Congressional Approval of Detainee Bill

TheFatKidDeath · 09-29-2006, 01:56 PM

Another low point in our republic and another assault on the Constitution by the Bush Administration and it's "conservative" allies. The legislation strips detainees of the right to file habeas corpus petitions to challenge their own detention or treatment. It gives the president the power to indefinitely detain anyone it deems to have provided material support to anti-U.S. hostilities. Secret and coerced evidence could be used to try detainees held in U.S. military prisons. The bill also immunizes U.S. officials from prosecution for torturing detainees who the military and the CIA captured before the end of last year.

Perhaps even more depressing is that 12 "Democrats" voted for this bill and the vote was not even close 65:34. The former Soviet Union and it's satellite's would be proud of this legislation. It's a roll back of everything that this country stands for and is a dubious claim that this legislation will protect our country from terrorism.

**CingularDuality** · 09-29-2006, 02:08 PM

This bill changes nothing.

**Magnum50** · 09-29-2006, 02:18 PM

I'm glad it passed... should be stricter... time to wake up and smell the coffee people.

aeroripper · 09-29-2006, 02:44 PM

Cingular and Magnum, can you elaborate on your opinions?

**Magnum50** · 09-29-2006, 02:55 PM

In time I will, but thats all I had time for right now, lol.

Just wanted my 2 cents in, political debates are always touchy and it would take quite a few paragraphs to express my side, my beliefs.

TheFatKidDeath · 09-29-2006, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magnum50

I'm glad it passed... should be stricter... time to wake up and smell the coffee people.

Hooray! Let's shread the Constitution! George Bush knows what's best for us!

**Magnum50** · 09-29-2006, 03:23 PM

has nothing to do with George or being a Republican,

it's about a changing world, a new type of war and the simple fact, that if you really want peace, you should be demanding that America forfeit all rights to free religion and all convert to Islam, because if you want peace in this world that is what the Islam extremist are demanding, oh and for us to leave Islam nations alone, even when they decide to finish exterminating all the Jews.

You, as most of your type (from just reading your post and concluding with my own opinion) are too closed minded to see the big picture, but I do invite you to read two other post I will be making in the sandbox area before the end of the weekend... you see, before I post heated political stuff, I think first.

**leejo** · 09-29-2006, 03:25 PM

You guys really won't be happy until we're reading the miranda rights on the battlefield, will you?

This bill expressly does not apply to US Citizens. It doesn't remove a single right that formerly existed.

**leejo** · 09-29-2006, 03:39 PM

Here is the bill: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...6166eh.txt.pdf

I suggest folks read it instead of merely passing on hysterical talking points.

TheFatKidDeath · 09-29-2006, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magnum50

has nothing to do with George or being a Republican,

it's about a changing world, a new type of war and the simple fact, that if you really want peace, you should be demanding that America forfeit all rights to free religion and all convert to Islam, because if you want peace in this world that is what the Islam extremist are demanding, oh and for us to leave Islam nations alone, even when they decide to finish exterminating all the Jews.

You, as most of your type (from just reading your post and concluding with my own opinion) are too closed minded to see the big picture, but I do invite you to read two other post I will be making in the sandbox area before the end of the weekend... you see, before I post heated political stuff, I think first.

I'm the type of person who does not want the President, Republican or Democrat, to have power which is not granted in the Constitution.

From reading your post and concluding with my own opinion, it seems you prefer a President that ignores the Constitution. Hopefully, you will prove me wrong.

To quote our founding father, Benjamin Franklin "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." The man is now rolling in his grave.

I look forward to reading your post this weekend.

Steeler · 09-29-2006, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

This bill expressly does not apply to US Citizens. It doesn't remove a single right that formerly existed.

Incorrect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marty Lederman

Most of the attention in the press has focused on subsection (i) of the definition, which would designate as an UEC any "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)." And that subsection is, indeed, broad, and fairly indeterminate, depending on how "materially supported hostilities" is interpreted (something that the Administration apparently could do without much or any judicial review).

But the really breathtaking subsection is subsection (ii), which would provide that UEC is defined to include any 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."

Read literally, this means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to "hostilities" at all.

The powers are broadly-defined enough to place the power of executive and judicial in the hands of a branch of the executive, namely the Pentagon. This is effectively the legal justification of the Jose Padilla case.

Now, there are several distinct points I'd like to make here, so I'm going to take them one by one.

1.) A common misconception is that this legislation applies only to terrorists. Incorrect. As the above shows, it suspends Habeus Corpus and basic constitutional protections for anyone suspected of terrorism by the executive. Suspicion is not the same as guilt. We already have mechanisms by which we can prosecute and then punish suspects if they are found guilty. This bill, through loopholes and bureaucratic equivocation, removes that process entirely, allowing the executive carte blanche to detain and "interrogate" quite literally anyone it wants indefinitely.

I hope you libertarians out there are happy.

2.) Not every person in custody NOW is clearly guilty of anything. Some very high profile mistakes have already been revealed. There will be more, and this illustrates the folly of placing the judicial process start to finish in the hands of the executive.

3.) By any codified moral standard, torture is wrong. To engage in it serves only the cause of sadism, not freedom. It is cowardly.

4.) The bill allows the President broad scope in defining "torture" and indemnifies all government agents from litigation arising from past acts of torture. This is an attempt to immunize the administration from any possibility of war crimes prosecution. With this we lose any capacity to judge the acts of heinous regimes around the world on the international stage, and puts us at a distinct diplomatic disadvantage for generations to come.

5.) This will not make us safer.

6.) I will be surprised if this survives an honest judicial review. It violates too many basic elements of constitutional law. I think most voted for it on the grounds that they could claim to be "tough on terror" in an election cycle, and paint their opponents as "weak."

7.) Cing is right - this changes nothing. I believe that Congress has already ceded its power on foreign policy matters to the White House and the President will continue to ignore whatever laws or judicial order he pleases. This is political theater, and we are more or less at the mercy of the executive.

dfg872 · 09-29-2006, 04:11 PM

It actually probably won't pass judicial scrutiny, but that isn't important. It was a political move on the part of the right so that they could say the left was weak on terrorism. It is business as usual, congress just went ahead and codified it. If the dems were smart (which history has shown us they aren't) they wouldv'e gone along with the bill, taken away the republican powerplay and killed that election issue for them. Then, when the house was back in their control, they could do whatever the hell they wanted.

But alas, I could care less what party takes over at this point. Both parties are spending more money then we have, and both promise to spend more if elected. I give up.

TheFatKidDeath · 09-29-2006, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Here is the bill: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...6166eh.txt.pdf

I suggest folks read it instead of merely passing on hysterical talking points.

Please explain why it's merely hysterical talking points when power is granted to a President who now has the ability to detain any person in the world, citizen or non-citizen, whether living in the United States or any place else? What kind of authority is that? No checks and balances, nothing.

The President can decide tomorrow that you or me, or particularly a non-citizen, can be picked up, put in jail forever, essentially, and if you're a non-citizen in Guantanamo or anywhere else in the world, you never get a chance to go to court to test your detention.

My best guess is that, thankfully, it will be struck down as unconstitutional. Hopefully sooner than later.

**Dirtboy** · 09-29-2006, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFatKidDeath

From reading your post and concluding with my own opinion, it seems you prefer a President that ignores the Constitution. .

I am no Historian, but dosent the constitution protect the citizens of the United States. These detainees are not, and there is a reason why these guys are there. I have seen first hand, the reason why they are in gitmo. Sure, the reasons why they are there differ. Let me tell you a little story what happened a couple of months ago:

We were on a convoy in northern Iraq when the vehicle ahead of me got hit by an IED. I was about 50m ahead of it, and wasnt harmed and no one else was either. We gathered our thoughts and some of our gunners thought they saw the trigger man. 2 of our gun trucks broke off and captured several individuals, and then questioned them. They swear up and down that they had nothing to do with it. My team Leader then sprayed them (a spray that detects explosives) and they were GLOWING. We then called up the IP's (iraqi police) and had them arrested. Chances are they were sent to Gitmo or another holding area scattered around the AOR.

The reason I told you this is because I wanted to ask you several questions.

1. What do you think that we should do with these scumbags?

I think that they should put a bullet in there head were they stand.

2. Do you think that they can be held accountable for there actions and serve
serve jailtime and not be a repeat offender?

I think NOT. That is the problem with crazed religous extremists.

3. Do you think that they deserve the same justice system you and I have?

I think NOT. They want to bring down our WHOLE way of life (and this
includes the Constitution). They wont be happy until every one is Islam.

I want to know why you think we should Cuddle the very same people that try to crap all over OUR beliefs!!

**leejo** · 09-29-2006, 04:30 PM

Read the bill.

Quote:

‘‘§ 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
2 ‘‘Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to
3 trial by military commission under this chapter.

and

Quote:

‘‘§ 948r. Compulsory self-incrimination prohibited;
2 treatment of statements obtained by tor
3 ture and other statements
4 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—No person shall be required to
5 testify against himself at a proceeding of a military com
6 mission under this chapter.
7 ‘‘(b) EXCLUSION OF STATEMENTS OBTAINED BY
8 TORTURE.—A statement obtained by use of torture shall
9 not be admissible in a military commission under this
10 chapter, except against a person accused of torture as evi
11 dence that the statement was made.
12 ‘‘(c) STATEMENTS OBTAINED BEFORE ENACTMENT
13 OF DETAINEE TREATMENT ACT OF 2005.—A statement
14 obtained before December 30, 2005 (the date of the enact
15 ment of the Defense Treatment Act of 2005) in which the
16 degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the
17 military judge finds that—
18 ‘‘(1) the totality of the circumstances renders
19 the statement reliable and possessing sufficient pro
20 bative value; and
21 ‘‘(2) the interests of justice would best be
22 served by admission of the statement into evidence.
23 ‘‘(d) STATEMENTS OBTAINED AFTER ENACTMENT
24 OF DETAINEE TREATMENT ACT OF 2005.—A statement
25 obtained on or after December 30, 2005 (the date of the
26 enactment of the Defense Treatment Act of 2005) in •HR 6166 EH
1 which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted
2 only if the military judge finds that—
3 ‘‘(1) the totality of the circumstances renders
4 the statement reliable and possessing sufficient pro
5 bative value;
6 ‘‘(2) the interests of justice would best be
7 served by admission of the statement into evidence;
8 and
9 ‘‘(3) the interrogation methods used to obtain
10 the statement do not amount to cruel, inhuman, or
11 degrading treatment prohibited by section 1003 of
12 the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.

