DescentBB

Better not be too loud about criticizing Dumbya now: he can detain, torture, and punish anyone for anything he damn well likes, and there's NOTHING you could do about it once you're in one of Dumbya's prisons.

US citizens are NOT exempt.

Bill of Rights = dead.
Habeas Corpus = DEAD.

Don't forget, that the ENTIRE legal system in western countries (Note I don't use the word democracy) is based on Habeas Corpus. It has been observed by governments since 1305, that's over 700 years. Get that? SEVEN HUNDRED FUXORING YEARS.

And, in less than 6 years Dumbya has stolen that right from you, and everyone else on this earth, as far as he is concerned.

HE decides what torture is.
HE decides who will be detained.
HE decides what a \"combatant\" is.

Now would be a very good time to write your congressman: http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=58

Wow, I've never been so glad to live in Canada.

nono, you can't move to canada to escape. now you gotta move to mars.

You can find the actual bill here. For anyone who does NOT prefer to remain willfully ignorant, there it is (click the obvious links.)

The bill explicitly defines who can be tried by military commisions. \"Alien unlawful enemy combatants\" it says, and it specifically defines \"alien\" as \"not a citizen\". Suspension of habeas corpus is, likewise, limited specifically to aliens who have been determined to be enemy combatants or who are awaiting that determination (via Combatant Status Review Tribunal review or similar.) So Mobi is lying when he says citizens are not exempt.

The bill explicitly excludes statements obtained via torture as evidence, except in cases where the accusation is \"person X tortured someone\", in which case \"person Y made statement Z when tortured by person X\" is valid evidence.

Canada ROCKS!

Mobius, wake up, man. At least be informed enough to know what you're talking about. You're starting to sound like Chris Farley's \"Motivational Speaker\" character from SNL.

Again, I repeat, read the damn bill.

Lothar, props for posting that link. Fascinating reading.

Another thing to think about for those that subscribe to Mobius' thinking on this is just how much have the odds really changed that any one person might be arrested and tortured by the government?
My guess is the odds are almost the same for people who don't fit a profile and are not involved with known terrorist associated entities.

Sure we could be arrested by mistake, it does happen, and with the recent increase in our efforts to combat the terrorist threat certainly the number of opportunities for one to be falsely accused has to have risen slightly but no more than the chances of being falsely accused of any other crime when the police decide to step up their efforts to crack down on any particular criminal activity.
The odds of being pulled over for a breathalizer go up when they crack down in your area, the odds of an IRS audit go up when they start cracking down on those who fit a profile that you are a part of...etc.


Because of the increased encounters with terrorists has risen the current administration has found the political need to publically acknowledge and try to defend the practice but the practice was already established. So the odds of being tortured for information instead of being questioned by standard FBI methods has gone up substantially for foriegn terrorists where the odds have barely risen at all for the average citizen. A bit different than the reoported scenario of \"Better not be too loud about criticizing Dumbya now: he can detain, torture, and punish anyone for anything he damn well likes, and there's NOTHING you could do about it once you're in one of Dumbya's prisons.\"

But actually it is a little chilling compared to the warm fuzzy america I thought I grew up in. Then again I grew up thinking the Easter Bunny brought me chocolates and bad guys like bin Ladden didn't stand a chance against cops like Joe Friday and special agents like James Bond.
Reality has a way of waking us up in a rude fashion.

Mobius, you are a blithering fool.

No, it's the talk radio he listens to. Most of them are junk anyways.

I only say that as there are a number of folks here at work that listen to too much talk radio and read rather dubious new sources and form some rather LOUD opinions with out actually looking into matters themselves in any kind of detail.

Mobius is one to talk, all it takes for roid and him to lose their rights is a simple majority of the respective legislatures of Austrialia and New Zealand - neither has any entrentched rights.

fliptw wrote:Mobius and roid - neither has any entrentched rights.

well, what about the Geneva Convention.
It's something our respective countrys supposedly share - iirc USA's actions in the past few years havn't even been measuring up to these INTERNATIONALLY recognised rights - let alone the extra rights USA citizens are supposed to have.
I may normally think it trite to bring up otherwise but i think the way USA isn't even upholding the Geneva Convention is rather scary, regardless of your extra local rights as USA citizens.

