__________________
He can embarrass you. He can embarrass you in front of your family, he can embarrass your wife who is watching you because this man can run right over you..." --Ron Wolfley on Beanie Wells.
The legislation, which sets the rules for court proceedings, would only apply to those selected by the military for prosecution and leaves mostly unaffected the majority of the 14,000 prisoners in U.S. custody, most of whom are in Iraq. The bill would protect detainees from blatant abuses _ such as rape, torture and "cruel and inhuman" treatment _ but does not require that each of them be granted legal counsel and specifically bars detainees from protesting their detentions in federal courts.
Are these men not prisoners of war? The normal course of action for a POW is that you hold them until the end of the war. There are no trails or anything else to establish guilt. They were caught in the process of trying to kill our people. What would you try them for? Following orders?
No, they are explicitly NOT POWs -- they fall under no specific category according to international law. This law does actually apply to them as I read it. It defines them as unlawful enemy combatants, it says they have no right to present a case that they are innocent to either a military or other court until they have been charged, but they do not have to BE charged -- ever.
Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to military trail (948c). Alien being a non citizen of the US and unlawful enemy combatant being any individual who is engaged in hostilities against the US who is not a member of a regular army. In other words, terrorists. This is the definition of who can be subject to these military tribunals.
Isn't that what this whole thing is about. The US is looking for ways to be able to try terrorists who don't fit into conventional niches (Geneva Convention) and they come up with this description and what the procedure will be for handling and trying these individuals.
I don't understand the beef. These guys are trying to kill us and will use any means/methods to accomplish that. Why should they have any rights at all. They don't fall under the Geneva Convention rules and would rather kill women and children than soldiers. Why should we worry about their rights as human beings. They forfeit those rights when they act like animals and should be treated accordingly.
It also says that no person shall be required to testify against themselves and that a statement obtained by torture will not be admissable in this court.
Here's the piece to understand -- No one HAS to be charged or tried.
A detainee can be held indefinitely (that means up to the end of the 'war on terrorism) without their status being determined:
"Is this an alien for sure, or a US citizen? Is this really a lawful combatant therefore POW applies? Is this a lawful combatant breaking the GC, therefore this law applies? Is this an unlawful non-combatant?"
There's no rule that status ever has to be determined.
UNTIL that status is clear, whether to use this law, or POW law, or US law, they cannot be charged. AND during that 'limbo' none of the 'safeguards' of this law apply to them -- this law says so. The tribunal part is for people who have been charged.
IN THAT CASE
They have no right to counsel, and no right to tell any court or other gov't official "I am being held by mistake."
They have no Geneva rights such as Red Cross visits or notification of anyone who or where they are. You only get GC rights after we decide you have POW status.
They can be subjected to whatever form of non-mutilating abuse the president deems necessary, although normally McCain rules against torture would apply -- however that is interpretted.
This applies to over 13,000 people detained by the US currently.
OK, I realize there's a lot of words there, 40, and you stopped reading somewhere near the top when you saw something you didn't like, but this is very similar to what Hamas and Hizbullah are doing; it is what the Arab countries and South American dictatorships do -- disappearing people is not something my country should ever do. It is flatly un-American.
If someone is picked up off the streets of Baghded, or Dearborn, or New York, or Rome, or Germany, all of which we have done, and detained under our authority, they should be named, they should have periodic Red Cross visits, and they should have one legally-guaranteed opportunity to demonstrate there was a mistake, and their status should be determined in a reasonable period -- say 3 months.
That's all.
__________________ "The power of the State looks real different when you're on the other side of the bayonet." Chris Hayes
Here's the piece to understand -- No one HAS to be charged or tried.
A detainee can be held indefinitely (that means up to the end of the 'war on terrorism) without their status being determined:
"Is this an alien for sure, or a US citizen? Is this really a lawful combatant therefore POW applies? Is this a lawful combatant breaking the GC, therefore this law applies? Is this an unlawful non-combatant?"
There's no rule that status ever has to be determined.
UNTIL that status is clear, whether to use this law, or POW law, or US law, they cannot be charged. AND during that 'limbo' none of the 'safeguards' of this law apply to them -- this law says so. The tribunal part is for people who have been charged.
IN THAT CASE
They have no right to counsel, and no right to tell any court or other gov't official "I am being held by mistake."
They have no Geneva rights such as Red Cross visits or notification of anyone who or where they are. You only get GC rights after we decide you have POW status.
They can be subjected to whatever form of non-mutilating abuse the president deems necessary, although normally McCain rules against torture would apply -- however that is interpretted.
This applies to over 13,000 people detained by the US currently.
