You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #11: Yes, it was an invention of the executive branch in order [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-22-09 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Yes, it was an invention of the executive branch in order
to violate the law. It is what Naomi Wolf calls using the law to subvert the rule of law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -Know what you are arguing. Many persons captured in Afghanistan mmonk  Feb-22-09 08:25 AM   #0 
  - They should be classified as POW's, but Bush didn't believe in human rights ........  Exilednight   Feb-22-09 08:36 AM   #1 
  - If they did not take up arms against the United States, how can they be  mmonk   Feb-22-09 08:39 AM   #2 
  - Define "engaged".  Exilednight   Feb-22-09 08:49 AM   #3 
     - You've bought into the propaganda that all those taken were either  mmonk   Feb-22-09 09:08 AM   #5 
        - Here's the problem: You can't know the particiulars of each of every ..........  Exilednight   Feb-22-09 09:47 AM   #8 
           - Bush ruined a lot of the process.  mmonk   Feb-22-09 09:53 AM   #9 
           - Exactly, Obama inherited this mess from Bushco  treestar   Feb-22-09 10:07 AM   #12 
  - Really? They were all operating under a cohesive and fixed chain of command,  Occam Bandage   Feb-22-09 05:15 PM   #19 
     - You're trying to blanket every person captured under one big umbrella.....  Exilednight   Feb-22-09 06:11 PM   #21 
        - Yes. Under the definition of "Prisoner of War."  Occam Bandage   Feb-22-09 07:24 PM   #24 
           - Ah, no ............  Exilednight   Feb-22-09 07:44 PM   #26 
              - I think the intent of that passage is clear in the whole paragraph.  Occam Bandage   Feb-22-09 09:06 PM   #29 
  - At Bagram? And you know this, how? n/t  geek tragedy   Feb-22-09 08:52 AM   #4 
  - I did not mention Bagram though it is notorious for torture.  mmonk   Feb-22-09 09:09 AM   #6 
  - The case of Al Hajj :  mmonk   Feb-22-09 09:21 AM   #7 
  - * invented that "unlawful enemy combatant" category  treestar   Feb-22-09 09:55 AM   #10 
  - Yes, it was an invention of the executive branch in order  mmonk   Feb-22-09 10:02 AM   #11 
     - How can a label be created that will then deny ANY rights at all to human beings who are then  EmilyAnne   Feb-22-09 10:17 AM   #14 
        - Yes, he created the "enemy combatant" designation and then  mmonk   Feb-22-09 10:26 AM   #15 
  - How does this apply to Obama's decision about the prisoners in Bagram? Are we waiting on another  EmilyAnne   Feb-22-09 10:10 AM   #13 
  - Same messy soup, just on a different burner............  Exilednight   Feb-22-09 04:20 PM   #16 
  - Here's what I dont understand.....  Clio the Leo   Feb-22-09 04:27 PM   #17 
  - That isn't a new precedent.  Occam Bandage   Feb-22-09 05:21 PM   #20 
     - But if the leader of Iran deemed the American solider to be an unlawful combatant...  Clio the Leo   Feb-22-09 06:26 PM   #23 
        - You mean if he decided to violate international law by denying POW protections to a POW?  Occam Bandage   Feb-22-09 07:27 PM   #25 
           - Yep, that's exactly what I mean.  Clio the Leo   Feb-22-09 08:17 PM   #27 
              - I don't believe we're setting any precedent along those lines.  Occam Bandage   Feb-22-09 08:54 PM   #28 
  - We dropped thousands of fliers encourgaging people to sell out their  Thickasabrick   Feb-22-09 04:28 PM   #18 
  - How would we know?  rug   Feb-22-09 06:20 PM   #22 
     - Good point eom  Thickasabrick   Feb-23-09 07:49 PM   #31 
  - Complete and utter codswollop. nm  Richard Steele   Feb-22-09 09:45 PM   #30 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC