Liz Cheney says terrorists have no rights. Also, you're a terrorist.

[muriel_volestrangler]

Ten years ago, these were just words. Ten years ago, someone accused of being a terrorist had recourse to the same panoply of rights as everyone else. Ten years ago, an accused terrorist still had the right to a trial, for instance. But thanks to people like Liz Cheney and her dad, the Sixth Amendment right to a "speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury" is gone, once you've been branded a terrorist. Just ask Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. After 9/11, once you're branded an enemy combatant, you can be held for years without any of your constitutionally protected rights, including the right to be told of the charges against you or to confront the witnesses against you. Thanks to people like Cheney, those alleged to be members of al-Qaida are stripped of their Sixth Amendment right to prove they are not.

But that's not all. Ten years ago, if you labeled someone a terrorist, he had an Eighth Amendment right to be free from torture, since the very idea of "cruel and unusual punishment" was anathema, even for our enemies. But thanks to people like Liz Cheney and the brave souls at the Bush Office of Legal Counsel, it's OK to torture terrorists these days. As long as you're pretty sure they're terrorists. This is good news for the Cheney way of thinking, because it means that you can abuse a possible terrorist into admitting that he actually is a terrorist without all that fact-finding necessitated by a criminal trial.

But there's even more. Ten years ago, if some paranoid hysteric accused you of being an al-Qaida sympathizer or a jihadist, you could find a lawyer to help you make the case that you were not. But in the ever-expanding war on the Bill of Rights being waged by Liz Cheney, once you're designated a terrorist, you lose your Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Because just by representing you—even if you're acquitted—your lawyers become terrorists, too!
...
When the "al-Qaida Seven" and their two DoJ colleagues fought to defend alleged terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, they weren't fighting to protect jihadist murderers. They were defending the U.S. Constitution—the great whomping chunks of the Bill of Rights that Cheney and her friends are so eager to write out of existence. They did it because that's what lawyers are ethically obligated to do. They did it because—as Spencer Ackerman points out—the Military Commissions Act of 2006 expressly provided that detainees get defense lawyers. And they did it, as Jay Bookman notes, for the same reason John Adams agreed to represent British soldiers charged with killing civilians during the Boston Massacre in 1770. Because long before Liz Cheney was born and long after she's gone, the Bill of Rights requires serious people to take it seriously.

http://www.slate.com/id/2246903/pagenum/all/

[leeroysphitz]

1. Is Liz Cheney running for president? n/t

[geckosfeet]

2. She is of even lesser intelect than her father. Obama would shred her.

Hell. The republics in the primary campaign would shred her. She is a dolt. Just slightly more conversant than Sarah Failin.

[Demeter]

9. I Think She Is

I can see her riding into the White House on a sympathy vote when her Old Man kicks off....

[enuegii]

14. And, curiously enough, Liz will be

the last person to see Dick alive... something about a medication mix-up.

[sabbat hunter]

3. couple of thing

if you are not a US citizen\resident\visitor, then you do not have rights under the constitution, but are instead covered by international law.

However even under international law they do have rights to a trial, even a military tribunal. But not to be kept forever without charges being filed or going on trial.

Furthermore, even under military tribunals you do have a right to a lawyer.

Now if the persons in question were arrested on US soil, (like the recent attempted airline bomber), then you are covered by the US constitution. As such you should be mirandized, have a speedy jury trial.

[ixion]

4. tell that to the people who've been caged at GITMO

for the past 10 years.

Way to apologize for the fascists. :eyes:

[sabbat hunter]

5. please show me where

I approved of what was going on at Gitmo?

The article talks about rights under the US constitution, my argument was that those not captured in the US (assuming they are not US citizens), are covered by international law. International law still requires a speedy trial for them, and they can be military tribunals. Additionally they are entitled to a lawyer


So once again, please show me were I was being a fascist apologist.

[ixion]

10. "But not to be kept forever without charges being filed or going on trial. "

This statement is true. It seemed to me your post was trying to rationalize kangaroo courts, a.k.a the tribunals proposed by the US Government.

Aye, but here's the rub:

As you say, non-US citizens are protected by international law. The problem is that the US government created a new definition "enemy combatant," and then claimed this definition was not subject to international law.

Your post, from my perspective, seemed to support this, which is why I made my statement. If I misunderstood you, I apologize. However, I think making the claim that so-called 'terrorists' are somehow being treated in accord with international law is laughable, at best, and a war crime, more than likely.

[sabbat hunter]

15. Obviously

we have not until this point been treating suspected terrorists properly under international law. But international law does indeed provide for tribunals instead of jury trials.

That was my point. :)

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. Where does the claim of the constitution not applying come from?

The people concerned are being interrogated (and tortured) by the CIA, a civilian US agency, and so it's not just a simple matter of "this is a military operation, in which we took some people from another country and they're still on the battlefield".

Since Guantanamo is not a battlefield, I'd like to know who says those held there don't have rights under the constitution - the Supreme Court in 2008 said they did.

[nealmhughes]

11. I am not so sure that such a blanket statement as "no rights if not a citizen" rather "intl.

agreements" is accurate. If a person is apprehended for a crime in the US, since when does the US criminal system and its constitutional guarantees not kick in? I know for fact that non-citizens who do not even have visitor's visas have been apprehended and tried in our local county and after conviction went to the state pen.

The text of the Constitution only mentions citizenship one time other than "Indians and others not taxed and not citizens" in representation and the infamous "natural born citizen of the US" and the other requirements of holding federal office such as age and a citizen for so long a time.

So if I commit a crime in the UK I do not get to be a guest of the Queen until an agreement alleges otherwise? Get real.

[anachro1]

7. It it too late

to turn Guantanamo into the Cheney Family Compound?

[rurallib]

8. She should be called "Little Joe" as in McCarthy

'Tis a sad state of affairs when a light weight fear mongerer like Cheney gets serious press.

[Lil Missy]

12. Liz cheney is a nut case.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[classysassy]

16. Checking out the enemy

checked out luciann.com,a right wing site for suckers.The posters were in a tizzy because one of its looney posters stated that Liz haney was full of bull.You could feel the hate,anger and stupidity it reminded me how slow we are moving to eradicate stupidity in america.