CIA agent accused of raping Muslim woman

[paul]

May I rewrite that headline?

"Muslim convert accused of raping fellow Muslim women."

How would that play in the international press?

good point but the fact that he is CIA still is horrible... I read that he was a convert,unreal

The fact that because of the rape, these women will be considered untouchable and unfit for marriage now, and the very fact they suffered through the ordeal is even more horrible. Somewhere we forgot about the women.

[Tim Elston]

May I rewrite that headline?

"Muslim convert accused of raping fellow Muslim women."

How would that play in the international press?

good point

It's a good point that would also apply to a headline, in a different case, that said, "Christian convert accused of raping fellow Christian women." I wonder how that would play in the American press. Some Christians would cry persecution and "liberal media," I'm sure.

[one love]

May I rewrite that headline?

"Muslim convert accused of raping fellow Muslim women."

How would that play in the international press?

good point

It's a good point that would also apply to a headline, in a different case, that said, "Christian convert accused of raping fellow Christian women." I wonder how that would play in the American press. Some Christians would cry persecution and "liberal media," I'm sure.

I am sure they would.
Paul I have never taken this away from the woman, that is what is horrible is the act. It is horrible that someone is supposed to be serving our country and is raping innocent woman, I agree !!! I feel PG, Me, Tim, Gerald all feel that is horrible.
I surely did not mean to down play that, sorry if it seemed so.

[Pastor Gary]

May I rewrite that headline?

"Muslim convert accused of raping fellow Muslim women."

How would that play in the international press?

good point

It's a good point that would also apply to a headline, in a different case, that said, "Christian convert accused of raping fellow Christian women." I wonder how that would play in the American press. Some Christians would cry persecution and "liberal media," I'm sure.

My request that you please cease to respond to my posts includes indirect, oblique replies. Thanks.

[Sherry]

Somewhere we forgot about the women.

That's what I was thinking......

[Tim Elston]

Thanks.

If you want to place me under a gag order, then ban me. But I'm not going to stop replying to other people's posts.

[bibleguy]

May I rewrite that headline?

"Muslim convert accused of raping fellow Muslim women."

How would that play in the international press?

You mean the same press that calls terrorists "insurgents" and "freedom fighters"?

[Pastor Gary]

Thanks.

If you want to place me under a gag order, then ban me. But I'm not going to stop replying to other people's posts.

Your choice. If you can't restrain your need to reply indirectly to the very few posts I make here, I can remove your login. Decide, and we will go from there.

[Mike Vande]

Gitmo terrorists.

innocent men alleged to be terrorists who were held for up to seven years without charge and on the basis of federal judicial review were deemed to have been held without due cause

That's a broad brush you're using there, Tim. They weren't all innocent, as some of them are now saying in court. I think we should give the whole batch in Gitmo AK-47s, and turn them loose on Tim. The ones that don't perforate him can cry at his funeral, and the ones who do are terrorists.

[Tim Elston]

That's a broad brush you're using there, Tim. They weren't all innocent, as some of them are now saying in court. I think we should give the whole batch in Gitmo AK-47s, and turn them loose on Tim. The ones that don't perforate him can cry at his funeral, and the ones who do are terrorists.

I didn't say they were all innocent, Mike. And of course they aren't all innocent. I have always been referring to the innocent ones, not the guilty ones. Gerald was alluding to me and others who are concerned with the innocent, whom he presumes to be guilty. Innocent people were held without charge and without legal recourse for up to seven years. And the guilty, since they were not granted the legal status of POWs, ought to have a status that grants them due process. If due process finds them guilty--and surely it will find most of them to be guilty--then they should be sentenced. What I am, and always have been, against is holding people without charge, due process, or legal status, whether guilty or innocent.

[Tim Elston]

Thanks.

If you want to place me under a gag order, then ban me. But I'm not going to stop replying to other people's posts.

Your choice. If you can't restrain your need to reply indirectly to the very few posts I make here, I can remove your login. Decide, and we will go from there.

It's your call, Gary.

[paul]

May I rewrite that headline?

"Muslim convert accused of raping fellow Muslim women."

How would that play in the international press?

good point

It's a good point that would also apply to a headline, in a different case, that said, "Christian convert accused of raping fellow Christian women." I wonder how that would play in the American press. Some Christians would cry persecution and "liberal media," I'm sure.

I am sure they would.
Paul I have never taken this away from the woman, that is what is horrible is the act. It is horrible that someone is supposed to be serving our country and is raping innocent woman, I agree !!! I feel PG, Me, Tim, Gerald all feel that is horrible.
I surely did not mean to down play that, sorry if it seemed so.

I am sure you are right. I was not implying it personally to you or anyone, just my observation. But if you go back through the thread, the rapes seems to be a side issue. It became about Gitmo, Bush, and a personal thing between others.

[Pastor Gary]

Thanks.

If you want to place me under a gag order, then ban me. But I'm not going to stop replying to other people's posts.

