Bush Submits New Terror Detainee Bill

R

rick_reno

Moderator
Here's a bill I just know we can all support.

http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/ap/2006/07/28/ap2912810.html

U.S. citizens suspected of terror ties might be detained indefinitely and barred from access to civilian courts under legislation proposed by the Bush administration, say legal experts reviewing an early version of the bill.

A 32-page draft measure is intended to authorize the Pentagon's tribunal system, established shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks to detain and prosecute detainees captured in the war on terror. The tribunal system was thrown out last month by the Supreme Court.

Administration officials, who declined to comment on the draft, said the proposal was still under discussion and no final decisions had been made.

Senior officials are expected to discuss a final proposal before the Senate Armed Services Committee next Wednesday.

According to the draft, the military would be allowed to detain all "enemy combatants" until hostilities cease. The bill defines enemy combatants as anyone "engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners who has committed an act that violates the law of war and this statute."

Legal experts said Friday that such language is dangerously broad and could authorize the military to detain indefinitely U.S. citizens who had only tenuous ties to terror networks like al Qaeda.

"That's the big question ... the definition of who can be detained," said Martin Lederman, a law professor at Georgetown University who posted a copy of the bill to a Web blog.

Scott L. Silliman, a retired Air Force Judge Advocate, said the broad definition of enemy combatants is alarming because a U.S. citizen loosely suspected of terror ties would lose access to a civilian court - and all the rights that come with it. Administration officials have said they want to establish a secret court to try enemy combatants that factor in realities of the battlefield and would protect classified information.

The administration's proposal, as considered at one point during discussions, would toss out several legal rights common in civilian and military courts, including barring hearsay evidence, guaranteeing "speedy trials" and granting a defendant access to evidence. The proposal also would allow defendants to be barred from their own trial and likely allow the submission of coerced testimony.

Senior Republican lawmakers have said they were briefed on the general discussions and have some concerns but are awaiting a final proposal before commenting on specifics.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England are expected to discuss the proposal in an open hearing next Wednesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Military lawyers also are scheduled to testify Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The legislation is the administration's response to a June 29 Supreme Court decision, which concluded the Pentagon could not prosecute military detainees using secret tribunals established soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The court ruled the tribunals were not authorized by law and violated treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions, which established many international laws for warfare.

The landmark court decision countered long-held assertions by the Bush administration that the president did not need permission from Congress to prosecute "enemy combatants" captured in the war on terror and that al Qaeda members were not subject to Geneva Convention protections because of their unconventional status.

"In a time of ongoing armed conflict, it is neither practicable nor appropriate for enemy combatants like al Qaeda terrorists to be tried like American citizens in federal courts or courts-martial," the proposal states.

The draft proposal contends that an existing law - passed by the Senate last year after exhaustive negotiations between the White House and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. - that bans cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment should "fully satisfy" the nation's obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

Sen. John W. Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said Friday he expects to take up the detainee legislation in September.
 
U.S. citizens suspected of terror ties might be detained indefinitely and barred from access to civilian courts under legislation proposed by the Bush administration, say legal experts reviewing an early version of the bill.
Click to expand...

:eek: :eek: :eek:

I don't know whether to laugh or cry anymore.
 
I can't find the link to the document, but this seems like a trial balloon by the administration (or someone in it) to gauge public reaction to the changes required by the SCOTUS (roughly: explicit Congressional authorization for military tribunals).

The "terror war" has co-opted the wars on drugs and guns. If something like this passes, there could be military tribunals for people captured running drugs, and maybe even people who have "illegal" weapons.
 
yikes!

"U.S. citizens suspected of terror ties might be detained indefinitely and barred from access to civilian courts under legislation proposed by the Bush administration, say legal experts reviewing an early version of the bill."

***Yikes!! What ever happened to Constitutional Rights? I guess now the Constitution is just a quaint curiosity to be disreguarded at will. But its all to keep us safe, of course.:barf: And this is supposed to be a "conservative" government? Seems fascist to me, per most dictionary definations.
 
