Or to be more precise:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; ...

This is the Oath of Office that all members of the military, including, as Commander in Chief, our President takes - I've heard it enough times to remember it well, and uttered it myself, twenty-four years ago. Not to defend the people, or the assets, but the Constitution, and our Republic, from its enemies - foreign or domestic.

But what if the President *is* an enemy of the Constitution? Surely the preponderance of the evidence suggests that very clearly at this point - but that is not the primary thrust of this post. Instead, my statement of outrage, of shame, is directed at our elected officials in Congress, who, either because they are in ideological lockstep with this President and do not care about the longterm consequences of their actions this week, or because saving their worthless ambition is more important than speaking on behalf of the Constitution and the rule of law, have rubberstamped two of the most democracy-trashing bills in the history of the Republic.

I apologize for the melodramatic tone of the topic header and my intro, but my mood, and the topic, is no joke. Today the Senate passed, by a 65-34 margin, the Military Commissions bill amendment, otherwise known as the 'torture' bill. The president will undoubtedly sign it, with much fanfare, as soon as it reaches his desk. By passing it we have made the decision to willingly, and literally, 'turn a blind eye' to this system of 'military tribunals' - indeed, the tribunals, and the President, will have to disclose precious little about what they are doing and to whom, because issues of 'national security', among a variety of other reasons, allow almost all information to be withheld (explicitly stated in multiple places).

I have read all 96 pages of this bill, which can be found here:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/Military.commissions.bill.925.pdf

I wonder how many of our Congressmen actually read what they voted on this week, or how they would have felt about it if they had. Among the high points of this bill:

Section 7 ‘‘(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdic
tion 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 com
batant or is awaiting such determination.

and

(a) IN GENERAL.—No person may invoke the Geneva
4 Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus
5 or other civil action or proceeding to which the United
6 States, or a current or former officer, employee, member
7 of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States
8 is a party as a source of rights in any court of the United
9 States or its States or territories.

Read that paragraph carefully, folks. It doesn't state 'No unlawful enemy combatant", but "No *person* may invoke..." That means that none of us, whether citizens, 'lawful' combatants, etc, have the right to invoke Geneva
in a proceeding in *any* type of court in the United states. And just to make sure for the purpose of the tribunals:

‘‘(g) GENEVA CONVENTIONS NOT ESTABLISHING
14 SOURCE OF RIGHTS.—No alien unlawful enemy combat15
ant subject to trial by military commission under this
16 chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source
17 of rights.

Just who, do you ask, can be considered an 'enemy combatant'?

[/quote]‘‘(c) DETERMINATION OF UNLAWFUL ENEMY COM11
BATANT STATUS DISPOSITIVE.—A finding, whether be12
fore, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military
13 Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review
14 Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under
15 the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense
16 that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is disposi17
tive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military com18
mission under this chapter.[/quote]

And, just in case the President's word isn't good enough, what can earn you the label of 'unlawful enemy combatant'? It's a long, long list, and includes all the standard definitions, including Solicitation (to commit an act), treachery and perfidy, materially aiding and abetting the enemy or their co-belligerents, and a few surprises, such as failure to *prevent* an offence from being undertaken by another if one knew about it, and, of course, the ever nebulous 'conspiracy'.

As far as how a detainee can be expected to be treated under the tribunal system, we can find clues here:

(1) The following provisions of this title shall not apply
8 to trial by military commission under this chapter:
9 ‘‘(A) Section 810 (article 10 of the Uniform
10 Code of Military Justice), relating to speedy trial,
11 including any rule of courts-martial relating to
12 speedy trial.
13 ‘‘(B) Sections 831(a), (b), and (d) (articles
14 31(a), (b), and (d) of the Uniform Code of Military
15 Justice), relating to compulsory self-incrimination.
16 ‘‘(C) Section 832 (article 32 of the Uniform
17 Code of Military Justice), relating to pretrial inves18
tigation.
19 ‘‘(2) Other provisions of chapter 47 of this title shall
20 apply to trial by military commission under this chapter
21 only to the extent provided by this chapter.

Or we can look to the statements specifically outlining that evidence obtained via coercion is admissible as evidence, as long as it's determined to be 'of value' (if it's not of value, why would you want to admit them anyway, eh?):

‘‘(c) STATEMENTS OBTAINED BEFORE ENACTMENT
4 OF DETAINEE TREATMENT ACT OF 2005.—A statement
5 obtained before December 30, 2005 (the date of the enact6
ment of the Defense Treatment Act of 2005) in which the
7 degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the
8 military judge finds that—
9 ‘‘(1) the totality of the circumstances renders
10 the statement reliable and possessing sufficient pro11
bative value; and
12 ‘‘(2) the interests of justice would best be
13 served by admission of the statement into evidence.
14 ‘‘(d) STATEMENTS OBTAINED AFTER ENACTMENT
15 OF DETAINEE TREATMENT ACT OF 2005.—A statement
16 obtained on or after December 30, 2005 (the date of the
17 enactment of the Defense Treatment Act of 2005) in
18 which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted
19 only if the military judge finds that—
20 ‘‘(1) the totality of the circumstances renders
21 the statement reliable and possessing sufficient pro22
bative value;
23 ‘‘(2) the interests of justice would best be
24 served by admission of the statement into evidence;
‘‘(3) the interrogation methods used to obtain
2 the statement do not violate the cruel, unusual, or
3 inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by
4 the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to
5 the Constitution of the United States.