09-29-2006, 01:56 PM	#1 (permalink)
TheFatKidDeath Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Santa Monica, CA Age: 39 Posts: 2,716	Congressional Approval of Detainee Bill Another low point in our republic and another assault on the Constitution by the Bush Administration and it's "conservative" allies. The legislation strips detainees of the right to file habeas corpus petitions to challenge their own detention or treatment. It gives the president the power to indefinitely detain anyone it deems to have provided material support to anti-U.S. hostilities. Secret and coerced evidence could be used to try detainees held in U.S. military prisons. The bill also immunizes U.S. officials from prosecution for torturing detainees who the military and the CIA captured before the end of last year. Perhaps even more depressing is that 12 "Democrats" voted for this bill and the vote was not even close 65:34. The former Soviet Union and it's satellite's would be proud of this legislation. It's a roll back of everything that this country stands for and is a dubious claim that this legislation will protect our country from terrorism. __________________ \|TG-9th\| TheFatKidDeath "Born to Party, Forced to Work." http://www.theonion.com/content/node/55640 - Check me out on The Onion http://www.theonion.com/content/vide...ssfully_avoids - I'm on the local news!

09-29-2006, 02:08 PM	#2 (permalink)
CingularDuality Join Date: May 2003 Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth area of Texas, USA Age: 33 Posts: 16,822	Re: Congressional Approval of Detainee Bill This bill changes nothing. __________________ Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market! Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage." TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

09-29-2006, 02:18 PM	#3 (permalink)
Magnum50 Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Naples, Florida USA Age: 42 Posts: 3,894	Re: Congressional Approval of Detainee Bill I'm glad it passed... should be stricter... time to wake up and smell the coffee people. __________________ Magnum www.gettacticaldammit.com

09-29-2006, 02:44 PM	#4 (permalink)
aeroripper Join Date: Dec 2005 Age: 25 Posts: 2,284	Re: Congressional Approval of Detainee Bill Cingular and Magnum, can you elaborate on your opinions?

09-29-2006, 02:55 PM	#5 (permalink)
Magnum50 Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Naples, Florida USA Age: 42 Posts: 3,894	Re: Congressional Approval of Detainee Bill In time I will, but thats all I had time for right now, lol. Just wanted my 2 cents in, political debates are always touchy and it would take quite a few paragraphs to express my side, my beliefs. __________________ Magnum www.gettacticaldammit.com

09-29-2006, 03:23 PM	#7 (permalink)
Magnum50 Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Naples, Florida USA Age: 42 Posts: 3,894	Re: Congressional Approval of Detainee Bill has nothing to do with George or being a Republican, it's about a changing world, a new type of war and the simple fact, that if you really want peace, you should be demanding that America forfeit all rights to free religion and all convert to Islam, because if you want peace in this world that is what the Islam extremist are demanding, oh and for us to leave Islam nations alone, even when they decide to finish exterminating all the Jews. You, as most of your type (from just reading your post and concluding with my own opinion) are too closed minded to see the big picture, but I do invite you to read two other post I will be making in the sandbox area before the end of the weekend... you see, before I post heated political stuff, I think first. __________________ Magnum www.gettacticaldammit.com

09-29-2006, 03:25 PM	#8 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,719	Re: Congressional Approval of Detainee Bill You guys really won't be happy until we're reading the miranda rights on the battlefield, will you? This bill expressly does not apply to US Citizens. It doesn't remove a single right that formerly existed.

09-29-2006, 03:39 PM	#9 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,719	Re: Congressional Approval of Detainee Bill Here is the bill: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...6166eh.txt.pdf I suggest folks read it instead of merely passing on hysterical talking points.

09-29-2006, 04:11 PM	#12 (permalink)
dfg872 Join Date: Nov 2005 Age: 27 Posts: 119	Re: Congressional Approval of Detainee Bill It actually probably won't pass judicial scrutiny, but that isn't important. It was a political move on the part of the right so that they could say the left was weak on terrorism. It is business as usual, congress just went ahead and codified it. If the dems were smart (which history has shown us they aren't) they wouldv'e gone along with the bill, taken away the republican powerplay and killed that election issue for them. Then, when the house was back in their control, they could do whatever the hell they wanted. But alas, I could care less what party takes over at this point. Both parties are spending more money then we have, and both promise to spend more if elected. I give up. __________________ \|TG-Irr\| Dfg872

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
McCain- Lieberman bill - write to your rep	jex	The Sandbox	21	06-04-2004 11:35 AM

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links