Don't worry! It'll get changed into a bill where they must produce evidence after a while to keep holding us- and we'll cheer it as a victory.
 
Happy thought: what happens when the Left half of the beast gets hold of these powers, next election cycle or three?

Yeech.
 
Forget party lines people...

If we just sit idly by and elect officials just because they represent a party instead of voting for a candidate who actually values our rights, then we are the next nazi Germany are we not? To passively watch our government strip the very foundation of what makes our nation great will only cause it to collapse because of the People's complacency. What will it take to fix our government another civil war?!:mad: :mad: :mad: Sometimes I'm ashamed at my own fellow countrymen, especially the ones who were born here and have no f*%&ing clue what their rights are, and just give up saying, "what's the point" or "it's the government there's nothing we can do about it" whenever the government crosses the line, even worse are the people who say, "Well we should give up our freedoms in order to be safe" such cowards in large numbers is what allows police states. I hope by the next election people finally start to wake up and smell the ashes. Otherwise I might just move to Canada.:o


Epyon
 
TO QUOTE ONE OF OUR OWN ... UNITED STATES Colonel Ronald D. Ray, the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense.

"If the war on terror is real then the first thing that would
have happened within a matter of weeks after 9/11 would have
been we'd have closed the borders off. You have no national
security if your borders are not secure."

The "WAR ON TERROR" is BS ... The ONLY thing these programs / LAWS / BILLS do is steal liberty away from the American people. That goes for every citizen and every law enforcement officer (Many of home are my friends and neighbors) and even our own military who will one day enter back into the citizen population.

As FORMER Major General Smedley Butler, of the USMC put it ...

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
 
Note that they are proposing that this system be applied to US citizens, and not merely foreign combatants, that the mere accusation of "terrorist ties" be sufficient to strip citizens of their rights in this manner, and that the "evidence" of these "terrorist ties" can be kept secret.
 
173979494.jpg

Who would be the proudest? Washington... Or Stalin?
 
I'm sure you folks all know exactly how I feel about this. I'll wait until somebody attempts to defend this trash before I start ranting.
 
You get the government you deserve:barf:
All of you cop fluffers out there, be warned, you are this generations "useful idiots". While you cheer the governments gross violation of our Constitutional Rights in the name of "protecting UC officers" and other such drivel, just remember that as soon as they are done with you you will be the first group that is "detained".
Wake up people.:barf:
 
It's certainly a creative way to win the "War on Terror"...the terrorists "hate our freedom", so the folks in charge are trying to neutralize that anger by taking the axe to that freedom.
 
I read the legislation that was proposed, I must agree with JoAnne Mariner's findings. All they are doing is taking the exact same policy as before and getting the veneer of legality by attemting to get Congress to pass it into law.

The way the tribunals were set up is akin to a kanagaroo court. To effectively defend ones self you must have access to all of the evidence against you. I thought the Justices gave the Bush administration a good road map to follow to make the tribunals legal. Either the Bush administration is chock full of stupid individuals or they were the children that got left behind in school if they cant figure out what it takes to make thier tribunals legal. They are a threat to the Constitution of the United States and individual rights.

Just because something is passed by a legislative body does not make it legal. Thats why we have the judicial branch.
 
If this proposal becomes law, I hope they add a section that mandates that the Constitution can only be printed on two-ply rolls. This does not reflect the America I grew up in, nor does it present an America I would want my children to grow up in. What happened to this country on 9/11? Did we give these clowns carte blanc to shred the Bill of Rights? I know I didn't.
 
No, Eghad, they are not stupid, nor were they the class dunces. No, my friend, they know precisely what they are doing. And they also know the vast majority of the public will fall into one of two categories: (1) those who think this is a great plan since, after all, if you are not a terrorist, you have nothing to hide; or (2) . . . uh, is it time for American Idol?

We underestimate them at our peril.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top