Of course, further down in the document, what constitutes 'cruel and unusual punishment' is limited to maiming, rape, and a few other extremely egregious items.

Without making this post too much longer than it is already, it goes on to state that:

‘‘(B) Evidence shall not be excluded from trial
12 by military commission on the grounds that the evi13
dence was not seized pursuant to a search warrant
14 or other authorization.
15 ‘‘(C) A statement of the accused that is other16
wise admissible shall not be excluded from trial by
17 military commission on grounds of alleged coercion
18 or compulsory self-incrimination so long as the evi19
dence complies with the provisions of section 948r of
20 this title.

‘‘(ii) Hearsay evidence not otherwise admissible
24 under the rules of evidence applicable in trial by
25 general courts-martial shall not be admitted in a

1 trial by military commission if the party opposing
2 the admission of the evidence demonstrates that the
3 evidence is unreliable or lacking in probative value.

In other words, heresy *is* specifically admissable unless the defense *proves* that it is untrue or worthless!

Oh, and did I mention that the trial proceedings can be conducted in absentia if 'national security interests' are at risk or the accused is 'disruptive'? Notice that I haven't even *gotten*, in all this verbage, to the issue of 'torture' that seems to get all the press where this bill is concerned...

I truly apologize for the length of this post, but it was important to me to include enough of the actual verbage from this bill so that those who do not have the time or patience to slog through it all could gain a feel for it.

In light of the above, the sharply narrowed 'torture' definitions almost seem trivial. And I have not even detailed all the 'exceptions' that the President is authorized to make with regard to involving 'national security privelege' or otherwise circumventing even this mockery of a code of justice, or concealing its activities.

But, as angry as I am at this administration, which, truthfully, I expected nothing 'less' from, that pales in comparison to how shocked, saddened, and embittered by the decision of both houses of Congress to pass this miscarriage of justice which will do nothing to make us 'safer'. Indeed, we will be much less safe, not only from 'terrorists' or combatants in other countries who look upon our disregard of human rights and the rule of law and therefore will think little of treating our own soldiers in kind; but from our own government, especially if we hold unpopular opinions or support causes that are out of favor by the administration in power.

I have disagreed with various policies that have been enacted over the last 25 years that I have been a voting adult; but whether I agreed or disagreed with them, I had faith that the United States was a functioning democracy (well, representative democracy) that respected the rule of law, the rights of people to hold their government accountable and to petition their government, and recognized that all human beings "are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." While not a knee-jerk 'patriot', I love my country, believed in what she stood for, and did so enough to serve in our Armed Forces in support of her.

If *this* is what Lady Liberty stands for, what our Founding Fathers and ten generations of servicemen and women fought and sometimes gave their lives for, then it is a very, very dark day indeed for America, and I am, for the first time in my life, truly ashamed of what we have wrought.

Thanks for listening.

Sincerely,
Deborah A. Dixon
"Nydia Ywalmoriel"

Just FYI, the 'second bill' referred to at the top of the very long previous post refers to the House's passage of the "Warrantless Wiretapping Bill"; which, while also deeply disturbing, I have neither the time nor energy to discuss at the moment, it being 4 am and having yet another long day at work tomorrow.

Regards,
Nydia

It's pretty damn horrible, yeah.

I remember reading from someone here that terrorists (ans specifically Al Quaeda) won in Spain because they made people change their mind about spanish action in Irak.

I wonder what these terrorists now think about strings of law "tightening" more and more the people in USA, because of them...

Yeeee....IKES! And I was just about ready to go over and get myself a green card (they're throwing them away to trained security personell), but I think I'll just... not.

What's next? State run/sanctioned religions and a resumption of the Inquisition?

I read the entire bill as well, and was just as mortified about some of the terms and points made in the bill. Keeping the nation safe is one thing... but this gives the President the ability to determine who is and who is not a "terrorist" or "combatant."

You want to keep the nation safe from terrorists? Close the borders and toss out anyone who is not a citizen.. no more green cards... no more Achmeds to drive taxis or work in McDonalds. I suppose we have to give the illegal Mexicans something to do now.

Nevermind.... I would go on about this but my vacation started today. *waves* Take care all... be back in a week.

Hey, watch what you say here people.....you could be designated an enemy combatant and locked away and tortured.

Oh well...

Politicians in this country are no longer "public" servants. They are driven only by greed and self-interest. This is a great example.

Have a meeting...more on this later.

Me thinks it's time for the People to speak up.....
If'n you don't like what's goin on, change the country....
Can't say a lot of what was written in this bill is very good for Civil Liberties.....

Yep, it is truly a shame. Too bad not enough people had the guts to stand up against this crap.

A true shame.

So if the ACLU challenges the legality of this does that make them Enemy Combatants?

Rev

This is very disheartening. I just don't know what to say or think; I just feel disgusted.

So if the ACLU challenges the legality of this does that make them Enemy Combatants?


In the context of the bill ... yes.

I'm waiting for the first darkie US citizen to get slapped with a no-due-process railroading after he makes "terroristic threats." I'm waiting to watch a huge storm of public outcry completely ignored by the charlatans in Congress and George III, who we just granted his own carte blanche Star Chamber, conveniently already equipped with a huge domestic surveillance infrastructure and political police.

