S3930 - Detainee bill

[richlevy]

This stuff is hardly new. Santa Anna considered the Texan rebels to be unlawful combatants.

March 6: A bloody Mexican attack on the Alamo begins before dawn, and the Mexican forces slaughter all inside except for the women, children, and Travis' slave, Joe. Mexican losses number around 600.
March 20: Mexicans capture a Texan force retreating from Goliad, led by James W. Fannin, near Coleto Creek.
March 27: Santa Anna orders the execution of Fannin and 350 men at Goliad.

The movie 'The Great Escape' is based on a real escape in WWII. The escapees were all captured wearing civilian clothes but otherwise met the definition of lawful combatants in S3930. Of course, noone expected the Nazis to have the exact same litmus test as Congress. Rule number one is if you are going to commit a war crime, don't lose the war.

BTW, I do not consider this an example of Godwin's Law, but I'm sure someone is going to disagree.

The balloon went up in spectacular style. A 'Grossfahndung' (national alert) was ordered with troops, police, Gestapo and Landwacht (Home Guard) alerted. Hitler, incensed, ordered that all those recaptured were to be shot. Goering, Feldmarschall Keitel, Maj-Gen Graevenitz and Maj-Gen Westhoff tried to persuade Hitler to see sense. Eventually he calmed down and decreed that 'more than half are to be shot and cremated.' This directive was teleprinted to Gestapo headquarters under Himmler's order, and a list of 50 was composed by General Nebe and Dr Hans Merton.
One by one the escapers were recaptured and on Himmler's orders, handed over to the Gestapo. This was not the normal practice; usually, recaptured PoWs were handed over to, and dealt with, by the civilian police. Singly, or in small groups, they were taken from civilian or military prisons, driven to remote locations, and shot whilst offered the chance to relieve themselves. The Gestapo groups submitted almost identical reports that 'the prisoners whilst relieving themselves, bolted for freedom and were shot whilst trying to escape.'' This infamous expression has now passed into history as an euphemism for cold blooded murder.
Three escapers, Per Bergsland (aka Rocky Rockland), Jens Muller and Bram van der Stok, succeeded in reaching safety. Bergsland and Muller reached neutral Sweden, and van der Stock arrived in Gibraltar via Holland, Belgium, France and Spain. Out of the 73 others, 50 were murdered by the Gestapo, 17 were returned to Sagan, four sent to Sachsenhausen, and two to Colditz Castle. Word reached England of the atrocity; in mid July 1944 Anthony Eden, British Foreign Minister, made a speech in the House of Commons declaring that the perpetrators of the crime would be brought to justice.

Maybe at some point we'll start getting reports from Guantanamo of prisoners being eaten by sharks while trying to swim to freedom.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

The law mentions it twice, neither of which is a definition.

You might want to check the section deceptively titled "Definitions".

Originally Posted by MaggieL

You might want to check the section deceptively titled "Definitions".

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.

SEC. 7. HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS.

(a) In General- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking both the subsection (e) added by section 1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2742) and the subsection (e) added by added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law 109-163 (119 Stat. 3477) and inserting the following new subsection (e):

`(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

So in other words, an American citizen could be wrongfully accused of being an "unlawful enemy combatant," and while he awaits determination if he really is or not, the 6th Amendment no longer applies to him. In effect, any US citizen the government doesn't like can now be legally "disappeared" with no legal recourse.

Thanks for the tip on the "definitions" part.

PS: I just now saw that tw posted much the same thing as I did, but I'm going to let my post stand because it bears repeating. The shock of it takes a while to sink in.

[tw]

Every American and non-American should know why George Jr wants this law - as marichiko posted:

Originally Posted by marichiko

(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

Supreme Court ruled on 29 Jun 2006 almost entirely against the administration. George Jr does not like 'liberal' American legal principles. George Jr was forced by the Supreme Court to admit to extraordinary rendition (international kidnapping), torture, secret prisons, and denial of judicial review. Even his definition of unlawful enemy combatant was declared fiction. George Jr (actually Cheney) wants Supreme Court powers restricted to that the presidency can torture, kidnap, and imprison without judicial review. S3930 is another step closer to an American dictatorship.

Even the writ of Habeas Corpus - a fundamental American legal principle - is a direct threat to a dictator president. Fear of dictatorship is why Habeas Corpus is so fundamental to American laws. Don't be fooled for one minute. He will even proclaim a worldwide network of terrorist - a myth - to promote more dictatorial presidential powers - including S3930.

No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus ...

Most scary are so many in The Cellar who somehow ignore this danger.

George Jr administration can kidnap, 'Pearl Harbor' a sovereign nation, violate the Geneva Convention and Universal Declaration of Human Rights, advocates the destruction of a Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty, operate secret prisons so that judicial review is stifled - and even torture .... and so many in the Cellar approve by their silence? Do you appreciate the threat of what MaggieL and George Jr are advocating?

