![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mandragorasmug, sanctimonious git!
Just caught his performance regarding the detainees at Guantanimo Bay on the BBC News at Ten. I found him to be deeply repellent. It's rare that I react with such hostility to a politician (they have a job to do and I recognise that even if I don't like what they're saying). But to see that bastion of privilege and wealth crap on about how the detainees are not 'common criminals' but are terrorists who will stop at nothing to attack 'us' if they're released made my blood boil.
Where's your proof? Why haven't these people had access to legal advice and been tried in an impartial and properly appointed court of law? As a lawyer I can't begin to express how much the denial of these people's basic rights offends me.
Some of them may well be terrorists, who should be locked up in punishment for their crimes for a substantial period of time and to protect the public from their actions. But the point is that we don't know that they are because they have been denied all access to justice.
It stinks.
To quote TH White "Might does not make right". Pity that the present US administration seems to be unaware of this.
Just caught his performance regarding the detainees at Guantanimo Bay on the BBC News at Ten. I found him to be deeply repellent. It's rare that I react with such hostility to a politician (they have a job to do and I recognise that even if I don't like what they're saying). But to see that bastion of privilege and wealth crap on about how the detainees are not 'common criminals' but are terrorists who will stop at nothing to attack 'us' if they're released made my blood boil.
Where's your proof? Why haven't these people had access to legal advice and been tried in an impartial and properly appointed court of law? As a lawyer I can't begin to express how much the denial of these people's basic rights offends me.
Some of them may well be terrorists, who should be locked up in punishment for their crimes for a substantial period of time and to protect the public from their actions. But the point is that we don't know that they are because they have been denied all access to justice.
It stinks.
To quote TH White "Might does not make right". Pity that the present US administration seems to be unaware of this.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 13 February 2004 14:46 (UTC)Re:
Date: 13 February 2004 15:04 (UTC)no subject
Date: 13 February 2004 14:49 (UTC)Re:
Date: 13 February 2004 15:05 (UTC)Of course. You know the address, right?
no subject
Date: 13 February 2004 16:20 (UTC)I don't much care for conspiracy theories, but some days, I just can't help but wonder.
I continue to be amused that the last result that the government wanted is now going to happen -- a formal inquiry into the WMD that the Hutton report was suppposed to quash.
Re:
Date: 14 February 2004 01:35 (UTC)I suspect it's a case of the US authorities knowing that if the detainees were tried in a court of law it would become immediately apparent that far from being terrorists many of them weren't even 'illegal combatants' AKA people who fought the US army. Some of them may have been Taliban members, some not. And it appears that some of them didn't fire a single bullet or raise a single gun. The longer that the people in this latter category are held the more embarrassing it is for the US. So, they're thinking better just to bottle them all up and let the rumours continue. I can't say how much this attitude horrifies me. If they were prisoners of war they'd have been repatriated by now, if 'common criminals' would be undergoing the judicial process. As it is they're in indefinite limbo. Alas, habeas corpus, we knew ye well.
a formal inquiry into the WMD that the Hutton report was suppposed to quash.
Oh yes, should be very interesting. And did you see that Tony B was squashed by the rest of the Cabinet over allowing in workers from the enlarged EU? I think the Cabinet is absolutely right, so cheers to them (for once).
The UNpatriotic Administration
Date: 14 February 2004 22:29 (UTC)Oh, heck, haven't you heard? THEY (definition of THEY being a certain over-privileged, arrogant administration) no longer need proof. Thanks to Ashcroft's Patriot Act, which is anything but patriotic. Some highlights of this Act:
Allows the FBI to secretly obtain information on U.S. citizens without showing they are involved in terrorism or terrorist-related activities. This information includes medical, library, internet, telephone, financial records, and even information from charities, religious, and political organizations. Also, the government is not required to have a specific target for a search. It may, for example, obtain a list of everyone that bought a particular book.
Prohibits businesses or organizations that are being searched (such as a library or hospital) from informing a targeted citizen, or anyone else for that matter, that their information is being gathered. Violators could be imprisoned.
Allows the secret wiretap of phones, computers, and other electronic devices without showing probable cause of criminal or terrorist activity.
Allows government agents to enter any premises whether it be private home or business, copy or photograph evidence, and install surveillance equipment. The occupant of the premises would only be notified at a later date. A time period establishing this "later date" is not specified. This came to be known as the "sneak and peek" provision and is not limited to terrorist investigations.
Loosens restrictions on the sharing of information between intelligence agencies that were imposed in the 1970s after the government spied on law-abiding, politically active U.S. citizens.
Allows the monitoring of once privileged conversations between clients and their attorneys.
Allows the detainment of non-citizens without showing cause. These non-citizens may be deported or held indefinitely without trial.
Contains secrecy provisions barring information from the public regarding Patriot Act related activities of the government.
===============================
Really need to go find me a pissy icon 'cause I can see Bush and cronies keep getting me there. ;)
Re: The UNpatriotic Administration
Date: 20 February 2004 11:41 (UTC)Oh, heck, haven't you heard? THEY (definition of THEY being a certain over-privileged, arrogant administration) no longer need proof.
Sadly, yes, I'd heard about the Patriot Act. And was devoutly grateful that I don't live in the US. That Act sends chills down my spine and it seems that from being one of the most open nations the US is slowly making itself into one of the least. It makes me want to weep.
Apparently 5 British detainees are (finally) going to be released from Guantanimo Bay. I'm agog with curiosity as to how they'll be treated once they get back home, as under British law they cannot now be tried - they've been denied access to justice for too long. However I wouldn't be surprised if the Government attempts to weasel their way round the legal restrictions somehow.
Plus, there are still 4 British detainees remaining and God knows what will happen to them. I'll be cheering you on at the Presidential election this year. Fingers crossed that Bush loses.