People talking about this are sounding hyperbolic because there are no calm terms or more banal comparisions to make. Every legal protection you may have had against the federal governmen has been effectively rescinded.

Please go back to your favorite bit of history when you asked "How did people let that happen?" Now you know.

Just wanted to jump in and say hi to you all. Good to see you are all safe and sound. Those of us on the neo-con right are enjoying our new country. I hope you will too.

If karma exists, Hillary will be President in 2008.

You forgot to include Sieg Hiel, OS!! j/k :p

Added in edit...need some content:

One question I like to ask all that oppose these laws....it's something I'm struggling with:

Does it matter that it's being done by an administration you have no trust for? Is that fueling a lot of your outrage? If the same thing was being done by someone you do trust <I know that's hard to find when dealing with politicians, but try>, would you still be vehemently agianst these laws?

And this thread is now officially dead...

Does it matter that it's being done by an administration you have no trust for? Is that fueling a lot of your outrage? If the same thing was being done by someone you do trust <I know that's hard to find when dealing with politicians, but try>, would you still be vehemently agianst these laws?

My guess is now that you have posed that question, "The Usual Suspects" will come out, chest-thumping and saying, "Of course not! We'd be just as opposed!"

But where were they when "Mandatory Diversity" was being pushed?

Read that paragraph carefully, folks. It doesn't state 'No unlawful enemy combatant", but "No *person* may invoke..." That means that none of us, whether citizens, 'lawful' combatants, etc, have the right to invoke Geneva
in a proceeding in *any* type of court in the United states. And just to make sure for the purpose of the tribunals:

`Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions

`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter

`Sec. 948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions

`(a) Jurisdiction- A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.


I'm not sure if you're actually confused or still playing word games here Nydia. A citizen of the US never needs to invoke the Geneva Conventions because we have domestic laws protecting them already. Unless of course you're captured on the battlefield, in which case, invoke all the conventions you want, you're entitled to a bullet to the head under the Conventions.

Secondly, the military tribunals are explicitly for alien unlawful enemy combatants as I quoted above.

By passing it we have made the decision to willingly, and literally, 'turn a blind eye' to this system of 'military tribunals' - indeed, the tribunals, and the President... Why are you so vexxed about the very existance of military tribunals? The Geneva Conventions quite clearly states they are expected to be done.

Indeed, we will be much less safe, not only from 'terrorists' or combatants in other countries who look upon our disregard of human rights and the rule of law and therefore will think little of treating our own soldiers in kind; I can only hope and pray that the most that happens to our captured soldiers is 15 minutes on the waterboard. Really, have you not been paying attention?

B/C the way I read that the President and Sec. of Defense determines WHO an enemy combatant is. That means it could be you or I.

If you're a US citizen, you can't be an alien enemy combatant.

If you're a US citizen, you can't be an alien enemy combatant.

Just don't wear a Chewbaca costume, carrying a laser rifle.....on Holloween in Iraq and you should be fine. :)

Dear Akipt:

I have been paying very clear attention to the events of the past five years, thank you, and my opinions, as well as their justifications, have been well documented in this forum. Please feel free to disagree with any opinions/ideas I have expressed, but rest assured that I am not 'confused' :).

I just had a brief second to read this thread before heading to another meeting, but Fild has hit it on the head. *One* of the many issues here is the fact that 'who' an 'enemy combatant' or 'alien enemy combatant' is defined to be is highly subject to interpretation (with the President or Sec of Defense as the ultimate arbiter of such), as are the grounds under which a person can be labelled an 'unlawful' combatant (whether a citizen or not). Add the fact that the terms 'unlawful enemy combatant', 'alien enemy combatant' and 'person' appear to be used more or less interchangably in much of the document, and you have a bill (excuse me, law) which deliberately obfuscates, rather than clarifies, who can be tried under these tribunals and under what restrictions, notwithstanding the other numerous problems, ethical, legal, and otherwise, with this document.

In plain english, this document has been deliberately constructed to be as leaky as a sieve with regard to what restrictions or limitations are placed on the President, the conveners of these tribunals, and the gatherers of 'evidence' which may be used against anyone unfortunate enough to be classified under them.

(Nydia) By passing it we have made the decision to willingly, and literally, 'turn a blind eye' to this system of 'military tribunals' - indeed, the tribunals, and the President...

(Akipt) Why are you so vexxed about the very existance of military tribunals? The Geneva Conventions quite clearly states they are expected to be done.


Do not misinterpret what I am saying here. I do not object to the *existance* of military tribunals', or that there are circumstances under which they are the most appropriate means for meting justice; indeed, I'm well aware of the UCMJ and that military tribunals have been held throughout our history for members of our Armed Forces and others. What I object to is *this* proposed set of guidelines for military tribunals, which I, and many others, find to be unconstitutional, unethical, and contrary to the rule of law, as well as allowing *far* too much latitude in its definitions and number of 'exceptions' permitted, in addition to the largely indefensible provisions related to the use of heresy and coerced testimony in trials, classifing someone as an 'unlawful (or 'alien enemy', take your pick') combatant *without* having levied any charges against them and setting no timeline for doing so, etc.

