US Congress gives Bush the right to torture and detain peopl
Scape @ Fri Sep 29, 2006 12:31 am
The raw story? No, it just has the vote. WP has the breakdown and it clearly states the following:
$1:
The new measure, which the House approved 253 to 168 on Wednesday, rejects Bush's earlier bid to narrow U.S. obligations under the Geneva Conventions in the treatment of such detainees. But it grants the executive branch substantial leeway in deciding how to comply with treaty obligations regulating actions that fall short of "grave breaches" of the conventions.
It would bar military commissions from considering testimony obtained through interrogation techniques that involve "cruel, unusual or inhumane treatment or punishment," which the Constitution's Fifth, Eighth and 14th amendments prohibit. The bar would be retroactive only to Dec. 30, 2005 -- when Congress adopted the Detainee Treatment Act -- to protect CIA operatives from possible prosecution over interrogation tactics used before that date.
It would bar military commissions from considering testimony obtained through interrogation techniques that involve "cruel, unusual or inhumane treatment or punishment," which the Constitution's Fifth, Eighth and 14th amendments prohibit. The bar would be retroactive only to Dec. 30, 2005 -- when Congress adopted the Detainee Treatment Act -- to protect CIA operatives from possible prosecution over interrogation tactics used before that date.
MaelstromRider @ Fri Sep 29, 2006 12:31 am
SireJoe SireJoe:
MaelstromRider MaelstromRider:
SireJoe SireJoe:
You want to talk about fearmongering? What the fuck man?? The US is nothing more than a police state now. Thier citizens are losing rights every which way. I will NEVER set foot into that country until it gets it shit straight.
What a sick sick joke.
What a sick sick joke.
Stop reading CNN... it will hurt your insides.
This law has <i>nothing</i> to do with US citizens. This is a military law granting the US military the authority to try unlawful combatants. This law, while pretty harsh in many regards, improves the rights of unlawful combatants who, under the Geneva convention, are entitled to a bullet in the head.
Are you saying then that average US citizens who might be "suspected" of being a terrorist, or some other reason a government agency dreams up, cant be imprisoned indefinately without being told what he is being held for, with no access to a lawyer? As far as I had heard the keen ol' PATRIOT act made that possible for bush.
<i>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 ofthe 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 be5 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.</i>
<i>Nothing to do with US citizens</i>
The law only applies to peopel taken prisoner by the US military. The US Military is not allowed to take prisoners in the USA. The police arrest civilian criminals and the civilian judicial system prosecutes them. Tune into Law and Order for a 1hour synopsis on how this works.
I don't know what the Patriot Act says...
MaelstromRider @ Fri Sep 29, 2006 12:43 am
Scape Scape:
The raw story? No, it just has the vote. WP has the breakdown and it clearly states the following:
$1:
The new measure, which the House approved 253 to 168 on Wednesday, rejects Bush's earlier bid to narrow U.S. obligations under the Geneva Conventions in the treatment of such detainees. But it grants the executive branch substantial leeway in deciding how to comply with treaty obligations regulating actions that fall short of "grave breaches" of the conventions.
It would bar military commissions from considering testimony obtained through interrogation techniques that involve "cruel, unusual or inhumane treatment or punishment," which the Constitution's Fifth, Eighth and 14th amendments prohibit. The bar would be retroactive only to Dec. 30, 2005 -- when Congress adopted the Detainee Treatment Act -- to protect CIA operatives from possible prosecution over interrogation tactics used before that date.
It would bar military commissions from considering testimony obtained through interrogation techniques that involve "cruel, unusual or inhumane treatment or punishment," which the Constitution's Fifth, Eighth and 14th amendments prohibit. The bar would be retroactive only to Dec. 30, 2005 -- when Congress adopted the Detainee Treatment Act -- to protect CIA operatives from possible prosecution over interrogation tactics used before that date.
Did you even read your own source?
It's right there in black and white - this law bars <b>"military commissions from considering testimony obtained through interrogation techniques that involve cruel, unusual or inhumane treatment or punishment,"</b>...
The 'leeway' everyone is worried about is regarding statements obtained by torture/coercion <i>before</i> the Detainee Treatment Act became law. Prior to this act being passed, there was nothing illegal about tortureing unlawful combatants. I cetainly don't agree with that and there are definate moral concerns that need to be adressed within any military unit that allows detainees to be torutred, but that aside, it wasn't illegal. Despite what the media is trying to feed you on this issue, the law improves the rights of these detainees.
