Does anyone have a concise summary posted?

[LynzM]

Or, can anyone point me in the right direction? I want to find something to post on another board of mine about the events and decisions of the last couple days, and their implications, but these are mostly non-political people. So I'm looking for something that is a good, concise summary without getting *too* into political details that would bog down non-political people, so to speak. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance!

[pat_k]

1. All you need is this: "Rights Not Judicially Enforceable"

A very interesting phrase was omitted from the final draft of Bush's War

The phrase in itself proves the intent to commit a war crime with malice aforethought.

The phrase: "RIGHTS NOT JUDICIALLY ENFORCEABLE.".

The phrase itself demonstrates a recognition that rights actually existed, and the intent to violate those rights through non-enforcement.

Yes. It is just that simple.

Case Closed on the newly inaugurated War Criminal Nation.

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/nkk/documents/MilitaryCommissions.pdf"">Original -- See page 79

As Passed http://thomas.loc.gov">S. 3930 -- See Sec. 7(a)

If they are Rights they Cannot be Unenforceable.

Call it what it is: The War Criminals Protection Act. The ONLY thing this is really about is protecting the war criminals in the executive branch from prosecution for the war crimes they have committed. (And the fact they have committed war crimes was declared by our own Supreme Court when they rules that what they were doing violated Geneva).

Are you outraged?? If you are, don't keep it to yourself!!

http://voiceoutrage.com">voiceoutrage.com

[LynzM]

2. But I don't think they'd get that.

I mean, I'm talking, how would you explain this to a 10-12 year old? You know?

Yeah, "rights not enforceable" is scary to you and to me, but....

[pat_k]

3. It is scary to every person I have told.

And when you call it by it's real name (the "War Criminals Protection Act"), you are presenting a reality that will percolate, whether or not you see an immediate impact.

And, you may be interested in looking at the following. It is presents a model that can help as we deal with belief-people.

http://www.salon.com/tt/post/2005/07/29/post/print.html

Alternate link for people who do not subscribe to Salon.

http://january6th.org/post_of_the_week.html#pmk

[tbyg52]

5. This is PROOF

That they either knew exactly what they were doing, or are too stupid/lazy to be in the Senate. The clause is almost the same, except that the version that was passed is more specific.

The big difference is in the heading--removing the one that was potentially explosive. You can't tell me at least *some* of them didn't know exactly what they were doing.

Original version, with potentionaly explosive heading:
(b) RIGHTS NOT JUDICIALLY ENFORCEABLE.— 7
(1) IN GENERAL.—No person in any habeas 8
action or any other action may invoke the Geneva 9
Conventions or any protocols thereto as a source of 10
rights, whether directly or indirectly, for any pur- 11
pose in any court of the United States or its States 12
or territories. 13

Version that was passed, heading defanged, clause beefed up:
SEC. 7. TREATY OBLIGATIONS NOT ESTABLISHING 8
GROUNDS FOR CERTAIN CLAIMS. 9
(a) IN GENERAL.—No person may invoke the Geneva 10
Conventions, or any protocols thereto, in any habeas or 11
civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or 12
a current or former officer, employee, member of the 13
Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States, is a 14
party, as a source of rights in any court of the United 15
States or its States or territories. 16

[pat_k]

7. Yep. Unequivocal, Undeniable, Proof

. . . perhaps we can find comfort in the notion that, whatever they pass, whatever cover they sucessfully find, there is no get out of hell free card.

[pat_k]

8. You may want to give. . .

. . . this one a rec and a kick:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2255629&mesg_id=2255629">this one a kick)

[tbyg52]

9. Will do, thanks. nt

[pat_k]

4. Oh, and "So now our rights are Inalienable AND Unenforceable"

. . .Short and sweet is more effective than presenting a knowledge-based case. And this one too captures truth -- and puts it into the right context. It shows how horribly they are distorting our most cherished principles.

. . .We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain inalienable, UNENFORCEABLE, Rights.

[lwcon]

6. This guy's site is very reliable on this stuff

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"