Torture, Interrogation, and bad behavior @ Gitmo

So, sometimes I get strangely silent when I really am ready to jump out of skin and, in my normal Sarah tone of high-pitched sarcasm, question everything and speak the slew of frazzled passionate words about a subject… but, there is that strange silent thing I get ever so often. So, that’s why I write… That’s usually the point where I put it out there for someone else to tear apart… once I have thoroughly had a fuckin’ go at it with my quick witted sharp tongue and impeccable and random logic… if what I have can even be considered logic. For the sake of argument, that’s what we call it, Sarah-logic. It works for me, and since apparently I do most of my logical rambling process to myself, I will call it whatever I want. Shit, today I might call it Fred…. No, that just makes me sound crazy and I have been on a roll of trying to avoid that for the better part of my life. We will just stick with me, and the numerous facets of me. Just Sarah.
SO! This evening, while completely losing circulation to my ass in my War, Liberty, and Law class, I bit by lip until it bled. Literally, and it was one of those moments that I experience regularly, unbeknownst to those innocent bystanders around me. Ever since anger management (by the way, my therapist told me I was just passionate, not angry! So there.) I have stopped yelling at people at random in situations where it, as assumed by me, is the rule to sit there and behave. So I bite things… I have no pencil, even a mechanical one, in which I haven’t gnawed from end to end; no pen that I haven’t nearly had explode ink into my mouth, and no other mouth sized object is safe from me when I am contemplating being have. (That may have sounded a little perverse, but get over it, that’s not what I meant this time.)
Anyhow, back to my lip-biting issue…. UGH. I just finished a monsterous research project (a.k.a document set) on the subject of Presidential War Powers, which I tied into the use of such after the 2001 terrorist attacks. It wasn’t nearly as hellatious as I had initially thought, or continually convinced myself over the course of the project, that it was. In fact, it gave me a scholarly outlet for my rage. I’ll be damned, who knew such a thing existed! So, I was expecting to be asked a couple questions by my Professor, which of course caused me to stop breathing before I even got to class… I don’t like answering questions that I may even know the answer to, because, it has been my conduct in class thus far, to just sit there and behave like I think I am wanted to do. I kinda feel like “teach me something, I want to learn.” And at the same time I struggle with the underlying feeling that, perhaps this is just the forum where my opinions or comments on the subjects that really interest me are welcomed… even expected. But I knock that little voice right off my shoulder, as per ususal. Hard and fast and that little bother is a very faint memory.
This whole little project reminded me of all the ranting and raving and bitching and, well yeah, the upheaval I caused, within my own little world, about the issue a few semesters ago. I don’t recall dates, because they have to do with numbers, so suffice to say, for this purpose, it was a little bit ago. I was pleased to discover by my research that I was a little bit wrong… or, presumptuous on the matter at the time… HOWEVER, after this little endeavor, a new issue has risen right out of the ashes of the original bitch fest on the subject. Come to discover, as I did, that the Congress and their authority to grant the President war powers, the authority to act in whatever ways he deems necessary, against whomever he deemed as the cause of the terrorist attacks was specifically written into the legislation in 2001, which authorized Bush’s use of military force, and any means necessary to combat the terrorist organizations that attacked the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001. Ok, here’s where I was wrong, but having not known at the time the specific language of the enacted bill to use War Powers, which says pretty much Bush had Congress approval to use his authority as Commander in Chief to seek and eliminate those he deemed as terrorists. (Now, that is only italicized so that I can come back to it, as it is the great schpeel of nonsense I bit my lip over earlier.) Basically, the President had the legal authority to run around the Middle East, and other parts of the world, taking’ out those mother fucker’s that he deemed a threat. Actually I do believe that was the specific language of the law, the President held the sole authority to “dictate who he deemed involved in the Terrorist attack”
I was wrong in the notion that he had no right. He did have one… and at the time I would have said, “but that still doesn’t make it right to just lob us into war all over hell and gone looking for fuckin’ whoever he thinks is a terrorist.” And moreover, it doesn’t make it right, simply because the law is behind you…. It’s behind you because it got slipped through, unfortunately. Now, this leads me to my big discovery of a legislative loop-hole the size of Texas, that, because of the wording of the Authorization for Use of Military Force against terrorists in 2001, the president was able to, as he deemed necessary, capture, watch, tap, trap and tie up for unannounced lengths of time. The issue that I have is not that these acts were carried out against the enemy; it is with the unidentified and unrestricted, unnoticed and, pretty much by now, unfixable cracks made to the constitutional rights of citizens. My big question, the one that I wanted to burst out with in class earlier, is what is the point where such actions to protect public safety, become a threat to public safety.