I'm gonna hazard a guess and say that these new laws indicate even further USA's disregard for internationally respected human rights.

roid wrote:I'm gonna hazard a guess and say that these new laws indicate even further USA's disregard for internationally respected human rights.

Lothar posted the link to the bill, go ahead and read it.

\"So the odds of being tortured for information instead of being questioned by standard FBI methods has gone up substantially for foriegn terrorists\"

So we're allowed to torture our enemies?

roid wrote:nono, you can't move to canada to escape. now you gotta move to mars.

Are you sure it's not the Moon, that thing is closer last I checked...

d3jake wrote:Are you sure it's not the Moon, that thing is closer last I checked...

Ya, but that thing has been already been colonised by several Nazi space stations.

Currently, they're waiting and watching America to finish their Star Wars project, so they can destroy the sattelites with ease and have a great laugh at how the Americans wasted loads of their money!

roid wrote:

fliptw wrote:Mobius and roid - neither has any entrentched rights.

well, what about the Geneva Convention.

None of the Geneva Conventions grant you any entrenched rights from your own government. They only grant rights from other nations if you're captured as a lawful POW or you're a civilian in an occupied area (both of which are defined in the Conventions as well as in the above link.)

I'm gonna hazard a guess

Guessing is for those who wish to remain willfully ignorant, like Mobi. You're better than that. Read, don't guess.

Chaos Death Saurer wrote:"So the odds of being tortured for information instead of being questioned by standard FBI methods has gone up substantially for foriegn terrorists"

So we're allowed to torture our enemies?

No, "we" aren't. But you can bet our military always has when the captured person was suspected to know some important information that could save our soldiers lives.
Only lately has it become popular to make political points out of pretending Bush invented the idea.

There are two kinds of countries on the planet. Those that signed the Geneva Conventions and do these things anyway and those that didn't sign the Geneva Conventions and do these things. OK, three kinds. There are also those that haven't had to fight.

We probably very rarely engaged in blatent sadistic torture like some armies have, and then it wasn't policy, it was just some individual going too far, but we have always knocked the crap out of someone to get him to talk.

Lothar wrote:

roid wrote:

fliptw wrote:Mobius and roid - neither has any entrentched rights.

well, what about the Geneva Convention.

None of the Geneva Conventions grant you any entrenched rights from your own government. They only grant rights from other nations if you're captured as a lawful POW or you're a civilian in an occupied area (both of which are defined in the Conventions as well as in the above link.)

Guantanamo bay and other military prisons atm are full of POWs whom USA has denied Geneva rights to.

Lothar wrote:

I'm gonna hazard a guess

Guessing is for those who wish to remain willfully ignorant, like Mobi. You're better than that. Read, don't guess.

I'm better than that? No i'm not, i have a lot of trust in my intuition. Lets put it to the test:

since this bill gives USA's government even greater power, i'm assuming it's not a step to get more in line with the Geneva Conventions - which they were already in violation of.

Bush wouldn't be happy about such a thing - and he IS happy. So i think my assumption that this bill puts USA even FURTHER away from it's Geneva obligations - is correct.

These things are pretty predicable.

roid wrote:Bush wouldn't be happy about such a thing - and he IS happy. So i think my assumption that this bill puts USA even FURTHER away from it's Geneva obligations - is correct.

Did you read the text of the bill?

roid wrote:since this bill gives USA's government even greater power, i'm assuming it's not a step to get more in line with the Geneva Conventions - which they were already in violation of.

you saying the U.S. is in violation of the Geneva convention does not prove they are. give us proof not your opinion show exactly where we are in violation. if memory serves and I can look it up if you like. the Geneva convention applies ONLY to uniformed military combatants which does not apply to Al-Queda.

roid wrote:Guantanamo bay and other military prisons atm are full of POWs whom USA has denied Geneva rights to.

