drieuxster (drieuxster) wrote,
drieuxster
drieuxster

Why does Liz Cheney believe american military are war criminals?

The up side, though, is she has recently become aware that there was an attack on the world trade center prior to 09/11/2001 - and that gosh, we should hunt someone down for being responsible for aiding and abetting International Terrorism. But she stops short of actually saying that it was because of those civilians in congress who went on a wild goose chase against clinton, that signaled al-qaeda that it was OK to attack american. Instead she is trying to flog Liz Cheney: Civil terror trials led to 9/11.

Now let us think for a moment here. We are talking about the american military PRIOR to the majikal powers act that made dubya totally immune from anything, and that torture was a totally legitimate way of life, and that he always supported not only torture, but the killing of anyone that was designated as an enemy of the state. So please, let us not get anachronistic here and presume that the Clinton Era Military was afforded any of the majikal pixie dust needed to make them the sort of folks that Liz sorta wishes they could have been.

So let us ponder what might be the majikal truths that Liz is hoping for. IF we had tried the terrorists in Military Courts, then those military courts she wishes they were tried in, would, well have to be some special space, outside of the realm of american law. But that would mean that American Officers would have to abandon not only their oaths of office, but also their obligations under the UCMJ, and the laws of land warfare. In short that they would majikally become war criminals engaged in some form law outside of the scope of the very law that convicted the terrorists.

Come on Liz, say it loud, say it Proud! I wish that american troops in the 90's had been war criminals. That way they would have been willing to convict people without any of the constraint of law. Which gosh is a part of the real issue here. The gnewtsters recent gaff on the Jon Stewart show made it clear that some how, back in the clinton era, there should have been this space where we could secure convictions without regards to the rules of evidence - which is the central tenant of the miranda ruling, establishing what is admissible evidence.

Yes, I understand that Liz probably had not really talked with her dad, and learned that daddy dearist was rolling over and admitting the points of fact that his administration had opted to try terrorists in mere civilian law courts, because they were having problems with the JAG Corp, and the legal and professional ethical obligations of JAG's to defend not only the US Constution, but the rule of law. She might have found it a simpler space to not drag the JAG's into the game.

But the other part of the grand farce is that she some how made the blind leap of faith that majikally some sort of Military Tribunal, one that would be willing to go on torturing anyone anywhere, would have been able to get at what ever it was that they needed to have prevented 9/11 - come on folks. Let us at least be honest on that part of the leap of Faith! What Lizzy really wanted was some sort of "military auto-de-fe" with the right to put anyone 'to the question' - never mind the minor technical detail that this does mean abandoning american law, and what is left of the American Officer Corp's sense of Honor.

But I guess if I were a civilian who was so afraid of the big bad world out there, then the most important thing to do is blame the US military for not being War Criminals. Yup. Love you Liz. Don't quit your day job. Because yes, you may just convince enough folks that the US military wants to be the war criminals you want them to be.

For our friends who may not have though, the rules of evidence are no different in a "military court" than they are in a civilian court. So if you contaminate the evidence, you have contaminated the evidence. It is precisely that point at law which got the indictment against the Black Water Shooters squashed. Should the Black Water Shooters have been run through a military court would they have faced some majikally different body of law that would have kept the indictment in place.

Why yes. If the president had held them as enemies of the state, then of course Dubya could have shipped them to GitMo or any other facility that Duyba deemed fit to have them tortured until they confessed. Remember kampfrs that the Supreme's went moot on Padilla v. USA on the ground that Dubya opted to roll him out of the Majikal Powers space and back into mere civilian courts of law. So we have not actually had a ruling from the Supreme's on the President's Majikal Powers.

But this would mean that Lizzy is pimping the theory that if the president did it, it could not be a crime. An interesting approach, and I am soooooo holding my breath that she will follow through on that point of mythology and point out that those who sought to impeach the WarPresident were, well, just flat out wrong, because the president can do what the president does! A point that would still be true under the current Obamanite Administration.

So it may well be that she is merely lying. She knows full well that she is asking that Officers of the American Armed Forces violate not only their own personal oaths of office, but the Law of the United States, but also the Laws of Land Warfare. Which is really not a nice thing to be out there saying. Even more so since she is so supported in her desire! by so many in the fox news kults.

There is also a very live possibility that she is completely incompetent, and she is publically admitting this minor detail. Since she fails to understand the distinctions between courts of law, and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt - the standard required for a ciminal indictment. I presume she is expecting these to be criminal matters - and that she really is not going to try these folks in Military Courts on points other than criminal law, so that she can hope that a mere preponderance of evidence will suffice.

The problem there, if you have not thot about it is the minor matter of depositions. Does she really believe that in her majikal Military civil court, since it can not be a criminal court, that the deposition process is going to allow for torture? You know all of that 'made for TV' majik that looks all spiffy?

Ah yes. Because, well it has to be torture, since, of course, as we all know, if it was not for torturing, we would have lost all of the west coast to the dangerous roving bands of andorian frignoffilationationista that would have been released by al-qaedea, but of course was stopped because jack bauer tortured just the right person in time. Hail Jack! He's our Man, If He can't torture them, no body can!

Oh dear - what does that leave us - the same problem that the concerns about terrorism, including the 93 attack on the world trade center, the attack on the USS Cole, et al, were never critical or even relevant issues on the dubya agenda until after their little failure to connect the dots.

{ is this a bad time to remind folks that the first attackers showed up CONUS back in sept 1st, 1992, from our loyal ally Pakistan? Or would that complicate the pissing match here? you know, like why didn't Clinton stop them back in 1992? }

Bottom line - what is it going to take to help the average american take the time to understand that the US military is not some majikal lawless zone! That you can not just designate people enemy of the state and throw them to the war criminals in the military and problem is solved!

What is it going to take to get folks like Liz to show some respect for the US Military? HUM?

What if the core problem is that folks are so living the Don't Ask, Don't Tell about the US Military, and want to 'thank a vet' because, well, if it was not for those folks willing to be war criminals, then, well, gosh, we would be prosecuting terrorists in civilian court just like the Dubya Administration...
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments