S3930 - Detainee bill
 

Is anyone else worried about this? It scares the heck out of me.

link, please.

:::gasp::: you mean you don't know? ::: pretends to be a fancy-pants intellectual:::

I ask to soothe my inner fact-checker.

A google overview
The actual bill

One thing I noticed while looking into this is that the media doesn't seem to want to help citizens be active in their government. None of the articles I looked through stated the actual number of the bill.

Why, again, are people supporting this? Folks on the right-ish side of the aisle...what's the defense for violating the Constitution?

I happened across this http://www.sundancechannel.com/film/?ixFilmID=6558 film about Guantanamo Bay on Sundance the other night. It is astonishing to me that our goverment is allowing, even encouraging, so much that is clearly against the Geneva Convention. The volunteer subjects in this film were mentally and physically destroyed after only 4 days, and yet some actual detainees have been held there for 4 years! They are not given legal counsel nor are they charged with anything that they can defend themselves against. Apparently it is ok for the US to treat people that way, but at the same time we condemn other countries for violating the Geneva Convention.

I can only imagine the horror that a bill allowing military trials in order to bypass due process would cause.

Stormie

Stormie, they aren't military tribunals...they're a thrid system of justice that is being spontaneously created. The entire bill is probably un-Constitutional, but there are definitely provisions therein that DEFINITELY are. For example, you can't retroactively pardon someone for violating the War Crimes Act. Nor can you suspend the Writ of Habeus Corpus, which this also tries to do.

...but...they have to do this...in order to...protect freedom ???

They have to do this to protect themselves. A while back I read an excellent paper by a high ranking Canadian military officer. He wrote that under the Geneva Convention, military officers and even Jr., himself, could be subjected to a trial before an international tribunal - something like the Nuremberg trials of high ranking Nazi officials. This is about writing a "get out of jail free" card, as it is anything else.

Just when you think it can't get any worse...

Why doesn't Jr. just abolish the entire Bill of Rights and be done with it? :mad:

Look back. How long ago was the expression "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition" posted. Why do you think my posts are so aggressively blunt on the liar and scumbag president? Nothing new here including outright attempts to restrict the right of Habeas Corpus. But then warnings of this effort were quoted direct from George Jr's own speech. Do you for one minute think anything I was posting is based in emotion? Read the appropriate excerpt from his speech as posted in The Cellar with warnings about this bill:
Has the Bush Doctrine failed? on 7 Sept 2006. Exact quote from George Jr's speech. He spins it so that you don't notice - they want to take away provisions of the Geneva Convention third article. They want to eliminate the right of Habeas Corpus - a fundamental American principle of law - to some people to make torture and other violations of the Geneva Convention legal in the US.

There is nothing exaggerated in my repeated references to a lying and mental midget president. And I was totally surprised back in early September how many here simply approved (by their silence) of this bill.

Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition. Warning of this bill, including the Supreme Court decision that created this bill, were also posted in:
Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

Well, at least this thread tells me that some don't approve of torture and violations of the Geneva Convention. There are some in The Cellar who do approve of both. We have exchanged words - bluntly - as a result.


Headsplice - by the time the unconstitutionality of this bill arrives in the Supreme Court, the court will be changed. In the Hamdan case, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia all opposed the 29 Jun decisions that demanded George Jr admit to torture, secret prisions in foreign nations, kidnapping, and no rights of Habeas Corpus.

PA has two senators. Spectre has strongly opposed what this administration is doing to basic American principles of law. Santorum - who will be reelected this November - strongly supports these new restrictions on American freedoms. Santorum approves of torture and hopes you will reelect him. He therefore will contribute to changing the Supreme Court so that this bill - to eliminate the right of Habeas Corpus for some - will remain law.

Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition. Does my repeated reference to that expression make any sense yet? Are you beginning to understand why my posts of this administration have become so acidic over the years? Why did I never in over ten years not post so acidic? Why was I almost the only one here to see George Jr was lying even about those aluminum tubes? This president is not a decent or honest man.

America: "oooohhhh... look at meeee... I'm an eeeevvvvilllll empire *prances around on the bones of the oppressed*"

Here are the 65 subverters of the US Constitution in the US Senate.

Torture and permanent imprisonment without trial will be legal.

You support the suspension of Habeus Corpus?
And making fun of it doesn't make it any less important. Yes, it's for people who are 'enemy combatants.' But who defines 'enemy combatants'? And hasn't the GOP been saying that Democrats are "giving aid and comfort" to the terrorists?

Yes...but...that's only so we can protect freedom! :::eyes you suspiciously:::

that freedom being the freedom to lock up those who disagree with us?

Who's this "us"? Got a mouse in your pocket?

Please cite the part of the Constitution that protects unlawful alien enemy combatants.

US

so......


what's a lawful alien enemy combatant?

and can you lock up an unlawful alien friendly combatant?

I'm sure George Orwell could explain it all to you if only he were still around. Say! Don't you Brit's have a bunch of North Sea oil?

*Eyes JayMcGee suspiciously*

Just what do you have in the pocket of that cardigan, anyhow? I think the US military needs to take you in for questioning. Don't worry. If you're innocent, you'll be home just in time for your 90th birthday, and we promise we won't do anything - anything that will show scars, anyhow. :eyebrow:

Amendment Six:

It’s called the Geneva Convention - and ratified according to the US Constitution. It's also called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which the US ratified in 1948. Unlawful alien enemy combatant is simply your attempt to pervert them into sub humans or Martians. But then you are posting in directe contradiction to the Supreme Court - and even the Bible. They are humans which mean the Geneva Convention fully applies - as you always knew but somehow forgot.

Ah, yes...the Geneva Convention part of the Constitution. Right.

The Geneva Convention doesn't "apply to all humans" any more than the Constitution does. Nice red herring.

If theyre actual enemy combatants, theyre protected under Geneva. If theyre not, theyre protected under civil laws.

You're slipping Mag. I saw you palm that card.

TW didn't say the Geneva Convention was part of the Constitution. He said it was ratified according to the Constitution. He obviously means that its ratification was in accordance with the Constitution.

Once you start saying "We all have inalienable rights... except those folks over there", you have started down a slippery slope.

First, the Geneva Conventions are the law of the land according to the Constitution, because the Constitution says that if we sign a treaty, then we are bound by it. So yes, the Constitution says that we have to stick to the Conventions (notice the plural, btw).
Second, the Constitution also has this neat little trick in it in Article 1 sections 9 and 10 denying the ability of the Congress to pass ex post facto laws, meaning that the Bush administration can't pass a law that clears them of any wrongdoing in the past (specifically: violating the Conventions by ordering and/or condoning torture).
Coming up with new rules for a new kind of game is just fine. Let's face it, the Conventions were written for conflicts between two states, and are hard to apply when the conflict is between a state and non-state actor. But trying to cornhole the Constitution (especially when it's only for political gain, not actually trying to make any headway catching and prosecuting people) is, quite literally and without hyperbole, anti-American.

One of the most catastrophic (and amusing, to me) internet debates I've had involved my contention that someone calling someone else un-American was in itself un-American, for which I was reprimanded, and informed that I cannot use that phrase as a criticism of itself, which I felt was perfectly appropriate. 72 hours later, I "won" becaue the guy went into all-caps.

I didn't violate Godwin's Law, though: no Nazi's/Hitler/Facism at all. I'm so awesome. :rolleyes:

You Rock!

This is entirely wrong.

How about the part where it's retroactive to actions taken by interrogators as early as 1997? It doesn't make us more secure. It doesn't fight terror. (whatEVER the fuck that means). It's a get out of court free card for the inquisitors.

fucking CRAVEN.

S3930 - The "CYA" Bill

Is an "unlawful alien enemy combatant" a person? If so, they get due process. You can't make up a random label that didn't exist in the 1700s and then say that the Constitution doesn't mention it.

The Bill of Rights isn't a list of rights that Americans have. It's a list of rights that the US Government doesn't have.

In addition, about the Geneva Conventions, the Constitution says:

If it was intended to be in the Consitution, his (:fsm:) noodley appendage would make it so. Ramen.

Funny, that's the argument the Dems use for gun control. But never mind that...

It's not a random label; it's the definition in the law. But I didn't say the citation (which you didn't supply) had to mention "unlawful alien enemy combatant", only that it had to apply to them.

Were you perhaps thinking of Amendment V?

If you're going to present your interpretation of the Constitution, please cite the part you are interpreting.

So does that mean that in "times of public danger" a US soldier can walk around shooting civilians with impunity? If so, why was Lt. Calley ever charged in the first place for his actions at the Mai Li massacre? The 5th Amendment does not give the military carte blanche to act like Nazi Storm Troopers. It just means that if a soldier kills or wounds an enemy soldier in time of war, he won't stand trial for murder.

By the way, the 6th Amendment begins "In all criminal prosecutions..." It doesn't say except for prosecutions of unlawful alien combatants. Even the Nazi high command was allowed to stand trial, and they weren't tortured, either.

The US is now, in effect, playing by two sets of rules - one for us and another for everyone else. Where's the integrity in THAT? Its like saying "Thou shall not kill" means you can't kill me, but its fine for me to kill you.

The Declaration of Independence states that ALL men are created equal and have certain inalienable rights. It doesn't say only US citizens are created equal. It says ALL MEN.

You endorse shredding the Bill of Rights to fragments, breaking a solemn treaty made with the WORLD, and the torture of human beings. If that's what America has come to, then I will no longer call myself an American.

What law?Since I used the term "due process", I was obviously referring to the part of the Fifth Amendment that is not modified by the "war or public danger" clause, which only applies to grand jury indictments for serving members of the US military.

The one you're complaining about...apparently the one you haven't read.

That's up to you. But the Geneva Conventions were not "made with the world", they were made between nations; their applicability to terrorists who are neither acting on behalf of a signatory nor honoring the Conventions themselves is a complex issue.

Exactly. They made up a label and said that the Constitution doesn't apply to them.

And where is the term defined? How does one become an "alien unlawful enemy combatant"?

ALIEN- an individual who is not a citizen of the United States.

LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- individual who is
(A) a member of a State's regular military forces and engaged in hostilities against the United States, or
(B) a member of a State's militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement engaged in hostilities which are under a command, wear a distinctive sign (uniform) that is recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly, and abide by the law of war (ie Geneva convention), or
(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities.

UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- an individual engaged in hostilities against the United States who is not a lawful enemy combatant.

IOW if the US military attacks your home, if you are not an American citizen and you defend you home, then you are an alien unlawful enemy combatant. Therefore you can be shipped to Abu Ghriad, be tortured, and can appeal to no one - especially not the Supreme Court - for violations of Fundamental Human Rights.

Even if you are covered by the Geneva Convention - even if you are a citizen of a country that ratified the Geneva Convention - according to this law, you no longer have any human rights.

I see you still haven't read the law.

mmmmm......


waits for the knock on the door.....

The law mentions it twice, neither of which is a definition.

This stuff is hardly new. Santa Anna considered the Texan rebels to be unlawful combatants.

The movie 'The Great Escape' is based on a real escape in WWII. The escapees were all captured wearing civilian clothes but otherwise met the definition of lawful combatants in S3930. Of course, noone expected the Nazis to have the exact same litmus test as Congress. Rule number one is if you are going to commit a war crime, don't lose the war.

BTW, I do not consider this an example of Godwin's Law, but I'm sure someone is going to disagree.

Maybe at some point we'll start getting reports from Guantanamo of prisoners being eaten by sharks while trying to swim to freedom.

You might want to check the section deceptively titled "Definitions".

1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--

`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or

`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

SEC. 7. HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS.

(a) In General- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking both the subsection (e) added by section 1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2742) and the subsection (e) added by added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law 109-163 (119 Stat. 3477) and inserting the following new subsection (e):

`(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

So in other words, an American citizen could be wrongfully accused of being an "unlawful enemy combatant," and while he awaits determination if he really is or not, the 6th Amendment no longer applies to him. In effect, any US citizen the government doesn't like can now be legally "disappeared" with no legal recourse.

Thanks for the tip on the "definitions" part. :mad:

PS: I just now saw that tw posted much the same thing as I did, but I'm going to let my post stand because it bears repeating. The shock of it takes a while to sink in.

Every American and non-American should know why George Jr wants this law - as marichiko posted:
Supreme Court ruled on 29 Jun 2006 almost entirely against the administration. George Jr does not like 'liberal' American legal principles. George Jr was forced by the Supreme Court to admit to extraordinary rendition (international kidnapping), torture, secret prisons, and denial of judicial review. Even his definition of unlawful enemy combatant was declared fiction. George Jr (actually Cheney) wants Supreme Court powers restricted to that the presidency can torture, kidnap, and imprison without judicial review. S3930 is another step closer to an American dictatorship.

Even the writ of Habeas Corpus - a fundamental American legal principle - is a direct threat to a dictator president. Fear of dictatorship is why Habeas Corpus is so fundamental to American laws. Don't be fooled for one minute. He will even proclaim a worldwide network of terrorist - a myth - to promote more dictatorial presidential powers - including S3930. Most scary are so many in The Cellar who somehow ignore this danger.

George Jr administration can kidnap, 'Pearl Harbor' a sovereign nation, violate the Geneva Convention and Universal Declaration of Human Rights, advocates the destruction of a Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty, operate secret prisons so that judicial review is stifled - and even torture .... and so many in the Cellar approve by their silence? Do you appreciate the threat of what MaggieL and George Jr are advocating?