Sincerely,
Nydia

And, since you've just posted, please notice that much of the language covering tribunals does *not* apply simply to alien enemy combatants, but to *any* 'unlawful enemy combatant', whether US citizen or not. Only the habeus restriction applies only to aliens, largely because applying it to citizens would clearly violate the Constitution on multiple levels.

And, since some of you (including Willgatus, who brought the point about categorical habeus denial only applying to aliens up to me via voice last night as if to defend it or imply that somehow that was more 'acceptable') seem to take a 'why should I care? It just affects aliens' with regard to the habeus issue:

Where, exactly, does this leave the tens of millions of Americans who are permanent residents (have their green card, but are still classified as 'Aliens', some of whom have lived here for decades) or the 11.5 million illegal aliens currently residing in the US, most of whom are law abiding citizens? Can they be denied habeus and disappeared into the military tribunal system if they run afoul of the wrong authorities, or support the 'wrong' causes (La Raza, for example)? This document would clearly and certainly allow it, should the powers that be wish to do so.

Regards,
Nydia

Finally (I hope, I seem to be on a roll today ;) ), in case some folks here are reluctant to take my word for it, I just tripped across the words of a Constitutional scholar and lawyer on the issue, Jack M. Balkin (of the infamous 'Balkinization', link here:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/

Does the Military Commissions Act apply to citizens?

JB

Many people have been asking about whether the new MCA applies to citizens. The answer seems pretty straightforward.

(1) Yes, a few parts of the MCA do apply to citizens; and

(2) the MCA is probably unconstitutional in many of its applications to citizens; and

(3) some constitutional applications of the MCA to citizens are deeply troubling.

A U.S. citizen may be an unlawful enemy combatant under section 948a.

Section 948a(1) defines an unlawful enemy combatant as

"(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."

Section 948b states that "[t]his chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants." So the MCA's procedures apply only to aliens; not to citizens. Nevertheless, Congress has declared that persons falling into the definition in 948a are unlawful enemy combatants whether they are aliens or citizens.

Why does this matter, if the military commission procedures in the MCA don't apply to citizens? The answer is that the government might seek to detain citizens as unlawful enemy combatants using the new definition in section 948a.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld states that the President had authority to detain enemy combatants according to the laws of war based on a fairly narrow definition of the term "enemy combatant":

for purposes of this case, the "enemy combatant" that [the government] is seeking to detain is an individual who, it alleges, was " 'part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners' " in Afghanistan and who " 'engaged in an armed conflict against the United States' " there. Brief for Respondents 3. We therefore answer only the narrow question before us: whether the detention of citizens falling within that definition is authorized.


The MCA greatly expands the definition of enemy combatants, because it greatly expands the definition of "unlawful enemy combatants." If the government may detain any enemy combatants, a fortiori it may detain unlawful ones. The new definition is fuzzy: it includes citizens who "materially support" hostilities against the U.S. or whom the DoD says are unlawful enemy combatants.

Hamdi, however, states that citizens have the right under the Due Process Clause to contest their designation as enemy combatants. Because section 948a(1)(ii) purports to make determinations of enemy combatant status conclusive, it is unconstitutional to that extent. Moreover, some applications of "material support" in section 948(1)(i) would violate the Due Process Clause or the First Amendment.

But even putting those cases to one side, the new definition is still troubling: there would be many cases where the new definition is not otherwise unconstitutional but sweeps up people who pose no serious threat to national security. For example, suppose a person knowingly lets an al Qaeda operative stay at their house overnight. That person may be in violation of federal law, but it's hardly clear that the government should have the right to detain such a person indefinitely in a military prison without Bill of Rights protections until the end of the War on Terror, whenever that is. The problem with 948a(1) is that it may place Congress's stamp of approval on a definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" that is far too broad and that allows the government to move a wide swath of citizens outside of the normal procedural protections of the criminal justice system and into a parallel system where the Bill of Rights does not apply.

One last point: Section 7(a) of the MCA strips habeas and federal court jurisdiction with respect to aliens. It does not strip jurisdiction with respect to citizens.

However, what if the DoD determines that a U.S. citizen is an alien in a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, claims that its determination is conclusive under section 948a(1)(ii) and ships the person off to Guantanamo? As I noted before, section 948a(1)(ii) is probably unconstitutional to the extent that it suggests that DoD determinations are conclusive. The citizen should still have the right to prove that he is a citizen in a habeas proceeding, and a court must determine that question in order to determine whether it has jurisdiction. To the extent that the MCA would prevent such a determination, it is unconstitutional.

I don't normally like to cut/paste the opinions of others, but this fellow knows his cookies and is far more qualified to analyze the matter than I as an amateur with no formal legal training.

Regards,
Nydia

Urgh, stop me before I post again :)

As an interesting aside, considering the passage of this Act, some of you may know that Iva Toguri Aquino, an American of Japanese descent who was stuck in Japan following Pearl Harbor and otherwise known as 'Tokyo Rose', died this week at age 90.

What you may not know is that she was tried for treason for failing to renounce her US citizenship, to make Harry Truman look 'tough on traitors' in an election year, and - hold on to your hats kiddies - not only was she aquitted of seven of the eight charges levied against her, but that the eighth charge, the one that she was sentenced to ten years for (and later pardoned by President Ford in 1976 once the fraud came to light), was based on the coached and self-admitted fraudulent testimony of two Japanese American men who were also under threat.