The loss of some of those rights, that albeit I discovered were undertaken legally, due to the loophole, pose this big fucking question as to What the Fuck Are We Going to Do to Prevent That from Happening Again?! (That is so what I should have titled my document set). Just because, there was a slip through point in the legislation (likely because it was such an emergency situation and no one thought about it…. I probably would have missed it the first time around too… unless I were talking to myself, and then likely not, as I do tear things to shreds. It’s my nature.) This Doesn’t mean that we can simply ignore it, or its implications on the powers of the President. Secret action, I get that… I understand the importance that people give it. And I do understand that, acting in secret, or keeping knowledge of the attacks secret were quite possibly one of the toughest Presidential decisions that I could imagine making. And even during the height of my cursing the very being of the President for infringements on rights and illegal undertakings, I commended that decision of secrecy. That is, if the conspiracy theorists are correct in assuming that there was knowledge of pending attacks before hand. I put myself in that situation and thought that, yeah, I hope that I could protect the safety of American’s from themselves if I had told them we’re being attacked, and having the plans of the terrorists unknown entirely. This at least allowed for some control over the situation before hand, in a sense, and, although it pisses me off, control after the fact. (That is of course if the conspiracy theorists’ are correct) I can understand the need for President Bush to have the power to run all over hell and gone after the slippery little bastards, where ever he deemed fit. The problem is where ever he deemed fit came to be right here, and, everyone was an enemy because of the fact that there had never been such a threat of internal enemy terrorism or whatnot prior to then. Sure shit went down and we rounded up all the different folks with questionable motives…. But the important part here is that everyone from that point on in America seemed to have questionable motives. Particularly the war, which caused the government and his secret authority agencies to question the motives of Americans…, labeling a mass amount of persons as criminals before a crime had occurred. I don’t want to sound as though I learned nothing from this whole project, other than the fact that sometimes I am wrong (oh, like that ever has surprised me… I am wrong way more than I am right mostly) There is no language or implication or consideration in the legislation that calls to attention the fact, that authorizing a free-for-all with legal backing, just might lead, quickly, to the point where the actions undertaken by the U.S. to protect the public suddenly becomes a threat to public safety itself. There is the judgment, personal of the President and collective with Congress to authorize the need for such broad protection measures… but there is no judgment as to the point where protection becomes harm… not in this case anyhow. Yeah, I read the history, that’s the class, but what about now. I think it is applicable at least to consider defining that point; there are some who think it appropriate to further consider the legality of some actions, I don’t know what actions they could think of other than torture, because it is pretty much a legal loop-hole the domestic surveillance and secret, non reporting to Congress agencies fell through… I hate to give that much, which is why I suggest that hole, be patched in respect to the situation. But, military law and all that shit says that torture is bad “mmmkay”, and I really don’t see the “there was no formal declaration of war” excuse working in this instance, since, if it wasn’t war, then it could be considered legally peace time, and torturing during peacetime is a whole bunch of fucked up that we don’t want to have to deal with. So, torture being the main issue, at least I think it is, as to what some would want to consider prosecuting the Big Guy or his entourage for… might well be considered. Technically, come to find out on Monday, the President is not subject to Court Marital by the Military, so the claim that ‘we’ll handle it among ourselves in our own judicial process” is not really a sound one. Not even a plausible one. Since, after all, the President, even as Commander-in-Chief of the military, is still a civilian