Leave it to the Court seems to be the democrat's favorite solution on topics that they might be principled about, but not to the point of disturbing the electorate.
It has been the general attitude on the death penalty: praise every limitation finally put in by the Supreme Court while Sandra Day O'Connor was still present as the central moderate voice; deplore the injustice of the death penalty enforcement, but rarely actively promote its eradication.
It seems to be the fail-safe option on the new law regarding the detainees in the so-called "war on terror".
The senators were happy to let a handful of leaders ask the unpleasant questions about torture and 'alternative interrogation techniques'. It should not require exceptional courage to follow the lead of Colin Powell, and countless military leaders, to demand that the United States do not separatethemselves from the Geneva Conventions. Ten years ago, the debate centered on the acceptability of intelligence provided by agents of regime that routinely tortured. It is now centered on the acceptability of the use 'alternative methods' by US agents - in spite of the fact that some of these techniques were clearly defined as torture since WWII.
Sadder still, this debate largely allowed the other crucial issue at stake in the administation's project to go unadressed: the roll-back of habeas corpus for the detainees of the "war on terror".
Denying access to the courts, even for a review of the charges, had been a goal of the rules immediately put in place by the administration, and offered in a republican bill after the Supreme Court denied those efforts. It remains a central provision of the new legislation - one that the opponents (some republicans as well as democrats) are now resigned to see "cleared up" by the Supreme Court. It is after all what Senator Chuck Shumer of New York deemed a "secundary issue", as is in his eyes the question of eavesdropping on Americans.
Speaking of eavesdropping, the congressional investigation launched in Belgium after Swift, the banking messaging service headquartered outside Brussels, gave the CIA access to thousands of its clients' communication, just concluded. It found that the consortium had no right to give out that confidential information on financial transactions.
Consultations between Swift and the Belgian government will proceed "urgently"... regarding the future. Apparently, no one will be held accountable for the past.
It has been the general attitude on the death penalty: praise every limitation finally put in by the Supreme Court while Sandra Day O'Connor was still present as the central moderate voice; deplore the injustice of the death penalty enforcement, but rarely actively promote its eradication.
It seems to be the fail-safe option on the new law regarding the detainees in the so-called "war on terror".
The senators were happy to let a handful of leaders ask the unpleasant questions about torture and 'alternative interrogation techniques'. It should not require exceptional courage to follow the lead of Colin Powell, and countless military leaders, to demand that the United States do not separatethemselves from the Geneva Conventions. Ten years ago, the debate centered on the acceptability of intelligence provided by agents of regime that routinely tortured. It is now centered on the acceptability of the use 'alternative methods' by US agents - in spite of the fact that some of these techniques were clearly defined as torture since WWII.
Sadder still, this debate largely allowed the other crucial issue at stake in the administation's project to go unadressed: the roll-back of habeas corpus for the detainees of the "war on terror".
Denying access to the courts, even for a review of the charges, had been a goal of the rules immediately put in place by the administration, and offered in a republican bill after the Supreme Court denied those efforts. It remains a central provision of the new legislation - one that the opponents (some republicans as well as democrats) are now resigned to see "cleared up" by the Supreme Court. It is after all what Senator Chuck Shumer of New York deemed a "secundary issue", as is in his eyes the question of eavesdropping on Americans.
Speaking of eavesdropping, the congressional investigation launched in Belgium after Swift, the banking messaging service headquartered outside Brussels, gave the CIA access to thousands of its clients' communication, just concluded. It found that the consortium had no right to give out that confidential information on financial transactions.
Consultations between Swift and the Belgian government will proceed "urgently"... regarding the future. Apparently, no one will be held accountable for the past.
posted by Eloise Sand at 12:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home