The really pithy part of the matter can be found here:

After her release she settled in Chicago, opened a business and sought to clear her name.

The breakthrough would not come until 1974, when Mr Yates, now a professor of journalism, was posted to Tokyo for the Chicago Tribune newspaper.

Mr Yates already knew of Iva Toguri from Chicago, and took a file on her out to Japan.

"One day I was playing golf with someone and just mentioned her. My golf partner said he knew Tokyo Rose, and he knew she was not guilty," he said.

He was put in touch with Oki and Mitsushio, who eventually disclosed their secret: "One day they just decided to come clean, and told me that they 'didn't exactly' tell the truth in 1948."

Oki said they had little choice. Japanese-Americans living voluntarily in Japan during the war years were seen by some as easy targets once the US won the conflict.

"The FBI and US occupation police told us we would have to testify against Iva or else Uncle Sam might arrange a trial for us too - or worse," Oki told Mr Yates in 1976.

"We were flown to San Francisco from Tokyo... we was told what to say and what not to say two hours every morning for a month before the trial started."

In light of the passage of *this* new Act, who is to say that we won't have the same sort of coerced or coached 'evidence' given in these military tribunals (especially since coercion is clearly fair game) against innocent people, resulting in yet more fraudulent and worthless convictions, causing untold suffering and loss of liberty to innocent people? Just something to think about...

Full story from the BBC here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5389722.stm

The final paragraph is particularly poignant, considering what most laypeople 'remember' (or think they remember) about the woman known as Tokyo Rose:


Mr Yates, who has plans for a book recounting the entire story, retains a deep affection for the woman who never quite shook off the myth of Tokyo Rose.

The pair remained close until her death, and Mr Yates was with her when she received an award from the World War II Veterans Committee on her 90th birthday.

According to Mr Yates, Toguri viewed the ceremony as the most memorable day of her life.

"She risked her life in Tokyo in the war, taking medicines and food to prisoners of war. She never wavered in her support for the US," he said.

"And that's the sad thing."

Regards,
Nydia

"which deliberately obfuscates, rather than clarifies, who can be tried under these tribunals"

"please notice that much of the language covering tribunals does *not* apply simply to alien enemy combatants, but to *any* 'unlawful enemy combatant', whether US citizen or not."

What in the world are you talking about?

Akipt clearly pointed out the jurisdictional provisions of the military commissions. They can hardly be clearer. Even your own buddy Balkin clearly states "[s]o the MCA's procedures apply only to aliens; not to citizens."

His real point is a tremendous stretch of "what ifs". He makes an assumption applying the new definition of "enemy combatant" under the MCA to the definition of "enemy combatant" allowed by the Supreme Court under Hamdi. What he is assuming would likely be unconstitutional in some aspects if it were tried. Furthermore, no habeas or federal court jurisdictions have been stripped from citizens. The law is clear in that aspect.

"In light of the passage of *this* new Act, who is to say that we won't have the same sort of coerced or coached 'evidence' given in these military tribunals"

There are numerous protections provided in the Act, including 948r(d), 949a(b)(1)(A), 949(b)(2)(D), and 949b. Coerced/coached evidence is often admitted in civilian criminal trials (e.g. the government coerces suspect A with a lighter sentence if they testify against suspect B).

By the way, your headline and lead-in are completely appropriate as this bill is a defense of the Constitution.

Such BS.

Our nation was founded on the principle that certain rights are inalienable in human beings, that our rights are not granted to us by our government but inherent in our condition.

What our government is doing with this is setting a precedent that is saying that our rights are a GIFT to us from our government. That we only enjoy rights because we are Americans. There is a grave danger in this change of core philosophy. What the government gives, the government can take away.

The statement that this government made in its founding was a universal one of the rights of all men and the need for man to live in freedom.

To deliberatly deny people the rights we hold as sacred when the choice and power is in our hands is a direct slap in the face of the core principle american values. It is a betrayal and treason as deep as any I have ever encountered of this nation.

Either we believe in what we believe in or we dont. And it seems the right wing in this country has made its choice.

There CANNOT be two sets of respect for human rights. For our rights to be secure, we have to have a core belief in what our natural rights are. And when our government legitmizes and advocates the demeaning of other human beings to further its own interests, then we might as well rip up the Consititution and the Declaration of Indepedence because they are meaningless, now merely words and empty rhetoric because we as Americans have at long last found we lack the courage of convictions.

http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/123087/2111940/2118216/2119121/2119723/water_boarding.gif

Nice strawman lleuric. Since the bill does none of what you state, your entire argument is irrelevant.

Is it? Are we not setting up two standards?

The bill absolutly does exactly what I have said. It is an end around our own value system... It is saying that we have rights that are applicable or not applicable depending on how our government decides to classify a human being.

Our founding principles declared that a Government has NO right to do to an individual what our government has now given itself permission to do. It is taking what is not its to take.
The history of Human Rights is the story of the struggle between the individual and the government. We used to say in this country that the rights of the individual trumped that of the government. We can no longer say that with this bill. Our rights do not flow from the government.

This bill is a shame on all of us.

