. Guantanamo needs to be opened up so that we can see the consequences of Roberts’ judicial philosophy. If Roberts is willing to rubberstamp a policy that promotes the cruel and inhuman treatment of prisoners then the public should be aware of it.
I'm pissed off that they're there. I'm pissed off they're still breathing.
Roberts has argued that, “The president’s authority under the laws of our nation to try enemy combatants is a vital part of the global war on terror.” Fine. Roberts should be given every opportunity to defend his theories on justice as long as the sick and emaciated victims of his philosophy are paraded through the Senate Rotunda for everyone to observe.
Sure. Put it on Pay Per View...
American justice is an oxymoron. Under Bush, there is neither justice nor a system; just the willful conduct of bullies who act according to the most cynical impulses. Roberts is the embodiment of the present paradigm: a man whose adult life has been devoted to secret organizations, like the Federalist Society, whose sole purpose is the dismantling of legal protections and civil liberties for the common man. He is the poster boy of the new world order.
Ooooooooh...the Federalist Society. Do they have cool black helicopters?
The Muslim prisoners who are resisting this regime of lawlessness -- some who have even ripped the feeding tubes from their arms -- are heroes in the truest sense of the word. They have put their own lives on the line for a just cause, demanding that they be treated with the same respect and dignity deserving of every man. Now, they face an agonizing death fighting for the very same principles that are written into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Mahmoud Al-Jailbirdi...
They’ve earned our admiration, and they have it.
Ha!
Posted by:tu3031

#8   "a policy that promotes the cruel and inhuman treatment of prisoners"
how is a hunger strike looked upon as cruel and unusual treatment? They're doing it to themselves.
Thank God the red cross and media have been prevented here.
Posted by: Jan   2005-09-16 19:00  

#7  Still doesn't qualify for 72 virgins. Nice try though.
Posted by: danking_70   2005-09-16 15:05  

#6  Just saw the Looney Tunes pic in the article. Too bad I'm now spelling challenged (my earlier post) since the advent of computers. Damn you Bush...It's all your fault that Johnny can't spell
Posted by: Warthog   2005-09-16 14:29  

#5  I read that they are being force fed by tube. I don't see the point? At the risk of seeming mean I say let them die. 200? That would be 200 less people to house, cloth, feed, and guard. The LLL KoolAid drinkers can't seem to get any traction with the voters on this issue, I wonder why? (snicker)
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2005-09-16 13:43  

#4  "American justice is an oxymoron."

No...your just a Moron. I know, immature name calling. But really, this guy is a Moron.
Posted by: DepotGuy   2005-09-16 12:37  

#3  With every hearing you must eat a pork chop.

Mikey, yer trying to hard in your article. It screams, "Read me, notice me, I'm a revolutionary!"

I'd stick to delivering pizzas leave Policy to the grown-ups.
Posted by: macofromoc   2005-09-16 12:14  

#2  They’ve earned our admiration, and they have it.
What you talkin' 'bout Willis? Mikey...by our do you mean your other 16 personalities. Definitly Loony Toons. Worst case of Stockholm syndrom I've seen
Posted by: Warthog   2005-09-16 11:50  

#1  If he could prove that we were starving them, there would be a very small point in his argument.

But voluntary anorexia on their part ain't Rumsfeld's fault, Mikey. Don't forget, Maggie Thatcher let Bobby Sands starve himself to death. His death accomplished bupkis, just like these "martyrs" deaths will. They probably won't even get their 72 virgins, either.
Posted by: Desert Blondie   2005-09-16 11:49  

00:00