OK, I realize there's a lot of words there, 40, and you stopped reading somewhere near the top when you saw something you didn't like, but this is very similar to what Hamas and Hizbullah are doing; it is what the Arab countries and South American dictatorships do -- disappearing people is not something my country should ever do. It is flatly un-American.
If someone is picked up off the streets of Baghded, or Dearborn, or New York, or Rome, or Germany, all of which we have done, and detained under our authority, they should be named, they should have periodic Red Cross visits, and they should have one legally-guaranteed opportunity to demonstrate there was a mistake, and their status should be determined in a reasonable period -- say 3 months.
That's all.
RIGHT ON! again Zenny...
The GOP and Bush are so effective at scaring people and only focusing on the "Security" aspect and labeling people skeptical of this bill as "Terror comfortists" that the real issues of this bill are flat out ignored and buried under the hype.
This bill is as you said "Flat-out unAmerican" and puts us on a sad, dangerous path towards the type of Government we are supposedly fighting to stop.
__________________
He can embarrass you. He can embarrass you in front of your family, he can embarrass your wife who is watching you because this man can run right over you..." --Ron Wolfley on Beanie Wells.
Here's the piece to understand -- No one HAS to be charged or tried.
A detainee can be held indefinitely (that means up to the end of the 'war on terrorism) without their status being determined:
"Is this an alien for sure, or a US citizen? Is this really a lawful combatant therefore POW applies? Is this a lawful combatant breaking the GC, therefore this law applies? Is this an unlawful non-combatant?"
There's no rule that status ever has to be determined.
UNTIL that status is clear, whether to use this law, or POW law, or US law, they cannot be charged. AND during that 'limbo' none of the 'safeguards' of this law apply to them -- this law says so. The tribunal part is for people who have been charged.
IN THAT CASE
They have no right to counsel, and no right to tell any court or other gov't official "I am being held by mistake."
They have no Geneva rights such as Red Cross visits or notification of anyone who or where they are. You only get GC rights after we decide you have POW status.
They can be subjected to whatever form of non-mutilating abuse the president deems necessary, although normally McCain rules against torture would apply -- however that is interpretted.
This applies to over 13,000 people detained by the US currently.
OK, I realize there's a lot of words there, 40, and you stopped reading somewhere near the top when you saw something you didn't like, but this is very similar to what Hamas and Hizbullah are doing; it is what the Arab countries and South American dictatorships do -- disappearing people is not something my country should ever do. It is flatly un-American.
If someone is picked up off the streets of Baghded, or Dearborn, or New York, or Rome, or Germany, all of which we have done, and detained under our authority, they should be named, they should have periodic Red Cross visits, and they should have one legally-guaranteed opportunity to demonstrate there was a mistake, and their status should be determined in a reasonable period -- say 3 months.
That's all.
Sorry AZZ, but I didn't get that meaning when I read the bill. There is no time frame reference for determining their status. I didn't see where it even addressed that issue. All it did was to delineate what people were subject to these military tribunals.
You also need to remember that there was another anti-terrorist bill passed last year and it is still active and in force. There might be a reference to time to determine status in that bill. Regardless, this bill is only meant to cover the hardest of the criminal element and I think it goes a long way towards doing that.
Where are you getting the 13,000 figure from? The prognosis on this bill stated that the 14,000 current prisoners in Iraq would not be affected by this bill. I'm under the assumption that this bill is meant for the AQ higher ups to have a method of dealing with them and not allowing them access to our court system. The same court system that let OJ go free.
The outcome may have been wrong, but the system worked becasue there was a reasonable doubt: (Very racist cop and sloppy police work.)
Its the exceptions that allow the rest of us to be able to attain justice. Nothing is perfect, but atleast it errs on the side of liberty, and I'll take that.
__________________
He can embarrass you. He can embarrass you in front of your family, he can embarrass your wife who is watching you because this man can run right over you..." --Ron Wolfley on Beanie Wells.
The outcome may have been wrong, but the system worked becasue there was a reasonable doubt: (Very racist cop and sloppy police work.)
Its the exceptions that allow the rest of us to be able to attain justice. Nothing is perfect, but atleast it errs on the side of liberty, and I'll take that.
So if OBL gets a top notched attorney who manages to screw up the prosecutor and OBL gets off free, you won't have a problem? (provided he's ever captured).
So if OBL gets a top notched attorney who manages to screw up the prosecutor and OBL gets off free, you won't have a problem? (provided he's ever captured).
That would never happen and takes the word Slippery Slope to a whole new stratosphere.
Plus, this Administration doesn't think he is worth spending time on anymore.