Why so much silence – and not just from America? We have made kidnapping of foreign citizens legal. Non-Americans have no legal protections especially if kidnapped to a secret foreign American prison. A prison made legal by this bill. Why do you non-American Cellar Dwellers so approve of what MaggieL posts by excessive silence? George Jr has declared you as fair game. You have no protection once provided by writ of Habeas Corpus, if this bill becomes law. America can kidnap you and you are nothing more than meat on a hook. With this bill, you have no legal recourse to demand your rights as defined by the Geneva Convention or by Universal Declaration of Human Rights. MaggieL approves and non-Americans here say nothing? Why do you also approve by not posting a response?

Pssssst. Don't tell anybody, but Maggie really didn't go to England - she went to Pakistan. Yeah, Pakistan. I think she did some computer work for Al-Q.

No, let's see if Maggie is still around in a week. :D

To the CIA: just kidding.:blush:

So, we arrive at the crix of the problem: We're involved in a political war that is being prosecuted as a military war. The fact is that we haven't declared war on anyone that we're keeping as "unlawful enemy combatants," so Maggie is, under the letter of the law, halfway correct. Since they aren't soldiers for a foreign power, they aren't protected by the Geneva Conventions.
The flip side of that argument is that if they aren't soldiers, then they're civilians and criminals, and should be prosecuted as such. The Bush Administration is trying to have it's cake and eat it, too. You can't say: "We're at war with these people" and then turn around and say, "They aren't soldiers so we can do whatever we want."

In fact, since they're not a a nation, it's not possible to declare war on them, as such. (see my previous comments on other threads referring to the jihadi shell game).

To make matters worse, the people in question have declared war on us. (See various fatwas, etc.) This is "asymmetrical warfare" in more ways than one. . These enemies don't *need* to be a nation to wage war, and it is to their advantage not to be. They get plenty of under-the-table funding and weapons from nations who are pleased to have them as surrogates (with not-terribly-plausible denyability).

Given the level and kinds of force these enemies are able and willing to muster, I personally don't think treating this as a criminal rather than a military matter (as the Democrats and other liberals seem inclined to do) is either appropriate or wise.

In all this confusion, can the administration tell the difference between American citizens and non-citizens? Between legitimate, lawful activities and those that aren't? I, for one, don't trust them to.

I think Bush and Co. should be impeached, then prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, then turned over to the UN for international trials... I feel it is perfectly reasonable to circumvent the military to have this done.
What does that makes me?
It makes me a patriot.
Neither a combatant nor an enemy.

But, if I printed that post and handed it out as a flyer, would it be "material support" to "the enemy" ???

Well, that inconvenient truth didn't stop what's his name.

Yes, unfortunately his rhetorical attempts to convey the severity of the situation are lost on some people., who think all we should really do is call the cops to read them their Miranda rights and hook them up with an ACLU lawyer. No Mace or Tasers, now...that would be torture.

:banghead:
Good thing we have Maggie; otherwise we might all :gasp: agree!

In that case, I'd take the Devil's Advocate.

MaggieL, you, and GWB, for that matter, pick and choose when precise speech is important, and when it is not. That makes "arguing" your point of view easier, but not more effective.

What's going on here is A Big Lie (tm), an enormous bait-and-switch. Bait and Switch? Yeah, the signing statements are a very popular example of these lies. We've been told and sold "WAR". But it's not, it cannot be, as you correctly pointed out. But "WAR" is nonetheless repeated endlessly for favorable the emotional and behavioral responses it elicits. We (the American people, including Congress, plus the mouse in my pocket) were fucking stampeded into "WAR" and now we're kept moving at this stupid killing pace (economically and emotionally, to say nothing of the squandered lives of our soldiers and citizens and the pissing away of our credibility as a world leader) by the incessant drumbeat of Fear! Terrorists! 9/11!

But we're a nation of laws, and those laws are broken with impunity by this administration. It makes me SICK. If there was some evidence of competence or credibility, there *could* be a place for the administration to
found my trust. but lacking any such foundation, there is *no* place to start. Show me the damn money, no more of this "Trust me" bullshit. Where is the balance in Checks and Balances?! GWB went "all in" and Congress folded. SCOTUS has called them, but that may/will change as the new players tag up and enter the ring. In every fair game I've ever played, that kind of collusion is most politely called cheating.

The sheer hubris of this administration is staggering. It is so vast, that the fall will shake the world and George W Bush's reign will live in infamy.