You dodged fliptw's point, which was that your own governments don't guarantee you any rights. Mobi was whining that this bill denied rights to US citizens (which it doesn't); flip was pointing out Aussie/Kiwi citizens aren't actually guaranteed those rights anyway. Geneva doesn't force your government to guarantee you rights; it forces your government to guarantee foreign civilians and foreign uniformed military rights.

As for the point you just attempted to make, have you ever read (or even skimmed) the Geneva conventions? It seems a favorite tactic of the willfully ignorant to repeatedly make the false claim that Geneva guarantees rights to all people. It does not. It guarantees rights only to those who follow its requirements -- non-fighting civilians and uniformed combatants. One of its purposes is to discourage certain tactics by promising humane treatment to those who are clearly ID'd as soldiers and those who aren't fighting... leaving an intentional avenue for harsher treatment of fighters disguised as civilians.

Let me repeat that: the Geneva conventions intentionally don't provide protection for fighters disguised as civilians, because part of their purpose was to encourage nations to avoid having fighters hiding among civilians.

i have a lot of trust in my intuition.

Intuition leads to wrong results when your background information is flawed. Here are several ways in which your incorrect background info misleads you:

- "this bill gives USA's government even greater power"

Maybe you should read it instead of remaining willfully ignorant. The bill codifies when military tribunals may be used and how they must occur. It doesn't establish the power to hold them, it just specifies exact conditions for them. It increases their power in the sense that it guarantees these tribunals can be held, but it decreases the power in the sense that it specifically excludes (1) US citizens, (2) lawful enemy combatants, and (3) noncombatant civilians.

- "it's not a step to get more in line with the Geneva Conventions - which they were already in violation of."

The specific exclusions (2) and (3) above make this bill very clearly in line with Geneva. What this bill does is codifies what happens in the cases Geneva intentionally left open -- what to do with unlawful combatants. The continual claim that the US is "already in violation of Geneva" is simply ignorant; it's not that hard to find the full text of the relevant Conventions with google and remedy your maleducatedness.

- "Bush wouldn't be happy about such a thing"

You're basing this off of your perceptions about what makes Bush happy. Perceptions that came not from spending time with Bush, but from years of listening to pundits.

I think Bush should be happy about it because it's one less thing to think about. There's now a complete written procedure for exactly how to deal with alien unlawful enemy combatants, which made it through Congress and can be evaluated by the courts as necessary.

Therefore, "my assumption that this bill puts USA even FURTHER away from it's Geneva obligations" is completely wrong. Your assumption comes from ignorance, misunderstanding, and flawed information. At this point, you've been given access to all of the information you need to correct that. I suggest you take advantage of the resources available.

Thanks for the reality check Lothar. Once again you have cleared up any unnecessary anxieties caused by irrational, politically motivated assumptions.

Mind you, I'm still glad to be Canadian.

You guys have your own headaches to worry about.

Being Canadian didn't seem to help Mr. Mahar Arar. And that was before this law came in.
http://www.maherarar.ca/
Not a good idea to fit a profile Will Robinson no matter what you have actually done.

Yes, yes Mr. Arar was a dual Syrian/Canadian citizen.

Ford Prefect wrote:Being Canadian didn't seem to help Mr. Mahar Arar. And that was before this law came in.
http://www.maherarar.ca/
Not a good idea to fit a profile Will Robinson no matter what you have actually done.

Yes, yes Mr. Arar was a dual Syrian/Canadian citizen.

no law can protect anyone from human incompentence.

it also an apt example of the perils if multi-citizenship.

Lothar wrote:

roid wrote:Guantanamo bay and other military prisons atm are full of POWs whom USA has denied Geneva rights to.

You dodged fliptw's point, which was that your own governments don't guarantee you any rights. Mobi was whining that this bill denied rights to US citizens (which it doesn't); flip was pointing out Aussie/Kiwi citizens aren't actually guaranteed those rights anyway. Geneva doesn't force your government to guarantee you rights; it forces your government to guarantee foreign civilians and foreign uniformed military rights.