Your choice. If you can't restrain your need to reply indirectly to the very few posts I make here, I can remove your login. Decide, and we will go from there.

It's your call, Gary.

No, Tim. Not this time. You are faced with a forced choice. Feel free to post here and interact with anyone who feels the need to butt their head against a brick wall a bit longer. I, however, don't. It's really that simple; if you respond to me directly or indirectly I will no longer restrain the Mods who have had their itching fingers poised over the ban button. Or, you can resist the urge to always have the last word and share your opinion on every possible subject where I am concerned.

[dolfan]

I didn't say they were all innocent, Mike. And of course they aren't all innocent. I have always been referring to the innocent ones, not the guilty ones. Gerald was alluding to me and others who are concerned with the innocent, whom he presumes to be guilty. Innocent people were held without charge and without legal recourse for up to seven years. And the guilty, since they were not granted the legal status of POWs, ought to have a status that grants them due process. If due process finds them guilty--and surely it will find most of them to be guilty--then they should be sentenced. What I am, and always have been, against is holding people without charge, due process, or legal status, whether guilty or innocent.

I'm purposely late to this discussion. I'd like to very narrowly remark on the idea of due process. The Constitution guarantees this right for citizens. It also extends it to some degree to non-citizens. Now, this is important, guys. Please get this --- habeas corpus review is a bedrock principle of this nation. If someone is detained, habeas (in Federal court) guarantees that a person's detention be reviewed by an Article III judge. The Supreme Court has, since 1803 in Marbury v. Madison, stated that it is the final arbiter of what the Constitution means. And, it is.

The federal habeas statute was held by that very court to apply to the Gitmo detainees. American or alien, if he is in federal custody, has a right under the Constitution to habeas review by a civil court, not a military tribunal giving pro forma review.

Now, in 2006, Congress limited the Federal court's jurisdiciton to hear such cases. Congress has THAT authority under Article I --- to set the jurisdictional limits of the Federal courts. In fact, if Congress was of a mind to do so, the only court that MUST exist at the federal level is the Supreme Court, and it could be just one person if Congress was of a mind to set that limit (once 8 of them died/retired/quit, etc.). So, Congress exercised that Constitutional authority to set jurisdictional limits in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 --- it specifically overturned the case that recognized STATUTORY (not Constitutional, but statutory) habeas review. So, after that, foreign nationals in US custody as "enemy combatants" are NOT entitled to habeas corpus.

Here's the rub on that, though (there always is one): When Congress passed the MCA, it suspended habeas review, right? Not good enough, said the SCOTUS in 2008. The Constitution says that Congress CAN'T suspend habeas review except "when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Well, Congress, in its infinite wisdom, did not determine in any Congressional findings, nor did it state in any preambles to the legislation, that the suspension clause was implicated by the circumstances leading to detention at Gitmo or other places.

Soooooo.....SCOTUS said Congress acted beyond its constitutional authority in passing the MCA2006. The case actually got into details about the lease on Gitmo, whether it is foreign or domestic soil. The Supremes said that was an overly technical analysis elevating form over substance, and that we've been in control of it, continuously and uninterrupted and thoroughly, for more than 100 years. Functionally, it is American soil. The Supreme Court specifically said Congress couldn't rely on that lease, and its recognition of the land as Cuba's (which, it is, of course) to get around the Court's powers as set forth 205 years earlier in Marbury.

For now, at least, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals is statutorily designated to hear the habeas reviews of Gitmo detainees. That is the law. That is the Constitution.

[Tim Elston]

For now, at least, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals is statutorily designated to hear the habeas reviews of Gitmo detainees. That is the law. That is the Constitution.

Thanks for that, Tim. I can appreciate the law, as far as it goes, which, practically speaking, is, in fact, its extent, and in this case it is on the side of justice, in spite of recent executive presumptions.

Another point to be made is that regardless of what the law is "for now," it will always be morally wrong for the state to presume absolute power over human life such that it conceives of itself as having the right to detain human beings indefinitely without charge, without due process--and I mean due process as morally, even if not legally, defined. The law has a tendency to evolve and devolve, and when it steers too far off course from basic moral law, there are mechanisms in common, collective human response that react to correct it. This corrective reaction is always met with resistance, and this push and shove between reaction and resistance is, in the main, the cause of the evolution and devolution of the law through time.

I understand that there are philosophical and practical problems with defining the origin and scope of moral law, but regardless of those problems, moral law will always be active, or, if you will, reactive, in actual human response to the perception of law that is off target. I, as a human untrained in law, react primarily at the level of moral perception, as do my antagonists on this subject. I am glad to have the law in this instance on the side of my moral perception. I hope I am always open to moral reasoning, and I am glad that the law tends, even though with wild and sometimes demoralizing swings that span eras, to follow the "built-in" moral response of human nature. That's a can of worms for which I am nonetheless thankful, albeit with an undercurrent of sadness.