The U.S.has laws against wiretapping without warrants.
The Geneva Convention was as much a directive of the United States.
But now some feel it's Ok to use torture if your opponent uses torture.
I thought the U.S. held itself to a higher standard and was trying to promote humanitarian superiority!?!?!
What happened to our moral authority and being a shining example of the way humanity should be?!?!?!
There are many reports that women and children were also tortured and raped at Abu Ghraib.
How can anyone be proud of the Bush administration?
They have disgraced our great country!!
Why is this acceptable to some of you?
2007-07-26 14:39:51 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
You haven't a clue about any law broken, else you would cite chapter and verse.
Wiretapping of the enemy in time of war is the absolute mandate of the commander in chief and the military.
You have no evidence of torture...at all...and you ignore Islamists who chop off heads.
You have no evidence at all that "women and children" were tortured at Abu Ghraib...none...else you would present it.
2007-07-26 15:55:10 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I don't think it's OK at all. From what I've seen, some don't believe that International laws, such as the Geneva Convention(s) and the UN Charter apply to the US.
US Constitution (Article VI):
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land"
Apparently that's not clear enough to some, although the ones labeled as 'anti-American' do see it clearly. It's also apparently OK to suspend humanitarian laws and morality if religion is involved. Often it seems, the majority that do object to torture on moral grounds are the Atheists and the Agnostics. Does that mean Atheists and Agnostics are too idealistic?
2007-07-26 22:27:46 · answer #2 · answered by sagacious_ness 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Kudos for bringing the issue up. You get a lot of **** on Yahoo for saying stuff like this... but the reason for their anger, and the reason for America allowing these violations to happen is the fact that Americans essentially know nothing about their country's policies.
Over 140,000 National Security Letters issued since the Patriot Act was put into effect. Only one was confirmed to be terror related. Come on now... wiretapping and unwarranted probing are crucial to the war on terror? These are YOUR rights, America, the rights you so proudly boast that you are fighting to defend.
As for the violations of the Geneva Convention, it is well-known that the C.I.A. uses methods of physical and mental torture in order to receive a "confession" out of the person of interest. If you are naive enough to believe that this isn;t happening, you might also want to consider George Tenet's "slam dunk" comment... According to Tenet, the American people will buy into the Iraq PR without hesitation... Even he is aware of this country's ignorance..
2007-07-26 23:55:53 · answer #3 · answered by KJ 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
In a post 9/11 world, the Patriot Act increased the government's ability to conduct surviellance. You'd have to be more specific about the circumstances surrounding the wiretapping without warrants.
As far as Abu Ghraib and other acts are concerned, soldiers have been tried and prosecuted when their acts of wrongdoing have been uncovered. Have we got every single one of them? Probably not, since we don't catch every single rapist in this country. But I don't think the government is whitewashing this issue.
2007-07-26 21:58:01 · answer #4 · answered by Pythagoras 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
To the extent the FISA law limits the president's constitutional authority, it is the FISA law that is unconstitutional, not the President's actions. I assume the relative scope of each institution's authority will be decided eventually.
And the Geneva Conventions do not cover all of the people presently being detained by the US. So how is America violating them?
I'd rather take my chances as a prisoner of the US government under any circumstances than as the "guest" of any other signatory of the Conventions any day.
2007-07-26 21:45:54 · answer #5 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
I disagree with the premise of your question, as anyone who DOES think such White House actions are OK are, by definition, NOT Americans.
I'm sure every U.S. citizen replying here considers themselves to be Americans. Right, everyone?
RIGHT?
2007-07-26 22:20:58 · answer #6 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it's pretty clear that Bush thinks he's above any type of checks and balances that the founders of our country set in place.
As the saying goes, you can never please all of the people all of the time. However, human rights should not be violated to prove a point, or to gain momentum in the war.
I can only hope that in his last remaining days in his Presidency, Bush gets impeached.
2007-07-26 21:44:57 · answer #7 · answered by Not quite perfect 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
It is not acceptable. Now the Attorney General has been caught in several lies and the whole Bush administration lacks any credibility at all, starting with the biggest liar of all, George Bush!
He should be booted out of office! I don't want to pay this man for the rest of his life. Hell he's a millionaire. Why should we support him, especially for what he has done to this country!
If it were Clinton in there, those 20% to whom you refer would be calling for his hide!
And cvq, Bush isn't following the FISA laws as he was suppose to. They get warrants at whim and spy on anyone they want, and don't want top tell congress about it! It is pretty clear that the Ex Attorney General thought this program was, and is illegal and unconstitutional! The FBI director got in hot water for this exact issue!
And Remember, 2 US Citizens, who were never charged with anything, were held in a Navy brig for 3 1/2 years with no charges! These are AMERICANS!!!! The 4th Circuit said it was unconstitutional, as was the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which allows Bush to call ANYONE a combatant, even with no proof!
Someo of those people have been in jail for 5 years. If they are guilty of something, why haven't they been charged in FIVE years? The truth is most were not combatants as you would have everyone believe. Most were not holding an AK 47! They were picked up in sweeps and in house searches!
And actually, they are NOT called combatants! They are called "detainees"!!!!!!
“In a stinging rejection of one of the Bush administration’s central assertions about the scope of executive authority to combat terrorism, a federal appeals court ordered the Pentagon to release a man being held as an enemy combatant.
Enemy Combatant Designation
Related
In War of Vague Borders, Detainee Longs for Court (January 5, 2007) “To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians," Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote, “even if the President calls them ‘enemy combatants,’ would have disastrous consequences for the Constitution — and the country.”
“We refuse to recognize a claim to power,” Judge Motz added, “that would so alter the constitutional foundations of our Republic.”
The ruling was handed down by a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., in the case of Ali al-Marri, a citizen of Qatar and the only person on the American mainland known to be held as an enemy combatant.
Mr. Marri, whom the government calls a sleeper agent for Al Qaeda, was arrested on Dec. 12, 2001, in Peoria, Ill., where he was living with his family and studying computer science at Bradley University.
He has been held for the last four years at the Navy Brig in Charleston, S.C.
Judge Motz wrote that Mr. Marri may well be guilty of serious crimes. But she said that the government cannot circumvent the civilian criminal justice system through military detention.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/washington/11cndcnd-combatant.html?ex=1339300800&en=017128234f263bde&ei=5124&partner=digg&exprod=digg
2007-07-26 21:46:00 · answer #8 · answered by cantcu 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Because those Americans believe that the ends justify the means, and therefore the goals are more important than having a govt that follows the laws.
Some actually believe in the claims that the unitary executive authority allows the president to ignore federal laws at will. But since that has been consistently rejected by the Supreme Court every time it's been raised, that's not the current law.
2007-07-26 21:43:42 · answer #9 · answered by coragryph 7 · 9⤊ 6⤋
They would claim it's for the greater good but as someone outside America I would just like America to get its nose out of everyone else's business and stop thinking it's better than everyone.
2007-07-26 21:45:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