As for the point you just attempted to make, have you ever read (or even skimmed) the Geneva conventions? It seems a favorite tactic of the willfully ignorant to repeatedly make the false claim that Geneva guarantees rights to all people. It does not. It guarantees rights only to those who follow its requirements -- non-fighting civilians and uniformed combatants. One of its purposes is to discourage certain tactics by promising humane treatment to those who are clearly ID'd as soldiers and those who aren't fighting... leaving an intentional avenue for harsher treatment of fighters disguised as civilians.

Let me repeat that: the Geneva conventions intentionally don't provide protection for fighters disguised as civilians, because part of their purpose was to encourage nations to avoid having fighters hiding among civilians.

Blah Blah Blah...Your own supreme court said they are entitled to the rights of the Geneva Conventions.

commence backtracking

roid wrote:

Lothar wrote:

roid wrote:Guantanamo bay and other military prisons atm are full of POWs whom USA has denied Geneva rights to.

You dodged fliptw's point, which was that your own governments don't guarantee you any rights. Mobi was whining that this bill denied rights to US citizens (which it doesn't); flip was pointing out Aussie/Kiwi citizens aren't actually guaranteed those rights anyway. Geneva doesn't force your government to guarantee you rights; it forces your government to guarantee foreign civilians and foreign uniformed military rights.

As for the point you just attempted to make, have you ever read (or even skimmed) the Geneva conventions? It seems a favorite tactic of the willfully ignorant to repeatedly make the false claim that Geneva guarantees rights to all people. It does not. It guarantees rights only to those who follow its requirements -- non-fighting civilians and uniformed combatants. One of its purposes is to discourage certain tactics by promising humane treatment to those who are clearly ID'd as soldiers and those who aren't fighting... leaving an intentional avenue for harsher treatment of fighters disguised as civilians.

Let me repeat that: the Geneva conventions intentionally don't provide protection for fighters disguised as civilians, because part of their purpose was to encourage nations to avoid having fighters hiding among civilians.

Blah Blah Blah...Your own supreme court said they are entitled to the rights of the Geneva Conventions.

commence backtracking

this bill is the response to that ruling.

roid wrote:Your own supreme court said they are entitled to the rights of the Geneva Conventions.

How about we engage in some reading? I know you've been trying to dodge this as much as possible, but honestly, reading is not very hard. The ruling you're referencing is here.

One of the key findings was that "the military commission... is not expressly authorized by any congressional act." The proper response is to authorize it by congressional act -- S3930, the bill in question in this thread.

Another key finding was that the military commission was not appropriately structured with respect to the UCMJ. S3930 was (presumably) written in order to fall in line with that.

You'll love and hate this part: the Supreme Court ruled that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions "affords some minimal protection, falling short of full protection under the Conventions" to those persons taking no active part in the hostilities who were captured "in the territory of" a Geneva signatory (bottom of page 6.) So, I was wrong; there are *some* Geneva rights that apply to *some* unlawful combatants, specifically, those who had laid down arms or were rendered incapable of fighting by sickness etc. AND were captured in the territory of another Geneva signatory. The specific "minimal protection" granted, according to the Supreme court, is that they be tried in a "regularly constituted court" rather than a special tribunal, which is exactly what S3930 establishes.

Sounds like this bill solves all of the issues brought up in that ruling.

Lothar wrote:How about we engage in some reading?

How about "we" stop being such a pompous ass.

you're not talking to mobius here

fliptw wrote:

roid wrote:

Lothar wrote:

roid wrote:Guantanamo bay and other military prisons atm are full of POWs whom USA has denied Geneva rights to.

You dodged fliptw's point, which was that your own governments don't guarantee you any rights. Mobi was whining that this bill denied rights to US citizens (which it doesn't); flip was pointing out Aussie/Kiwi citizens aren't actually guaranteed those rights anyway. Geneva doesn't force your government to guarantee you rights; it forces your government to guarantee foreign civilians and foreign uniformed military rights.

As for the point you just attempted to make, have you ever read (or even skimmed) the Geneva conventions? It seems a favorite tactic of the willfully ignorant to repeatedly make the false claim that Geneva guarantees rights to all people. It does not. It guarantees rights only to those who follow its requirements -- non-fighting civilians and uniformed combatants. One of its purposes is to discourage certain tactics by promising humane treatment to those who are clearly ID'd as soldiers and those who aren't fighting... leaving an intentional avenue for harsher treatment of fighters disguised as civilians.