__________________
He can embarrass you. He can embarrass you in front of your family, he can embarrass your wife who is watching you because this man can run right over you..." --Ron Wolfley on Beanie Wells.
Sorry AZZ, but I didn't get that meaning when I read the bill. There is no time frame for determining their status. I didn't see where it even addressed that issue.
You also need to remember that there was another anti-terrorist bill passed last year and it is still active and in force.
Where are you getting the 13,000 figure from? The prognosis on this bill stated that the 14,000 current prisoners in Iraq would not be affected by this bill.
Quote:
There is no time frame reference for determining their status.
Ummm, that's my POINT. And maybe you didn't read far enough...
Under Sec 6 a the US Code is amended AND the 2005 Detainee Treatment bill is amended to read:
"(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to consider an application for writ of habeas corpus... of an alien detained by the US who --
(A) is currently in US custody; and
(B) has been determined by the US to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant OR IS AWAITING SUCH DETERMINATION."
(e)(2) ...{or} any other action relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or condition of confinement ...of an alien detained by the US who --
(A) is currently in US custody; and
(B) has been determined by the US to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant OR IS AWAITING SUCH DETERMINATION."
The District Court of Appeals may consider an appeal after a determination is made that the procedures were not followed.
Habeas Corpus means that a person cannot be held indefinitely without being charged. That right is suspended. Once we decide you are an enemy combatant, or for however long it takes us to figure that out, if we don't get around to charging you, you have no legal basis to protest being held.
The 2005 bill was specific ONLY to Guantanamo. This new bill is explicitly not specific to Guantanamo.
The system was that detainees at Gitmo must be told they are being held as possible enemy combatants; if they requested, they may appear before an 'Combatant Status Review Tribunal.'
The CSRT tribunals differed from proceedings under a criminal justice system in that:
Detainees do not receive the presumption of innocence.
Detainees do not get access to legal advice.
Detainees are not entitled to access to the evidence or charges against them, or evidence in their favor.
Hear-say evidence is allowed to be used against the detainees.
The use of evidence acquired through coercive interrogation is allowed, there is no protection against self-incrimination.
Evidence acquired through the torture of other suspects was allowed.
Detainees had no right to present witnesses or to cross-examine government witnesses.
As of 2005, SOD released new CSRT guidelines REMOVING any reference to a time frame in which the alien who requested a CSRT should be heard.
Once declared an enemy combatant under CSRT, the case gets an annual review, not necessarily by a judge, only to see if any new evidence strongly suggesting innocence has been added to the file.
Quote:
If, as the government argues, the Detainee Treatment Act is applied to pending habeas corpus cases, it will allow for indefinite executive detention without any meaningful opportunity to rebut the government’s allegations, eviscerating a core guarantee of the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus since common law.
Quote:
Secretary Rumsfeld has said that even if the commission acquitted a detainee, being determined to have been innocent would still not mean the Department of Defense would release him. They could still keep him, for the rest of his life, without giving a reason. This follows from the Administration's position that the enemy combatants were to be treated (in this one regard) under law of war norms; namely, that they may be lawfully detained until the cessation of hostilities.
Quote:
Murat Kurnaz, an example
Murat Kurnaz was a young Turk who was born in, and had grown up, in Germany. When captured he was close to being granted German citizenship. He was taken off a tourist bus and arrested while on a trip to Pakistan, not "on the battlefield".
The CSR Tribunal's determination was that there was enough evidence of Kurnaz had ties to terrorism that he should be held as an enemy combatant.
Through a bureaucratic slip-up Kurnaz's file was declassifed. During the brief window when it was declassified the Washington Post was able to review all the evidence against him and publish a summary.
Joyce Hens Green, a Washington jurist, had been able to review both the classified and unclassified evidence. Green found that Kurnaz's file contained something like 100 pages of documents and reports explaining that German and American investigators could find no evidence whatsoever that Kurnaz had any ties to terrorism. Shortly before his tribunal an unsigned memo had been added to his file concluded he was an al Queda member. Green's comment on the memo was that it:
fails to provide significant details to support its conclusory allegations, does not reveal the sources for its information and is contradicted by other evidence in the record.
Eugene R. Fidell, a Washington-based expert in military law, said:
It suggests the procedure is a sham, If a case like that can get through, what it means is that the merest scintilla of evidence against someone would carry the day for the government, even if there's a mountain of evidence on the other side."
I've seen a 13,000 to 14,000 number range listed. Those thousands have NO procedures at all for determining their status. They have no CSRT, nada. NO due process, although detained under the authority of the US.