.........................................___...... ........................................
.............................,-~*`¯lllllIIIll`*~,,............................ .............
.......................,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllll¯`*-,....................................
..................,-~*lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-,..................................
...............,-*lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll l.\.................................
.............;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllIlllllllllI\............................. ...
..............\lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/..........\;;;;llllllllll,-`~-,...........................
...............\lllllllllllllllllllll,-*...........`~-~-,..(.(¯`*,`,..........................
................\llllllllllll,-~*......................)_-\..*`*;..)..........................
.................\,-*¯,*`)..............,-~*`~................/.....................
..................|/.../.../~,.......-~*,-~*`;................/.\..................
................./.../.../.../...,-,..*~,.`*~*................*...\.................
................|.../.../.../.*`...\...............................)....)`~,... ...............
................|./.../..../........)......,.)`*~-,............./....|..)...`~-,.............
..............././.../...,*`-,.....`-,...*`....,---.......\..../...../..|.........¯```*~-,,,,
...............(..........)`*~-,....`*`.,-~*.,-*.......|.../..../.../............\........
................*-,.......`*-,...`~,..``.,,,-*...........|.,*...,*...|..............\........
...................*,.........`-,......)-,...............,-*`....,-*....(`-,............\.......
......................f`-,.........`-,/....*-,__,,-~*......,-*.......|...`-,..........\........

On the contrary, L2, the founding principles simply did so by other means. At that time, human being equaled adult white male landowner within the territory of the new nation, with some rights trickling down to other groups. And of course there are and should be at least two tiers of rights in the view of the government - those for people who subscribe to its protection racket, and those beyond. The desired degree of overlap between the tiers can and should be debated, and if you desire to start another thread on this topic, all the better.

The lack of transparency and accountability in the law is far more troubling than the actual stripping of habeas corpus from a category of alien combatants, IMO (if the latter clause applied to citizens, I'd yell first and loudest). On the whole, if this is the worst thing to come out of our legislative branch's collective ass in the next few years, we should consider ourselves very lucky.

Well, in case there were any lingering doubts anywhere on the globe, we have at least shown that the United States will no longer be needing a seat at the table when it comes to discussing human rights; nobody will again take seriously our pointing our fingers at any other country for their behavior.

I would counterargue Will.. that this gap in our practice and our stated ideals lead to the Civil War.

I foresee that the consequences will be dire for the captured swedish rangers desperately trying to defend their homeland against the expansion of the US Hegemony in the Winter War of 2050.

just had to pick apart something that was posted:

...the 11.5 million illegal aliens currently residing in the US, most of whom are law abiding citizens?

Let's count how many ways this is incorrect. 1) they aren't citizens 2) they aren't law abiding if they are here illegally.

Don't mistake this for me thinking this bill is a good idea. I don't, but maybe that's just V for Vendetta's fault.

just had to pick apart something that was posted:



Let's count how many ways this is incorrect. 1) they aren't citizens 2) they aren't law abiding if they are here illegally.

Don't mistake this for me thinking this bill is a good idea. I don't, but maybe that's just V for Vendetta's fault.

It's funny you should mention that b/c that is EXACTLY what I thought when I first heard about this bill last week.

"The bill absolutly does exactly what I have said. It is an end around our own value system... It is saying that we have rights that are applicable or not applicable depending on how our government decides to classify a human being."

You still don't get it. Putting aside that this bill doesn't deal with a different application of fundamental rights, our government from inception has applied fundamental rights differently based on classification.

Take a fundamental right such as voting, for example. The right to vote is restricted to U.S. citizens. Shocking! The government has taken a fundamental right and said U.S. citizens have this right, non-citizens do not have this right. It's application depends on how the government classifies that human being. That is so surprising to you? That means an end to our value system?

Take a fundamental right such as voting, for example. The right to vote is restricted to U.S. citizens. Shocking! The government has taken a fundamental right and said U.S. citizens have this right, non-citizens do not have this right.
I may be wrong, but isn't it already "restricted" to US citizens in the constitution?

Voting? Are you serious?

What part of INALIENABLE rights do you have the most trouble with? You know.. Life, Liberty, Property..

Voting is not an inalienable right, voting is a citizens participation in its government. Most people, I wouldnt be as disgusted with that response as I am with its spewing from you.. You are a lawyer for gods sake. I really want to know what law school you went to that so completely neglicated your education in constitutional philosophy. If we ever get the chance to meet, I am going to smack you upside the head with a copy John Lockes "Second Treatise of Government" in hopes that the blow imparts, if nothing else than by osmosis, some of the core concepts in the creation of our government.

What part of FUNDAMENTAL rights do you have trouble with (you know those rights we're talking about -- the ones in the Constitution)? Voting is absolutely a fundamental right. You act like you've never heard of a fundamental right...

Voting is not a fundamental right to the human condition, it is a mechanism of our government. Voting by itself is meaningless.. they had elections under Saddam Hussein and they vote in North Korea. Real rights stand on their own and are independant of any other trapping or circumstance.

The only right any of us is born with, is to die, any others are a product of our acceptance of our government, or rebellion against, and creation of a new goverment with the rights we decide we need. In the case of our government, we have the rights we send our elected officials to decide on. And we lose the rights they decide, if they do something we do not support, it is on us to remove them from office (peaceably at the polls to be exact) And should the goverment ever falter to such an extent, forceably. But I don't see that happening any time soon, no matter how much hand wringing the locals do.

