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

[headsplice]

Stormie, they aren't military tribunals...they're a thrid system of justice that is being spontaneously created. The entire bill is probably un-Constitutional, but there are definitely provisions therein that DEFINITELY are. For example, you can't retroactively pardon someone for violating the War Crimes Act. Nor can you suspend the Writ of Habeus Corpus, which this also tries to do.

[Flint]

...but...they have to do this...in order to...protect freedom ???

They have to do this to protect themselves. A while back I read an excellent paper by a high ranking Canadian military officer. He wrote that under the Geneva Convention, military officers and even Jr., himself, could be subjected to a trial before an international tribunal - something like the Nuremberg trials of high ranking Nazi officials. This is about writing a "get out of jail free" card, as it is anything else.

Just when you think it can't get any worse...

Why doesn't Jr. just abolish the entire Bill of Rights and be done with it?

[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.

America: "oooohhhh... look at meeee... I'm an eeeevvvvilllll empire *prances around on the bones of the oppressed*"

[Happy Monkey]

Here are the 65 subverters of the US Constitution in the US Senate.

Torture and permanent imprisonment without trial will be legal.

[headsplice]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

America: "oooohhhh... look at meeee... I'm an eeeevvvvilllll empire *prances around on the bones of the oppressed*"

You support the suspension of Habeus Corpus?
And making fun of it doesn't make it any less important. Yes, it's for people who are 'enemy combatants.' But who defines 'enemy combatants'? And hasn't the GOP been saying that Democrats are "giving aid and comfort" to the terrorists?

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Torture and permanent imprisonment without trial will be legal.

Yes...but...that's only so we can protect freedom! :::eyes you suspiciously:::