Saturday, October 07, 2006

Michael Arcuri Wants To Make Beatings Legal

Democrats, how far are you willing to go in supporting Michael Arcuri?

How about this far:

"One such story Bo told involved him taking a detainee by the head and hitting the detainee's head into the cell door. Bo said that his actions were known by others."

"From the whole conversation, I understood that striking detainees was a common practice. Everyone in the group laughed at the others' stories of beating detainees."

These statements are from a legal affadavit signed by a member of the United States Marine Corps. That Marine alleges that she sat among a group of guards from the American gulag at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and listened to them brag about how they abused prisoners there.

Michael Arcuri says that this kind of treatment of prisoners should be legal.

Are you with him on that, Democrats?

The Military Commissions Act legalizes the beating of prisoners. The new law allows the use of extreme pain against prisoners, so long as it doesn't threaten to kill them. The new law also prevents any prisoners of war from gaining protection under the Geneva Conventions, which explicitly forbid this sort of thing. Until the Military Commissions Act came along, the Geneva Conventions held the power of United States law. Now, they might as well exist.

Until last week, this group of guards would have been considered war criminals. Now, the Military Commissions Act gives them retroactive amnesty from prosecution. As soon as the President of the United States signs the Military Commissions Act into law, the guards will be legally untouchable, and that means that, in Guantanamo Bay, anything goes.

Is that what we want for America?

Michael Arcuri says it's what he wants.

Will you give it your endorsement by casting your vote for Arcuri?


allen Carstensen said...


You're being sensationalistic, and unfair to our friend Mikey. would this be fair?:

In November, 2004, the U.S military, supported by Jon's tax dollars, launched a massive assault on Fallujah. Jon's tax dollars bought cluster bombs and white phosphorous to help kill 4000-6000 innocent Iraqis.

That's ridiculous, and unfair and so is the portrait you paint of Arcuri.

We are all responsible, in varying degrees, for the torture. Responsible because we pay taxes, and responsible because we haven't done everything humanly possible to stop it. I'll let The St. Patricks Four of the hook. The rest of us be damned!

Anonymous said...

A few beatings are a small price to pay for a Democratic majority. You can't make an omelette without cracking a few eggs.

24 Independent said...

I don't think what you say is unfair or ridiculous. What you said about my tax dollars is true. Some portion of them did go to support the cluster bombs and white phosphorus.

That's why I have responsibility to speak out against the cluster bombs and white phosphorus.

I have. I've not only attended many anti-war protests to do my part to end the wars in which those weapons are used, but have also written several articles specifically about the cruelty of cluster bombs and white phosphorus.

There's a difference in responsibility between not doing "everything humanly possible" to stop torture and actually saying that you support it. Yet, Allen, in what you've written here, you treat the two as if they are equivalent.

Michael Arcuri not only hasn't done anything to stop the torture, he's actually come out in support of pro-torture laws, saying that when he goes to Congress, he'll vote for torture and against the freedoms that sustain a legal system that protects us from exposure to torture.

And here someone else, who unlike Allen is too afraid to use his or her actual name, says that it's worth a few beatings to gain a Democratic majority. I suppose it's worth it to lose habeas corpus and the Geneva Conventions too, just to get the Democrats into Congress?

Anonymous, you make me ashamed to share the name Democrat with you.

Christa said...

Libertarians do not condone the use of aggressive force under any cicumstances. Period.

If you are sickened by the thought of voting for someone who could turn a blind eye to the violation of a fellow human being's rights, there IS another choice in the 24th.

Libertarian Michael Sylvia.

allen Carstensen said...

Unfortunately, we can't believe anything our politicians say (until we get someone better on the ballot - Les Roberts 08?) If you agree with that premise you can ignore what Arcuri said about the Military Commissions Act. So we have to vote on the basis of their actions instead, and in the present system, our only realistic choice is between Republican and Democratic parties. The Republicans (mainly) just passed a bill that allows torture, and cancels the Bill of Rights. (I know there were a few turncoats who crossed party lines for political expediency but you know it was really a Republican action) Have the Democrats ever initiated and passed a bill like that?

Jon said - "There's a difference in responsibility between not doing "everything humanly possible" to stop torture and actually saying that you support it. Yet, Allen, in what you've written here, you treat the two as if they are equivalent."

They aren't equivalent. You're right. If you were on the ballot, I'd certainly vote for you over Arcuri. The difference in responsibility between not doing "everything humanly possible" to stop torture and actually saying that you support it, is not terribly significant, however. The huge difference is between these two and a third option - the actual act of torture and war crimes, which are actually ongoing, and which the electorate has the opportunity to stop by casting their ballots wisely.

24 Independent said...

Allen, I do not accept your premise. I'm not willing to just say that we ought to accept that we can't believe anything politicians say. That's unacceptable to me. I will continue to expect better.

We deserve to hope for better in our district. I will not vote for someone who has demonstrated that he cannot be trusted - especially if that person is a Democrat. The progressive cause is damaged through association with scoundrels such as Michael Arcuri, and I care more about the progressive cause than I do about the Democratic Party.

We Democratic voters had no opportunity to choose our own candidate - and Michael Arcuri had a great deal to do with that. I'd like to think that, by 2008, the County Democratic Committees will have realized that they don't serve themselves well by shutting down the democratic process.

I'd like to think that, but I'm not holding out hope for it. I imagine that, in 2008, they'll do the same thing, and hold premature endorsements of the candidate favored by the national Democratic establishment.