My last gasp on this, 40 -- the vast majority of the military lawyers and top officers are NOT pleased with this new bill; their own procedures are clearer and offer equal or better protections. They had hoped the gov't would approve and follow their existing procedures and designate unlawful enemy combatants as subject to military tribunal procedures -- not drag them into a constitutionally dubious new quagmire designed to diminish Geneva Conventions as normally understood and cover Rummy's butt against future War Crimes charges.
You know I am not soft on terrorists. I am OK with targetted assassinations, as long as there is a scrupulous procedure in place. I will not accept us disappearing people, because that by definition means no due process; no protections against egregious screw-ups. It concentrates a lethal secret power in untrustworthy hands. regardless of which party is running the show. (btw, there were a couple US citizens wrongly 'detained' in this whole cluster-****.)
__________________ "The power of the State looks real different when you're on the other side of the bayonet." Chris Hayes
Ummm, that's my POINT. And maybe you didn't read far enough...
Under Sec 6 a the US Code is amended AND the 2005 Detainee Treatment bill is amended to read:
"(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to consider an application for writ of habeas corpus... of an alien detained by the US who --
(A) is currently in US custody; and
(B) has been determined by the US to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant OR IS AWAITING SUCH DETERMINATION."
(e)(2) ...{or} any other action relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or condition of confinement ...of an alien detained by the US who --
(A) is currently in US custody; and
(B) has been determined by the US to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant OR IS AWAITING SUCH DETERMINATION."
The District Court of Appeals may consider an appeal after a determination is made that the procedures were not followed.
Habeas Corpus means that a person cannot be held indefinitely without being charged. That right is suspended. Once we decide you are an enemy combatant, or for however long it takes us to figure that out, if we don't get around to charging you, you have no legal basis to protest being held.
The 2005 bill was specific ONLY to Guantanamo. This new bill is explicitly not specific to Guantanamo.
The system was that detainees at Gitmo must be told they are being held as possible enemy combatants; if they requested, they may appear before an 'Combatant Status Review Tribunal.'
The CSRT tribunals differed from proceedings under a criminal justice system in that:
Detainees do not receive the presumption of innocence.
Detainees do not get access to legal advice.
Detainees are not entitled to access to the evidence or charges against them, or evidence in their favor.
Hear-say evidence is allowed to be used against the detainees.
The use of evidence acquired through coercive interrogation is allowed, there is no protection against self-incrimination.
Evidence acquired through the torture of other suspects was allowed.
Detainees had no right to present witnesses or to cross-examine government witnesses.
As of 2005, SOD released new CSRT guidelines REMOVING any reference to a time frame in which the alien who requested a CSRT should be heard.
Once declared an enemy combatant under CSRT, the case gets an annual review, not necessarily by a judge, only to see if any new evidence strongly suggesting innocence has been added to the file.
I've seen a 13,000 to 14,000 number range listed. Those thousands have NO procedures at all for determining their status. They have no CSRT, nada. NO due process, although detained under the authority of the US.
My last gasp on this, 40 -- the vast majority of the military lawyers and top officers are NOT pleased with this new bill; their own procedures are clearer and offer equal or better protections. They had hoped the gov't would approve and follow their existing procedures and designate unlawful enemy combatants as subject to military tribunal procedures -- not drag them into a constitutionally dubious new quagmire designed to diminish Geneva Conventions as normally understood and cover Rummy's butt against future War Crimes charges.
You know I am not soft on terrorists. I am OK with targetted assassinations, as long as there is a scrupulous procedure in place. I will not accept us disappearing people, because that by definition means no due process; no protections against egregious screw-ups. It concentrates a lethal secret power in untrustworthy hands. regardless of which party is running the show. (btw, there were a couple US citizens wrongly 'detained' in this whole cluster-****.)
I've been hearing that the majority of CIA people/lawyers were truly concerned about being prosecuted for their interrogation procedures and had been begging to get legislation to cover them. Are you saying, they are saying this bill isn't going to work? I thought the whole premise of the bill was to delineate how to treat these terrorists. To give them guidelines so they wouldn't have to worry about prosecution.
If the people who are going to have to run and coordinate this effort aren't satisfied with this legislation, we have a problem.
MILITARY= armed forces. They do not generally engage in the unacceptable practices. The CIA and 'contract security' are the ones who were scared. That is who this law is to protect and the military resent being pulled into it. CIA denies it, but there are credible reports some CIA people demanded to be reassigned or they'd quit after seeing what was goingon in US-run Iraqi prisons, and some Military commandos protested they didn't want to be assigned to work with the CIA.
__________________ "The power of the State looks real different when you're on the other side of the bayonet." Chris Hayes
Linear Mode
