Author Topic: Bush proposes bill that will allow American citizens to be detained indefinitely  (Read 4232 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

TheOMan

  • Junior Member
I saw this over at GAF and figured some of you might want to discuss it here since it kind of affects your rights:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060728/ap_on_go_pr_wh/detainee_rights;_ylt=AqYkldIHXLiIeuVur6hg9CsD5gcF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

Quote
Bush submits new terror detainee bill

WASHINGTON - 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 (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz. — that bans cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment should "fully satisfy" the nation's obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

Sen. John W. Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said Friday he expects to take up the detainee legislation in September.

Ace

The Fake Shemp

  • Ebola Carrier
I love this plan!  I'm excited to be apart of it!  Let's do it!
PSP

ToxicAdam

  • captain of my capsized ship
  • Senior Member
I trust our government not to abuse their power. Look how good the Patriot Act worked out!


APF

  • Senior Member
It's about time; hopefully we're one step closer to a ban on "swarthyness."
***

brawndolicious

  • Nylonhilist
  • Senior Member
It's about time; hopefully we're one step closer to a ban on "swarthyness."
What the fuck are you talking about?

BlueTsunami

  • The Muffin Man
  • Senior Member
Hopefully this bill will deal with all dem damn arabs
:9

brawndolicious

  • Nylonhilist
  • Senior Member
Hopefully this bill will deal with all dem damn arabs
You know they just want to be able to catch latinos by accident.

APF

  • Senior Member


     It's about time; hopefully we're one step closer to a ban on "swarthyness."


What the fuck are you talking about?


Good catch, I meant "swarthiness"--with an i.  Not my fault though; I was distracted by a guy with a beard who I tracked down into a Starbucks around the corner.  Get this: he got an "Americano."  NICE TRY, AL QAEDA.

Needless to say, I hit up Mike Chertoff on my speed dial.
***

The Fake Shemp

  • Ebola Carrier
I think this administration is a big joke on registered Republicans by some kind of Ashton Kutcher-led cabaal of Liberalcrats.  They're trying to see how long we'll tag along with Bush before he does something really stupid ("Nuke Mexico! Public executions!") and then pop out and go - oh snap! - YOU JUST GOT PUNK'D!
PSP

ToxicAdam

  • captain of my capsized ship
  • Senior Member
It's like being a Jets fan. This season sucks and the next season will suck ... but hey, who knows, maybe down the road we can get better.

In the meantime, you just watch all the fumbles and interceptions and just kind of shrug your shoulders.


brawndolicious

  • Nylonhilist
  • Senior Member


     It's about time; hopefully we're one step closer to a ban on "swarthyness."


What the fuck are you talking about?


Good catch, I meant "swarthiness"--with an i.  Not my fault though; I was distracted by a guy with a beard who I tracked down into a Starbucks around the corner.  Get this: he got an "Americano."  NICE TRY, AL QAEDA.

Needless to say, I hit up Mike Chertoff on my speed dial.
What?

TheOMan

  • Junior Member
It's like being a Jets fan. This season sucks and the next season will suck ... but hey, who knows, maybe down the road we can get better.

In the meantime, you just watch all the fumbles and interceptions and just kind of shrug your shoulders.



For a minute there I thought you were talking about the Winnipeg Jets. :/

In any case - what will it take to get the people to rise up and burn down the White House?  It just seems that Bush can do whatever he wants and nobody can and/or will do a single thing about it.  Seriously - this plan is ridiculous. 
Ace

The Fake Shemp

  • Ebola Carrier
I honestly don't think this plan will go too far.  There's no need to take out Bush.  He's alienated his own party and the Republicans are already distancing themselves away from him.  This whole Lebanon situation is also making his administration looking worse and worse.  He's effectively hanging himself.  There's no popular support for him anymore.
PSP

APF

  • Senior Member

What?


You would have taken the jihadi out in the coffee shop?  That was my instinct too (and I applaud your Patriotism), but I thought better of it once I realized it might be a better idea to plant a bug on the Islamofacist asshole so I could gather some actionable intelligence on him and his terrorist buddies' plans.  So I casually walked up to him and said, "I can't stand Americanos; I prefer mint tea," and winked--you know, just to make him think I could be a potential "fellow traveller" and let down his guard--then after some fiddling I inconspicuously planted a minirecorder in his jacket pocket.  Now all I do is just sit back and wait for Haji to incriminate himself.  HOOAH
***

The Fake Shemp

  • Ebola Carrier
Take that terrorists!
PSP

brawndolicious

  • Nylonhilist
  • Senior Member

What?


You would have taken the jihadi out in the coffee shop?  That was my instinct too (and I applaud your Patriotism), but I thought better of it once I realized it might be a better idea to plant a bug on the Islamofacist asshole so I could gather some actionable intelligence on him and his terrorist buddies' plans.  So I casually walked up to him and said, "I can't stand Americanos; I prefer mint tea," and winked--you know, just to make him think I could be a potential "fellow traveller" and let down his guard--then after some fiddling I inconspicuously planted a minirecorder in his jacket pocket.  Now all I do is just sit back and wait for Haji to incriminate himself.  HOOAH
But that's not swarthy?