The only right any of us is born with, is to die, any others are a product of our acceptance of our government, or rebellion against, and creation of a new goverment with the rights we decide we need.
Wrong wrong wrong wrong.

Dying is not a right, dying is a fact. Like the sky is blue.
A right is a definition of who we are.
Shylock had a right to justice, he had a right to his pound of flesh. It was his, yet he did not have claim on another life. You have rights, they are yours, they are not given to you by anything, they may be protected by some, but they are yours by nature of your coming into this world.

You are so fundamentally wrong that it becomes hard to take your argument seriously.
Power flows to the government from something called a "social contract". In this contract we agree to give up certain freedoms in exchange for certain benefits and guarentees of our rights.
Government exists as a result of the will of the people.
Your line of thinking Elemak went out around the mid 1600s, but it was envogue for a while, so I can understand your base level ignorance at the development and evolution of human thought for the last 400 years or so. Back in the oldentimey days, the general thought was the Rulers ruled by the divine will of GOD and their power and authority flowed downward from that point.
No matter what these new day Republicans think, that line of thinking was tossed out n the Enlightment, (I dont have time to explain that to you), and power was correctly diagnosed as flowing upward from the people unto the government. The key phrase is the "consent of the governed"
Now you see Elemak, there were two lines of thinking that roll through at this point.
The earlier one was Thomas Hobbes.
Hobbes wrote from a idea that is sort of like your own. Hobbes said that man in his natural state is basically a beast, and will, if unchecked by a power, kill or hurt anyone or anything in order to sate his basest desires. Hobbes further wrote that mans only right was to not be killed violently. To that end, he concluded that man must surrender all his freedoms to a "leviathan" like head of state, under who's complete power man could protect this right.
He wasnt very fun at parties.

A few years later, a man named John Locke came along and took Hobbes idea of the social contract and tinkered with it. He asserted that man had rights to Life, Libery and Property, and that no government or person ever had a right to infringe on this rights without due process or just cause. As such, man is not a selfish beast in the his natural state, but noble and yearning for freedom. Therefore man comes together and enters this social contract with a limited government, rather than a Hobbesian all powerful one. Furthermore, Locke asserted that if the government no longer serves its stated purpose and breaks this social contract, man has the right to overthrow his government and establish a new one that will adhere to the contract.

This had a great influence on a group of people who then went out and dumped a bunch of tea in a harbor. We know these people as well from their classic hit "The Declaration of Independence" and the hit sequel "The Constitution of the United States of America", in addition to other popular spinoffs such as the Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers.

Now that youve caught up to the current line of thinking, welcome to the 21st century.

"The bill absolutly does exactly what I have said. It is an end around our own value system... It is saying that we have rights that are applicable or not applicable depending on how our government decides to classify a human being."

You still don't get it. Putting aside that this bill doesn't deal with a different application of fundamental rights, our government from inception has applied fundamental rights differently based on classification.

Take a fundamental right such as voting, for example. The right to vote is restricted to U.S. citizens. Shocking! The government has taken a fundamental right and said U.S. citizens have this right, non-citizens do not have this right. It's application depends on how the government classifies that human being. That is so surprising to you? That means an end to our value system?

Ok, if you are going to put up such a silly argument, please list those countries that DO allow folks to enter their country and vote in elections without being citizens.

Not that I agree or disagree with any of the debate on this thread, but this argument is really a poor one.

Let me elaborate a bit here.



We are guaranteed nothing in this life when we are born except the fact that at some point we will die. Now then, as a people we have come together to form a government. And as you said it’s a social contract. We give up certain ‘rights’ in order to belong to a group or society. This society guarantees us a certain set of rights in return for us following the rules set by the governing body. In our case; a democratically elected government (Yes we’re really a republic, but semantics)



The reason we have the rights we do, is based off a belief, one I share, that all men (as in mankind, not just men for all the ladies out there) are created equal and deserve equal treatment. We believe this so strongly that in many cases, we have used both political, and violent measures to convince other nations (and sometimes unsuccessfully) to adopt similar values.



Again, the only reason we have these rights, is because of our decision as individuals to band together for the greater good of the group. Not because I was born we a piece of paper in my hand declaring I had the right to life and the pursuit of happiness, but because I live in a nation, governed (loosely) by it’s citizens who have decided that I deserve that right as a fellow citizen. I guess a better way of putting it, would be that we are never guaranteed rights; the only thing definite in life is death.



If we want rights, we have to do something about it, for most of us, living in ‘civilized’ first world countries it’s a simple matter of living where we live, working at our job, and obeying the laws. But what of those living in third world countries, where there may or may not be a functioning government? Do they deserve the same rights we do? Hell yes, I think anyways. But are they guaranteed them? No, We’d all like to think so, but unless something is done to change their situation, either from within, or from a third party, nothing will change them.



In our own country, we were forced to pay taxes without any sort of representation, we changed that now didn’t we? Throughout our own history, we have oppressed our own people, but as times progressed and the more backwards ways of thinking were left behind we created new laws, giving rights to those who previously had none; voting for women, the end of segregation, etc..