Let me repeat that: the Geneva conventions intentionally don't provide protection for fighters disguised as civilians, because part of their purpose was to encourage nations to avoid having fighters hiding among civilians.

Blah Blah Blah...Your own supreme court said they are entitled to the rights of the Geneva Conventions.

commence backtracking

this bill is the response to that ruling.

now we're getting somewhere

roid wrote:

Lothar wrote:How about we engage in some reading?

How about "we" stop being such a pompous ass.

you're not talking to mobius here

fliptw wrote: this bill is the response to that ruling.

now we're getting somewhere

No, we're not. You haven't said anything that suggests you've read the text of the bill.

I did engage in some reading; my hope was that you'd come along with me. That's not pompousassedness, it's just an understanding that reading is a good way to gain knowledge. I learned quite a bit from reading the things I linked, and tried to point out the things that stood out to me, but it's always better to have more sets of eyes looking at the material, ESPECIALLY when there's prior disagreement over what the material \"probably\" says or means. So far, you've shown no indication of having even attempted to read the linked material.

I'll ask very explicitly:
1) have you read (or even skimmed) bill S3930?
2) have you read (or even skimmed) the Geneva Conventions, specifically, Common Article 3?
3) have you read (or even skimmed) the Supreme Court ruling Hamdan vs Rumsfeld?

You're asking a lot of questions and making a lot of assumptions, saying what you \"feel\" the bill must be like, instead of taking a little time and reading the bill so that you \"know\" what it says. That's not really a good way to gain knowledge or understanding.

So you read the entire bill, passage by passage huh Lothar? BS. I read a couple passages in the bill and what bothered me was the ambigious nature of definition of \"enemy combatant\". Habeus Corpus is one of the cornerstones of this country, you cannot be held without facing your charge. It's always been this way, now who decides if you're an enemy combatant? Look at Padilla, the original charges that he was held on faded into the air when he was finally charged after being held in a brig for over three years. I don't know the man, he's not the sort of guy to have a beer with, but he's an American and he was held without charge for over three years.

Another part that bothered me was the trial specifics. Because they are allowing tribunals, the defense cannot ask for classified evidence even if that is the very evidence that you are indicted with. Can you imagine if you had to go defend yourself and you weren't allowed access to anything?

You people think these \"terrorists\" shouldn't be allowed one iota of our legal system. Were we not to supposed to be the morally superior society? Wouldn't we have shown the world that we will go after these terrorists but we won't destroy our values and freedoms as a country to do so?

I'm not even going to bring up the exempting of American agents from international prosecution. That sickens me...feel free to torture boys...the guys on Capital Hill just gave you a get out of jail free card.

Zuruck wrote:So you read the entire bill, passage by passage huh Lothar?

I read about 60% of the bill, mostly out of curiousity. There are only a few sections you need to read for the purposes of this thread -- notably, the section near the start about who the bill applies to, and the section near the end about Habeas Corpus. But I also read a lot of other sections because I wanted to see what was in the bill (and I read Common Article 3, and I read the first 8 or so pages of Hamdan v Rumsfeld.) If someone brings up a question that requries me to read more, I'll do that.

what bothered me was the ambigious nature of definition of "enemy combatant".

You find this ambiguous?

The Bill's section that defines enemy combatant wrote:(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.

`(B) CO-BELLIGERENT- In this paragraph, the term `co-belligerent', with respect to the United States, means any State or armed force joining and directly engaged with the United States in hostilities or directly supporting hostilities against a common enemy.

`(2) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- The term `lawful enemy combatant' means a person who is--

`(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;

`(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or

`(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.

Seems pretty straightforward to me. It also matches the equally unambiguous definition from article 4 of the third Geneva Convention.

the defense cannot ask for classified evidence even if that is the very evidence that you are indicted with.