commander. He is still a civilian, period, no matter what he is doing. Civilians dancing naked in a public park and pissing on trees get charged with, I don’t know, indecent exposure and other such nonsense. So, is this the claim by the people who are looking to prosecute him on these alleged crimes that it will be carried out in civilian court? And to what degree is the sentence for such alleged crime’s… as I am assuming that the world is pushing the issue, as are likely person’s with more knowledge than I of the whole ordeal. I am to assume that is what is occurring at the moment, the moment in which I have deemed the TV as something that will disrupt my non flow of constant stressing over homework and other such nonsense. (In actuality, I recall the news to be a great friend to me, and a great distraction from whatever was eating at me…. Or maybe it was the weed, who knows. Those days are long passed sadly.) So I am operating under that assumption in stating that I assume civilian court could handle the case… but is that just something that would be a show for the Nations that think some charge is appropriate. Is the charge murder, or is it more complex, like torture… which is like an extended stay somewhere between death and Scottsdale. (And I mean that from the heart!) So, murder it is I guess, then right, and unlike Military Court (OH SHIT SON, I see why it’s a no go to prosecute in military court, doesn’t a higher ranking officer have to preside over the case?! Guess it’s tough to find a higher ranking officer than fuckin’ Commander in Chief. Duh Sarah, glad you finally snapped to that one.) So, those that carried out the orders to do whatever to whomever and it’s a crime… are those person’s going to be tried under Military Court? If so, consider this, because I sure as hell am… the cool dude in my Justice class the other day said that, being the commanding officer who brings the charges, he can suggest the sentence or level at which one is tried or whatnot. If the punishment be deemed in Military Court to be less severe than one which civilian court would impose for the same crime, is that a fair trial? I mean, I suppose so far as due process is concerned… and then I think, is punishment even a factor to consider when prosecuting murder. Civilian law, and the sentence for murder, depending where tried is consistent… it sucks. And, see, I view senseless acts of murder to be one of those crimes from which a criminal cannot be reformed. Did he pull the trigger, yank the toenails, or fry the bastard… not likely. It was his order to extract information however he deemed fit… which, even though says deemed fit, I don’t think that falls under the deemed fit of seeking out and waging war. . . . Or does it… fuck, here comes the arguing with myself. The specific words said authorized to act in ways necessary to get ‘em… and got em he did… BUT what can be done with him after he’s gotten… I mean, like I said, if it wasn’t actually war then it was peacetime killing for the sake of doing it. In the same respect it was a wartime killing for the sake of doing it. And if it was, sorta’ technically war time, being as the war powers were in effect, then… those accused of the crimes are subject to military law…. But the president… he must be subject to something like… conspiracy. This raises the question; to what degree of murder, or manslaughter, wrongful death or torture could be possible be charged with? Because, that, in effect can be a concern of those pushing to bring to justice someone for the alleged crimes committed by, well, somebody! I personally have seen the whole Charge + Conspiracy bundle whittled down and pled out on the charge of Conspiracy, (likely, in my experience from lack of evidence for a conviction, but the “need” for some conviction on the crime.) And Conspiracy isn’t a very “stickable” charge on its own merit in regards to murder, or torture, or frankly just about anything.

So if the force and acts within that force was authorized, albeit considered inhumane and I can see why we wouldn’t want to be subject to take the fall for our own BAD JUDGEMENT. Because the legality of those actions are pretty much there, doesn’t make it right, but that just means fix the law so it doesn’t happen again… meanwhile, there was possible sever encroachment on rights and liberties of persons, American’s and when that happens, is there a trial, a conviction, a punishment… or just a “shrug, lesson learned, better attention next time around…”