Here is a copy of the S 3930 bill
There are several lines in there that I find disturbing.
Sec. 949t. Maximum limits
`The punishment which a military commission under this chapter may direct for an offense may not exceed such limits as the President or Secretary of Defense may prescribe for that offense.
So the president decides what's excessive? and what's proper?
And here's a slightly longer piece ...
Sec. 950rr. Torture
`(a) Offense- Any person subject to this chapter who commits an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind, shall be punished, if death results to one or more of the victims, by death or such other punishment as a military commission under this chapter may direct, and, if death does not result to any of the victims, by such punishment, other than death, as a military commission under this chapter may direct.
`(b) Severe Mental Pain or Suffering Defined- In this section, the term `severe mental pain or suffering' has the meaning given that term in section 2340(2) of title 18.
`Sec. 950ss. Cruel or inhuman treatment
`(a) Offense- Any person subject to this chapter who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions), including serious physical abuse, upon another within his custody or control shall be punished, if death results to the victim, by death or such other punishment as a military commission under this chapter may direct, and, if death does not result to the victim, by such punishment, other than death, as a military commission under this chapter may direct.
`(b) Definitions- In this section:
`(1) The term `severe mental pain or suffering' has the meaning given that term in section 2340(2) of title 18.
`(2) The term `serious physical pain or suffering' means bodily injury that involves--
`(A) a substantial risk of death;
`(B) extreme physical pain;
`(C) a burn or physical disfigurement of a serious nature (other than cuts, abrasions, or bruises); or
`(D) significant loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty.
`(3) The term `serious mental pain or suffering' has the meaning given the term `severe mental pain or suffering' in section 2340(2) of title 18, except that--
`(A) the term `serious' shall replace the term `severe' where it appears; and
`(B) as to conduct occurring after the date of the enactment of the Military Commission Act of 2006, the term `serious and non-transitory mental harm (which need not be prolonged)' shall replace the term `prolonged mental harm' where it appears.
Does this mean that they are allowed to be beaten and cut, as "cuts, abrasions, or bruises" do not count as cruel or inhumane punishment?
And I'm not so clear on reading the legalspeak, but does the following section attempt to just nullify The Geneva Conventions???
"(a) In General- No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions, or any protocols thereto, in any habeas or civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States, is a party, as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories."
Another one of my favorite parts ..
`(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--
`(A) is currently in United States custody; and
`(B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.
Basicly, the court system has no say in anything, and the military controls everything. That seems unjust.
I don't consider myself an expert at this bill, but I see some really really really strong negatives in it. I know there are positives, and much of the bill seemed to make sense, but unfortunatly, I find some of this to be totally unacceptable.