I agree that there are some fundamental problems with detaining someone without charging them and without access to legal representation until such time as a charge is laid. Mabe the media should be focussing on this instead of inventing torture scares to sell news.
Hardy @ Fri Sep 29, 2006 12:50 am
This is the sort of issue where I have to wonder what people mistake for conservatism anymore.
Have you ever read Geoffrey Chaucer, and scratched your head over lines like these?
$1:
He conquered al the regne of Femenye,
That whilom was ycleped Scithia,
And weddede the queene Ypolita,
And broghte hire hoom with hym in his contree
With muchel glorie and greet solempnytee,
And eek hir yonge suster Emelye.
That whilom was ycleped Scithia,
And weddede the queene Ypolita,
And broghte hire hoom with hym in his contree
With muchel glorie and greet solempnytee,
And eek hir yonge suster Emelye.
Habeas corpus is a right which predates Chaucer by a couple of generations, and earlier forms of it go back quite a bit further.
When I think of conservatism, I would expect that laws which have served useful purposes for about as long as the English language has existed would be respected. Conservatism is about respecting lessons from the past, and not making radical change, eh?
Yet if you stand up for laws which were ancient and established before the first British colonies were born, you are branded as someone who hates their country and loves "Islamofascism" -- by people who call themselves conservatives! The nicest label you can hope for is "paleoconservative," which implies that you're some sort of dinosaur.
If you want big changes, you're not conservative. Pick a new name and move on already.
pugachev @ Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:21 am
They are getting military tribunals instead of civilian courts because they are POWs. The US has every right to hold them indefinately until the war is over. That is stated under the geneva convention.
HyperionTheEvil @ Fri Sep 29, 2006 6:14 am
Just got to love the headlines from this 'newsbot'
the actual headline reads
"Senate passes Bush detainee bill"
Scape @ Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:31 am
MaelstromRider MaelstromRider:
The 'leeway' everyone is worried about is regarding statements obtained by torture/coercion <i>before</i> the Detainee Treatment Act became law. Prior to this act being passed, there was nothing illegal about tortureing unlawful combatants. I cetainly don't agree with that and there are definate moral concerns that need to be adressed within any military unit that allows detainees to be torutred, but that aside, it wasn't illegal. Despite what the media is trying to feed you on this issue, the law improves the rights of these detainees.
Your glossing over a key point here. It not just that torture is being condoned or not, it is that it is now given legitimacy in a court of law. In civil law there is such a thing known as duress and entrapment and that is a confession or action only performed out of an immediate fear of injury. If you torture and they do not have anything to tell you of value then they will tell you whatever it is they think you want to hear to make it stop. Torture itself is not an issue as there is no way to oversee a black sight in the first place. This not only backdates the absolvement of questionable techniques but in so doing defines the said standard into perpetuity. This action also assumes guilt. What useful intel did we get out of a Maher Arar?
BartSimpson @ Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:57 am
grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:
I'd rather be tortured and detained by the Americans then befriended by the Islamofascists.
Ditto.
For the record we do not torture and detain people.
We detain them first and then we torture them.
BartSimpson @ Fri Sep 29, 2006 9:05 am
MaelstromRider MaelstromRider:
The US Military is not allowed to take prisoners in the USA.
Not quite true.
The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits military action in domestic issues. But when the President, the Attorney General, the JCOS, and at least one Supreme Court Justice concur that a foreign action is taking place within the USA then and only then can the military take action domestically and then the scope of the action is very limited.
The US Army participation in the siege and subsequent immolation of the people at Waco in 1993 was illegal. Unfortunately, no one in the Clinton Administration has ever been brought up on charges for the illegal deployment of military combat units against US citizens.
Interestingly, the Marine Corps commandant General Carl E. Mundy, Jr.
at the time declined orders to deploy Marines to Waco and subsequently "retired" in 1994. We (Marines) all know that he was forced out by the Clintonistas for not following an illegal order.
MaelstromRider @ Fri Sep 29, 2006 12:32 pm
Scape Scape:
MaelstromRider MaelstromRider:
The 'leeway' everyone is worried about is regarding statements obtained by torture/coercion <i>before</i> the Detainee Treatment Act became law. Prior to this act being passed, there was nothing illegal about tortureing unlawful combatants. I cetainly don't agree with that and there are definate moral concerns that need to be adressed within any military unit that allows detainees to be torutred, but that aside, it wasn't illegal. Despite what the media is trying to feed you on this issue, the law improves the rights of these detainees.
