Illegal?
One of the constant drumbeats during the last couple of years has been that the Bush Administration was acting illegally in it's treatment of terrorists and their enablers. Whether it be the NSA eavesdropping program or the rendition program, we were told day in and day out by the bashers that the President was "trampling" on the Constitution. Well, the courts disagree.
"Defense lawyers who had hoped that the public disclosure a year ago of the National Security Agency's wiretapping program would yield information favorable to their clients are being rebuffed by the federal judiciary, which in a series of unusually consistent rulings has rejected efforts by terrorism suspects to access the records." (HT Captain Ed for this story)
"OTTAWA (CP) - Extraordinary rendition, the U.S. practice of shipping terrorism suspects to foreign prisons, may be legal in some cases, says the Foreign Affairs Department.
Documents obtained under the Access to Information Act reveal an intense internal discussion among federal agencies about the "implications for Canada" of the controversial U.S. policy. "
As you can see, the rendition case was so shaky that it was brought to court in Canada where the plaintiffs hoped they would get more sympathetic treatment.
C aptain Ed points out that of the 18 challenges to the NSA program, only one ruling has gone against the Government and that case is on the docket for appeal. It seems to me that is pretty overwhelming support. I wonder why I don't read about these rulings in the New York Times or the Star Tribune? It couldn't be that they are biased, could it?
"Defense lawyers who had hoped that the public disclosure a year ago of the National Security Agency's wiretapping program would yield information favorable to their clients are being rebuffed by the federal judiciary, which in a series of unusually consistent rulings has rejected efforts by terrorism suspects to access the records." (HT Captain Ed for this story)
"OTTAWA (CP) - Extraordinary rendition, the U.S. practice of shipping terrorism suspects to foreign prisons, may be legal in some cases, says the Foreign Affairs Department.
Documents obtained under the Access to Information Act reveal an intense internal discussion among federal agencies about the "implications for Canada" of the controversial U.S. policy. "
As you can see, the rendition case was so shaky that it was brought to court in Canada where the plaintiffs hoped they would get more sympathetic treatment.
C aptain Ed points out that of the 18 challenges to the NSA program, only one ruling has gone against the Government and that case is on the docket for appeal. It seems to me that is pretty overwhelming support. I wonder why I don't read about these rulings in the New York Times or the Star Tribune? It couldn't be that they are biased, could it?
posted by The Lady Logician at
7:23 AM
1 Comments:
The New York Times reports all the time about relevant court rulings concerning this subject. It could be that you're biased against them, don't you think? When the government cries "national security" courts are reluctant to intervene. This includes one of the sorriest episodes in our nation's history, the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.
Whatever the legalities, rendition is a hideous practice. The case to which you refer would up in Canadian courts because a Canadian citizen was involved, as was the Canadian government. The US government rendered that Canadian citizen to Saudi Arabia, I believe, where he was tortured for months before being released.
Right now we have a President who has trampled on human rights. He is also stepping up American troop involvement in Iraq despite the contrary advice of the Iraq Study Group and Joint Chiefs of Staff. There is only one answer---IMPEACHMENT!
By
Anonymous, at 11:13 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home