Again, the only reason this people were afforded these rights, is because society gave it to them. Prior to that, they were certainly deserving of them, and I’m glad that things changed so that they could have the same rights as I. But the fact still stands, until society gave them those rights they did not have them.



In some cases, people wish to have a right, that one society will not give them, so they travel elsewhere. Lame example but it fits, Marijuana use is illegal here, not so in Amsterdam. So people travel there. Many people including our forefathers fled their lack of rights, and created their own rules, which our vary nation is predicated upon. Once again, they were not given these rights, they had to take them for themselves.

And that’s my point, we are given no rights in life except those that we take for ourselves. And when someone begins to infringe upon our rights that we believe we deserve it is up to us to resist that, either in our own society by voting in elected officials who support our cause, or by (when necessary) using military or political solutions to prevent other nations from infringing upon our rights. And in our case, using those same powers to help other societies gain the same rights we have.

"Ok, if you are going to put up such a silly argument"

You're confusing the arguments. I'm the one that said our government treated fundamental rights differently based on a classification (much as this bill did). Every government does. The fundamental right to vote is just an obvious example. You apparently agree with this. But, while we're on the subject, granting the right to vote to non-citizens isn't so radical of an idea as you apparently believe. http://bostonreview.net/BR23.5/Gordon.html Anyone live in Takoma Park, MD?

As for the difference between a fundamental right and lleuric's "real" right, I will leave it for him to specify the differences (I don't necessarily recall any jurisprudence noting the difference but I will have to research the matter further).

Again, the only reason this people were afforded these rights, is because society gave it to them.
Gave it back to them. That's a small difference, but a fundamental one I guess.

The main point Nydia might be disturbed about is the fact that it would be perceived that those who interpret and "grant" us our rights seem to be an increasingly smaller demographic. Most Americans would probably feel uncomfortable having one person or a select group of people decide what rights are granted to whom without having a more direct involvement, yet its probably of our own making. Many of these bills are passed not by popular vote but in sessions of Congress where increasingly those who are voted in do not always seem to have much moral integrity or the People's best intrest in the forefront of decision making. Long story short is that the current government does not have the trust of the country, and they are passing legislation that is questionable, further reinforcing that distrust. This distrust further reinforces disillusionment, and people tend to feel that their right to vote is a waste of time, because many probably feel there are few good canidates to choose from in the sense that they tend to not offer any true leadership or anything other than the status quo that left them disillusioned before. Thus, people just vote their parties offerings into office without doing their homework or just plain don't vote at all.

So whose fault is it then? Did we get screwed out of our percieved rights, or did we allow them to slip away without a fight due to apathy? Things are not likely to change for the time being as well, until there is a firmer understanding as to why there is even a Global War on Terrorism, is it even a war and was it something our own actions could avoid without treating everyone like the modern version of a McCarthy Red Communist. Until that happens expect more reactive leadership in the majority of decision making and so called "proactive actions", like Iraq, to be a bit questionable as to their outcomes. Washington needs to start looking a bit deeper, and stop taking the approuch of beating everything with blunt force like a rented mule. The people need to stop letting them get away with it afterwards.

Here is another example of Bush doing what ever he feels like, Congress and the law be damned.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15145197/

Kinky for Govenor.

Rev

He still has two years to make this a police state, and delay further elections for Executive office.

vBookie odds?

Thing about it is.. GWB is really doing what he feels is the right thing. Im pretty sure he is a good man. The fact is that for whatever short term gain in security it costs us more in the long term. I think he suffers from a myopia that is so focused on protecting this nation from another attack that he loses sight of the big picture. The Presidency is more than "Not on my watch".
The fact is there are people in the administration who think American power is being vastly underutilizied and we are in danger of losing our hegenomy. A way to power is through the funneling of power to the executive branch. Focus enough power in the office and a President can wage war unilateraly. Make no mistake there are a crop of Curtis Lemay Juniors in the White House that would like nothing more than to attack Iran now, while they are pre nuke.

I know Iran is a problem. Iran is a nation that understands with a doubt that is cannot survive without oil at less than 50/Barrel, so it is almost, fuck almost, It IS in their interest to sow international discord, without actually going to war. The ONLY path to peace in the future lies in alternative fuels and reduced reliance on oil. Foriegn or otherwise. A continuation on this path of addictition and reliance is one of war, conflict, destruction and a collapse of the modern world.
With Oil at 30/Barrel, there is no problem in the middle east. You want to see democracies flourish and freedom ring out, then understand the reality of petropolitics.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v735/claromotime/petropolitics_1.jpg

Safer does not lie long term in the restricting of freedom. It lies in technology and changing how we power ourselves.
But I have hope for the future. The things I see coming out of High School kids is amazing. They get it. One of my students, a 15 year old kid, is leading a campaign to get all the buses in my district to switch to alternative diesel fuels in order to improve gas milage. Another kid is learning how to convert his own car into a hybrid. There is a club in my school that devoted to geeking out on alternative energy.

I have no doubt we are going to be okay once fuckhead Cheney and his oil lobby asshole buddies are thrown to the dustbin of history where they belong.

what is that graph supposed to be?
Is there an objective numerical way to measure freedom all of a sudden?

Yea.. its called "Paying Attention"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/795873.stm

http://www.energyintel.com/grounds/index.htm#