Your glossing over a key point here. It not just that torture is being condoned or not, it is that it is now given legitimacy in a court of law. In civil law there is such a thing known as duress and entrapment and that is a confession or action only performed out of an immediate fear of injury. If you torture and they do not have anything to tell you of value then they will tell you whatever it is they think you want to hear to make it stop. Torture itself is not an issue as there is no way to oversee a black sight in the first place. This not only backdates the absolvement of questionable techniques but in so doing defines the said standard into perpetuity. This action also assumes guilt. What useful intel did we get out of a Maher Arar?
You're saying the bill gives legitimacy to torture in a court of law. I don't see it that way. The law <u>removes</u> the implied legitmacy that existed in military courts prior to the Detainee Treatment Act becoming law. Prior to this bill being made law, military tribunals had no guidance on how to deal with confessions/information obtained through coercion.
You're 100% right that in civil law civilian prisoners are protected by the Consistution against giving statements under duress or being entraped into making an admission of guilt. We're not talking about civilian law.
Under US military law, there were no such constraints when conducting interrogation on unlawful combatants. Foreign detainees are not entitled to US Constitutional protections and unlawful combatants are not protected under the Geneva convention. This law and the Detainee Treatment Act rectify the situation and extend protection against coercion and torture to these individuals.
On an aside, Mahar Arar was arrested, detained and illegally tortured by civilian police. Your right in referring to him as a god example of where coercion was ineffective, but the matter is completely seperate.
Scape @ Fri Sep 29, 2006 6:36 pm
MaelstromRider MaelstromRider:
You're saying the bill gives legitimacy to torture in a court of law. I don't see it that way. The law <u>removes</u> the implied legitmacy that existed in military courts prior to the Detainee Treatment Act becoming law. Prior to this bill being made law, military tribunals had no guidance on how to deal with confessions/information obtained through coercion.
This bill vests in the President the power of indefinite, unreviewable detention (even of U.S. citizens) and which also legalizes various torture techniques. That is not hyperbole that's the facts. Any resemblance to the ideals of justice under such tyrannical application of the rule of law is completely absurd.
MaelstromRider MaelstromRider:
You're 100% right that in civil law civilian prisoners are protected by the Consistution against giving statements under duress or being entraped into making an admission of guilt. We're not talking about civilian law.
Where does habeas corpus fall under and why is it a legal cornerstone?
MaelstromRider MaelstromRider:
Under US military law, there were no such constraints when conducting interrogation on unlawful combatants. Foreign detainees are not entitled to US Constitutional protections and unlawful combatants are not protected under the Geneva convention. This law and the Detainee Treatment Act rectify the situation and extend protection against coercion and torture to these individuals.
If US military law had such latitude as your suggesting then why bother with new laws? Laws reflect values and beliefs. The laws passed are about to explicitly codify one of the most dangerous and defining powers of tyranny -- one of the very powers the US was founded in order to prevent as I recall.
MaelstromRider MaelstromRider:
On an aside, Mahar Arar was arrested, detained and illegally tortured by civilian police. Your right in referring to him as a god example of where coercion was ineffective, but the matter is completely seperate.
He got an apology, if he died we would never have known. No doubt there are many more like him languishing in prisons. If the system is so willing to sacrifice their liberties then you can understand how they and those who are sympathetic to their plight may not be so willing to support such draconian measures?
$1:
Executive imprisonment has been considered oppressive and lawless since John, at Runnymede, pledged that no free man should be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, or exiled save by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. The judges of England developed the writ of habeas corpus largely to preserve these immunities from executive restraint.
Brown Vs Allen
$1:
Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings--give us that precious jewel, and you may take everything else! ...Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.
Patrick Henry Speeches
Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government[web]http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/09/28/habeas_bill/[/web]
MaelstromRider @ Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:28 pm
Scape Scape:
This bill vests in the President the power of indefinite, unreviewable detention
Yes, it does (and like I said, this is wrong - no arguement here).
Scape Scape:
(even of U.S. citizens)
No. US citizens are protected by the Constitution. Detaining a US citizen without legal counsel or without issuing charges is illegal and the military would be in pretty hot water for this once the lawyers got wind of it.
Scape Scape:
and which also legalizes various torture techniques.