Why so much silence – and not just from America? We have made kidnapping of foreign citizens legal. Non-Americans have no legal protections especially if kidnapped to a secret foreign American prison. A prison made legal by this bill. Why do you non-American Cellar Dwellers so approve of what MaggieL posts by excessive silence? George Jr has declared you as fair game. You have no protection once provided by writ of Habeas Corpus, if this bill becomes law. America can kidnap you and you are nothing more than meat on a hook. With this bill, you have no legal recourse to demand your rights as defined by the Geneva Convention or by Universal Declaration of Human Rights. MaggieL approves and non-Americans here say nothing? Why do you also approve by not posting a response?

[Spexxvet]

Pssssst. Don't tell anybody, but Maggie really didn't go to England - she went to Pakistan. Yeah, Pakistan. I think she did some computer work for Al-Q.

No, let's see if Maggie is still around in a week.

To the CIA: just kidding.

[headsplice]

So, we arrive at the crix of the problem: We're involved in a political war that is being prosecuted as a military war. The fact is that we haven't declared war on anyone that we're keeping as "unlawful enemy combatants," so Maggie is, under the letter of the law, halfway correct. Since they aren't soldiers for a foreign power, they aren't protected by the Geneva Conventions.
The flip side of that argument is that if they aren't soldiers, then they're civilians and criminals, and should be prosecuted as such. The Bush Administration is trying to have it's cake and eat it, too. You can't say: "We're at war with these people" and then turn around and say, "They aren't soldiers so we can do whatever we want."

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by headsplice

The fact is that we haven't declared war on anyone that we're keeping as "unlawful enemy combatants," so Maggie is, under the letter of the law, halfway correct.

In fact, since they're not a a nation, it's not possible to declare war on them, as such. (see my previous comments on other threads referring to the jihadi shell game).

To make matters worse, the people in question have declared war on us. (See various fatwas, etc.) This is "asymmetrical warfare" in more ways than one. . These enemies don't *need* to be a nation to wage war, and it is to their advantage not to be. They get plenty of under-the-table funding and weapons from nations who are pleased to have them as surrogates (with not-terribly-plausible denyability).

Given the level and kinds of force these enemies are able and willing to muster, I personally don't think treating this as a criminal rather than a military matter (as the Democrats and other liberals seem inclined to do) is either appropriate or wise.

[Spexxvet]

In all this confusion, can the administration tell the difference between American citizens and non-citizens? Between legitimate, lawful activities and those that aren't? I, for one, don't trust them to.

I think Bush and Co. should be impeached, then prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, then turned over to the UN for international trials... I feel it is perfectly reasonable to circumvent the military to have this done.
What does that makes me?
It makes me a patriot.
Neither a combatant nor an enemy.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

It makes me a patriot.
Neither a combatant nor an enemy.

But, if I printed that post and handed it out as a flyer, would it be "material support" to "the enemy" ???

[BigV]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

In fact, since they're not a a nation, it's not possible to declare war on them, as such.

Well, that inconvenient truth didn't stop what's his name.

Originally Posted by President Bush

September 5, 2006

President Discusses Global War on Terror

Originally Posted by President Bush

Your presence here reminds us that we're engaged in a global war against an enemy that threatens all civilized nations.

Originally Posted by President Bush

We're a nation at war

Originally Posted by President Bush

we've also learned a great deal about the enemy we face in this war

Originally Posted by President Bush

Despite these strategic setbacks, the enemy will continue to fight freedom's advance in Iraq, because they understand the stakes in this war.

Originally Posted by President Bush

Afghanistan and Iraq have been transformed from terrorist states into allies in the war on terror.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by BigV

Well, that inconvenient truth didn't stop what's his name.

Yes, unfortunately his rhetorical attempts to convey the severity of the situation are lost on some people., who think all we should really do is call the cops to read them their Miranda rights and hook them up with an ACLU lawyer. No Mace or Tasers, now...that would be torture.

[Pie]

Good thing we have Maggie; otherwise we might all :gasp: agree!

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Pie

...otherwise we might all :gasp: agree!

In that case, I'd take the Devil's Advocate.

[BigV]

MaggieL, you, and GWB, for that matter, pick and choose when precise speech is important, and when it is not. That makes "arguing" your point of view easier, but not more effective.

What's going on here is A Big Lie (tm), an enormous bait-and-switch. Bait and Switch? Yeah, the signing statements are a very popular example of these lies. We've been told and sold "WAR". But it's not, it cannot be, as you correctly pointed out. But "WAR" is nonetheless repeated endlessly for favorable the emotional and behavioral responses it elicits. We (the American people, including Congress, plus the mouse in my pocket) were fucking stampeded into "WAR" and now we're kept moving at this stupid killing pace (economically and emotionally, to say nothing of the squandered lives of our soldiers and citizens and the pissing away of our credibility as a world leader) by the incessant drumbeat of Fear! Terrorists! 9/11!

But we're a nation of laws, and those laws are broken with impunity by this administration. It makes me SICK. If there was some evidence of competence or credibility, there *could* be a place for the administration to
found my trust. but lacking any such foundation, there is *no* place to start. Show me the damn money, no more of this "Trust me" bullshit. Where is the balance in Checks and Balances?! GWB went "all in" and Congress folded. SCOTUS has called them, but that may/will change as the new players tag up and enter the ring. In every fair game I've ever played, that kind of collusion is most politely called cheating.

The sheer hubris of this administration is staggering. It is so vast, that the fall will shake the world and George W Bush's reign will live in infamy.