Are you referring to section 949j? This is no different from other trials involving classified information -- you can't give classified information to people who aren't authorized (including defendants, lawyers, and even jurors!), but if it's part of the charges, you do have to give a reasonable summary.

You people think these "terrorists" shouldn't be allowed one iota of our legal system.

You almost managed to go a whole post without taking a cheap shot at somebody or creating a straw man. ALMOST. Then you start in with the "you people" crap, making up what you think "us people" (whoever you mean by that) believes about the people in GTMO and elsewhere.

I think someone accused of being a terrorist should have the right to a fair trial, same as everyone else. But, because of the nature of the trial and the nature of the evidence, it's not going to be a trial in a normal civil courtroom; it doesn't even make sense to try non-citizens in civil courts! I think this bill sets up a fair trial very well. It's not in the court I'd be in (because I'd be tried in US courts for breaking US laws as a US citizen, rather than being tried in a military court for breaking international law), but it strikes me as quite fair.

an interesting side note. Palistine is not on the register for the Geneva convention and thus is not bound by it's order. Iran and Iraq, however, Are. The guilla warfair they are conducting is illegal. Or rather the taliban or whoever.

Lothar, the link to the bill is a bit fuzzy. did they move the document?


*******
Edit

Palestine : On 21 June 1989, the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs received a letter from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations Office at Geneva informing the Swiss Federal Council \"that the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, entrusted with the functions of the Government of the State of Palestine by decision of the Palestine National Council, decided, on 4 May 1989, to adhere to the Four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the two Protocols additional thereto\".

Duper wrote:the link to the bill is a bit fuzzy.

Click the above link, then click "text of document" and click the most recent version (engrossed by the Senate).

Iran and Iraq, however, Are.

Yep... which means Iran's government is most definitely in breach of international law. Iraq's current government is not, but Iraq's previous government was, as well as certain groups operating within Iraq. I'm supposing ratification of Geneva carries over through the revolutions those countries have been through, but I don't really know. That would be an interesting legal question, and one I'm not yet equipped to answer.

...

So, anybody else take the time to read the bill, at least in part?

(b) Execution of Sentence of Death Only Upon Approval by the President- If the sentence of a military commission under this chapter extends to death, that part of the sentence providing for death may not be executed until approved by the President. In such a case, the President may commute, remit, or suspend the sentence, or any part thereof, as he sees fit.

`(c) Execution of Sentence of Death Only Upon Final Judgment of Legality of Proceedings- (1) If the sentence of a military commission under this chapter extends to death, the sentence may not be executed until there is a final judgment as to the legality of the proceedings (and with respect to death, approval under subsection (b)).

I didn't find anything in the bill that violated the Geneva convention or the spirit of it. In fact, the above quote gives a lot of protection to the accused. Not to mention the right to appeals described further up.

I really don't see what the stink is. The bill mostly describes definitions and the court and its proceedings. The above quote does NOT give the President absolute power; he is used as a fail safe. No state court offers this kind of protection. We have our protection in the courts that is nearly equal and is certainly adequate. In our case, we have the governer of the state that reviews the case before signing. As this is an international matter, it's only reasonable (and appropriate) that the President is in that position.

Seems like business as usual for special interest motivated media.

Thanks Lothar.

so.. what makes you guys think this won't come onto domestic citizens?

Ferno wrote:so.. what makes you guys think this won't come onto domestic citizens?

Outside of martial law? Maybe being dumb enough to drive a truck full of explosives onto an army base.

Outside of that hypothetical:

Sec. 948a. wrote:(3) ALIEN- The term `alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.

The same rules outlined in this new law is the same as what we have already in place on a state level.

Just don't start shooting at our troops in civilian clothes and you'll be fine.

Jesus would torture every towelhead he could get his hands on until they reveal Osama's hiding place.

Then Jesus could personally nail every Arab to the cross who was remotely involved in Pearl Harbor and the death of that Lindbergh baby.

I think if the Muslim wears anything but an official military uniform they clearly deserve torture like Han Solo when Vader didn't even ask him any questions.

But they should be tortured to death if instead of uniforms they dress like the Back Street Boys or Wham! So many people really should be tortured for poor fashion sense alone.