Find me the relevant articles in this law that 'legalise various torture techniques'. I'll save you some time, it isn't in there. The law is very clear on this - admissions of guilt or testimony obtained under coercion after Dec 30 2005 are entirely inadmissable. Prior to this date, theis type of evidence is only admissable if the military judge deems it to be in the best intrest of the law to allow it. Prior to the Detainee Treatment Act there was nothing illegal about CIA or Military interrogators using coercion (including torture). The law recognises that this was wrong, but permits the military judge to make the final call regarding admissability.
To say the law 'legalises various torture techniques' is incorrect.
Scape Scape:
Where does habeas corpus fall under and why is it a legal cornerstone?
I've already implied that I agreed that by allowing the military to detain prisoners without telling them why or allowing them legal counsel is both immoral and contrary to habeas corpus. Let me more explicit: no arguement.
Scape Scape:
MaelstromRider MaelstromRider:
Under US military law, there were no such constraints when conducting interrogation on unlawful combatants. Foreign detainees are not entitled to US Constitutional protections and unlawful combatants are not protected under the Geneva convention. This law and the Detainee Treatment Act rectify the situation and extend protection against coercion and torture to these individuals.
If US military law had such latitude as your suggesting then why bother with new laws? Laws reflect values and beliefs. The laws passed are about to explicitly codify one of the most dangerous and defining powers of tyranny -- one of the very powers the US was founded in order to prevent as I recall.
They have enacted this law for exactly the reasons you suggest. The law reflects values and beliefs that were not properly reflected before - that is torture and coercion are unacceptable and any admission of guilt obtained by these means should be inadmissable in any court of law. Thats why US Congress passed it and the detainee Treatment Act before it.
In the end, I think you are focussing on the wrong aspects of this legislation. You're invoking a single clause without paying attention to the merits of the rest of the law.
Is this law 100% fair? No.
Is it a better law than what existed before? Yes.
BTW: This is an excellent source - thanks for posting it.
Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government[/quote]
Scape @ Fri Sep 29, 2006 9:34 pm
WP: Detainee Measure to Have Fewer Restrictions
$1:
indefinite detention of anyone who, as the bill states, "has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" or its military allies.
A gift to Hizbullah to rebuild a hospital in south Lebanon? - Material support to hostilities ...
Donation of drugs to Iraqi hospitals under al-Sadr control? - Material support to hostilities ...
Writing a book arguing against the Worldbank? - Material support to hostilities ...
Commenting in a blog against the Saudi regime? - Material support to hostilities ...
$1:
The definition applies to foreigners living inside or outside the United States and does not rule out the possibility of designating a U.S. citizen as an unlawful combatant.
Under a separate provision, those held by the CIA or the U.S. military as an unlawful enemy combatant would be barred from challenging their detention or the conditions of their treatment in U.S. courts unless they were first tried, convicted and appealed their conviction.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said: "We are satisfied with the definition because it will allow us to prosecute the terrorists, and it also has important limitations that say a terrorist must have purposefully and materially supported terrorism."
Under a separate provision, those held by the CIA or the U.S. military as an unlawful enemy combatant would be barred from challenging their detention or the conditions of their treatment in U.S. courts unless they were first tried, convicted and appealed their conviction.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said: "We are satisfied with the definition because it will allow us to prosecute the terrorists, and it also has important limitations that say a terrorist must have purposefully and materially supported terrorism."
Thematic-Device @ Fri Sep 29, 2006 9:41 pm
Unconstitutional in so many ways (Jaime, you don't know shit about US law so don't even try)
further ex post facto laws are prohibited by the constitution... Meaning Bush is still a war criminal. I hope he likes the idea of spending the rest of his life in a dank 100 cubic foot cell. Because this law cannot, and does not grant him immunity.
SireJoe @ Fri Sep 29, 2006 9:47 pm
Thematic-Device Thematic-Device:
Unconstitutional in so many ways (Jaime, you don't know shit about US law so don't even try)
further ex post facto laws are prohibited by the constitution... Meaning Bush is still a war criminal. I hope he likes the idea of spending the rest of his life in a dank 100 cubic foot cell. Because this law cannot, and does not grant him immunity.
further ex post facto laws are prohibited by the constitution... Meaning Bush is still a war criminal. I hope he likes the idea of spending the rest of his life in a dank 100 cubic foot cell. Because this law cannot, and does not grant him immunity.
If only THAT could be upheld.