S3930 - Detainee bill

[dar512]

Is anyone else worried about this? It scares the heck out of me.

[BigV]

link, please.

[Flint]

:::gasp::: you mean you don't know? ::: pretends to be a fancy-pants intellectual:::

[BigV]

I ask to soothe my inner fact-checker.

[dar512]

A google overview
The actual bill

One thing I noticed while looking into this is that the media doesn't seem to want to help citizens be active in their government. None of the articles I looked through stated the actual number of the bill.

[headsplice]

Why, again, are people supporting this? Folks on the right-ish side of the aisle...what's the defense for violating the Constitution?

[Stormieweather]

I happened across this http://www.sundancechannel.com/film/?ixFilmID=6558 film about Guantanamo Bay on Sundance the other night. It is astonishing to me that our goverment is allowing, even encouraging, so much that is clearly against the Geneva Convention. The volunteer subjects in this film were mentally and physically destroyed after only 4 days, and yet some actual detainees have been held there for 4 years! They are not given legal counsel nor are they charged with anything that they can defend themselves against. Apparently it is ok for the US to treat people that way, but at the same time we condemn other countries for violating the Geneva Convention.

I can only imagine the horror that a bill allowing military trials in order to bypass due process would cause.

Stormie

[tw]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

It is astonishing to me that our goverment is allowing, even encouraging, so much that is clearly against the Geneva Convention.

Look back. How long ago was the expression "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition" posted. Why do you think my posts are so aggressively blunt on the liar and scumbag president? Nothing new here including outright attempts to restrict the right of Habeas Corpus. But then warnings of this effort were quoted direct from George Jr's own speech. Do you for one minute think anything I was posting is based in emotion? Read the appropriate excerpt from his speech as posted in The Cellar with warnings about this bill:
Has the Bush Doctrine failed? on 7 Sept 2006.

Third, I'm asking that Congress make it clear that captured terrorists cannot use the Geneva Conventions as a basis to sue our personnel in courts, in U.S. courts. The men and women who protect us should not have to fear lawsuits filed by terrorists because they're doing their jobs.

Exact quote from George Jr's speech. He spins it so that you don't notice - they want to take away provisions of the Geneva Convention third article. They want to eliminate the right of Habeas Corpus - a fundamental American principle of law - to some people to make torture and other violations of the Geneva Convention legal in the US.

There is nothing exaggerated in my repeated references to a lying and mental midget president. And I was totally surprised back in early September how many here simply approved (by their silence) of this bill.

Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition. Warning of this bill, including the Supreme Court decision that created this bill, were also posted in:
Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

Well, at least this thread tells me that some don't approve of torture and violations of the Geneva Convention. There are some in The Cellar who do approve of both. We have exchanged words - bluntly - as a result.


Headsplice - by the time the unconstitutionality of this bill arrives in the Supreme Court, the court will be changed. In the Hamdan case, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia all opposed the 29 Jun decisions that demanded George Jr admit to torture, secret prisions in foreign nations, kidnapping, and no rights of Habeas Corpus.

PA has two senators. Spectre has strongly opposed what this administration is doing to basic American principles of law. Santorum - who will be reelected this November - strongly supports these new restrictions on American freedoms. Santorum approves of torture and hopes you will reelect him. He therefore will contribute to changing the Supreme Court so that this bill - to eliminate the right of Habeas Corpus for some - will remain law.

Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition. Does my repeated reference to that expression make any sense yet? Are you beginning to understand why my posts of this administration have become so acidic over the years? Why did I never in over ten years not post so acidic? Why was I almost the only one here to see George Jr was lying even about those aluminum tubes? This president is not a decent or honest man.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by headsplice

Why, again, are people supporting this? Folks on the right-ish side of the aisle...what's the defense for violating the Constitution?

Please cite the part of the Constitution that protects unlawful alien enemy combatants.

[headsplice]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Please cite the part of the Constitution that protects unlawful alien enemy combatants.

Amendment Six:

Originally Posted by THE BILL OF RIGHTS

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

[tw]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Please cite the part of the Constitution that protects unlawful alien enemy combatants.

It’s called the Geneva Convention - and ratified according to the US Constitution. It's also called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which the US ratified in 1948. Unlawful alien enemy combatant is simply your attempt to pervert them into sub humans or Martians. But then you are posting in directe contradiction to the Supreme Court - and even the Bible. They are humans which mean the Geneva Convention fully applies - as you always knew but somehow forgot.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

It’s called the Geneva Convention...

Ah, yes...the Geneva Convention part of the Constitution. Right.

The Geneva Convention doesn't "apply to all humans" any more than the Constitution does. Nice red herring.

[dar512]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Ah, yes...the Geneva Convention part of the Constitution. Right.

You're slipping Mag. I saw you palm that card.

TW didn't say the Geneva Convention was part of the Constitution. He said it was ratified according to the Constitution. He obviously means that its ratification was in accordance with the Constitution.

Once you start saying "We all have inalienable rights... except those folks over there", you have started down a slippery slope.

[headsplice]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Ah, yes...the Geneva Convention part of the Constitution. Right.

The Geneva Convention doesn't "apply to all humans" any more than the Constitution does. Nice red herring.

First, the Geneva Conventions are the law of the land according to the Constitution, because the Constitution says that if we sign a treaty, then we are bound by it. So yes, the Constitution says that we have to stick to the Conventions (notice the plural, btw).
Second, the Constitution also has this neat little trick in it in Article 1 sections 9 and 10 denying the ability of the Congress to pass ex post facto laws, meaning that the Bush administration can't pass a law that clears them of any wrongdoing in the past (specifically: violating the Conventions by ordering and/or condoning torture).
Coming up with new rules for a new kind of game is just fine. Let's face it, the Conventions were written for conflicts between two states, and are hard to apply when the conflict is between a state and non-state actor. But trying to cornhole the Constitution (especially when it's only for political gain, not actually trying to make any headway catching and prosecuting people) is, quite literally and without hyperbole, anti-American.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Please cite the part of the Constitution that protects unlawful alien enemy combatants.

Is an "unlawful alien enemy combatant" a person? If so, they get due process. You can't make up a random label that didn't exist in the 1700s and then say that the Constitution doesn't mention it.

The Bill of Rights isn't a list of rights that Americans have. It's a list of rights that the US Government doesn't have.

In addition, about the Geneva Conventions, the Constitution says:

This Constitution ... and all Treaties made ... under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;