Senate passes Bush detainee bill - American democracy flat-lined

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: straightalker

Topic Title: Senate passes Bush detainee bill - American democracy flat-lined

Topic Summary: Magna Carta spontaneously combusts

We live in a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy. Huge difference.

Just a helpful correction and not a stab in the back.

We also live in a Representive Democracy :roll: By definition a democracy is a republic.

If you wanted to sound smart, you should've pointed out that the Magna Carta is a British document writen in 1200's.

 

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: Pabster
:thumbsup:

Tell me Pabster, what moral high ground does the US now stand on. How are we still the 'good guys?'

Also there will be wars in the future that do not involve the war on terror - with this bill we have now sentenced our troops of future wars to torture and indefinite imprisonment or worse.

 

[Zorba]

DP

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
so when can we start trying these fools for treason?

Wouldn't it be wonderfully ironic if they'd find themselves imprisoned without having charges levied against them? Not that it would ever happen...

 

[senseamp]

I think the Republicans will begin draft, since there is not enough troops to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan as it is, and they are picking a fight with Iran which is a bigger problem than both of those. Where are the troops going to come from? Draft coming unless we change course.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

I just wrote my Senator, who did Bush's bidding. I hope we can vote her out next time around. This makes me sick.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: Zorba
I am so glad Lieberman lost the primary.

yeah, big surprise he voted for this.

 

[StepUp]

Originally posted by: Pabster
The fact is, many Republicans do not "vote with Bush" most of the time. Certainly not all. If that were the case, he would have been able to destroy civil liberties even more thus far.

Just wanted to fix it for you.

 

[Red Dawn]

Can someone answer me this, why is it a problem to give these allege terrorists a trial? Too costly? Not enough evidense to convict? The fact that it would expose the Pakistani's as nothing more than slave traders (they got $5000 a head per terrorists they captured and turned over to the Americans)?

 

[DealMonkey]

You gotta admire the GOP for their ability to break the law, and then later, legislate their actions retroactively legal.

 

[Tom]

We have one saving grace, the Supreme Court.

I expect even Scalia/Thomas won't let this rubbish stand.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Ah, the fearmongering continues. Must be an election coming up.

Which parts of the U.S. Constitution do you not want to destroy? Do you not like the paragraph in Aricle 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution that says:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

or the paragraph that says:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Or are you more inclined to destroy the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of rights:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Idiots like you are a greater threat to American citizens than Osama Bin Laden could ever be. Unlike you, at least, he's not here, and he admits he wants to destroy us and our Constitution. :| :| :|

"Who's Watching Over Who's Watching Over You?

Words and Music by Harvey Rubens
© 2006

Verse 1:

I see men looking over their shoulder,
Running hard just trying to stay alive,
And they say that it's gonna get colder before it gets better.

At the time of the crime, who believed us?
We all took a fall on the ride,
When the powers that be had deceived us to leave us the debtor.

Chorus:

And who's watching over who's watching over you?
Tell me who's telling you what to do what to do?

Verse 2:

All the forces of war were compelling,
And blacker than Colin, the Knight,
And the lies they were telling, they sell in the name of their savior.

They silence the voices arising,
From those who would show us the light.
With their guys with their spies in the skies watching you and your neighbor.

Chorus:

Verse 3:

I see men who are trying to squeeze us,
And taking whatever they can,
While they buy those who try to appease us with scraps from their table.

It gets harder each day to break even.
This wasn't a part of my plan.
Time is right to be fighting or leaving this tower of Babel.

Chorus:

RIP U.S. Constitution.

 

[Markbnj]

I am willing to bet there isn't one person in this thread, except maybe Pabster, who can accurately describe what this bill does and who it applies to.

Nevertheless, carry on.

 

[sandorski]

Round up all the Guns and ship them to Gitmo! That'll grab peoples attention.

 

[BurnItDwn]

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.

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Pabster
Ah, the fearmongering continues. Must be an election coming up.

Which parts of the U.S. Constitution do you not want to destroy? Do you not like the paragraph in Aricle 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution that says:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

or the paragraph that says:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Or are you more inclined to destroy the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of rights:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Idiots like you are a greater threat to American citizens than Osama Bin Laden could ever be. Unlike you, at least, he's not here, and he admits he wants to destroy us and our Constitution. :| :| :|

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.apartment808.com/host/WhosWatching.mp3
<b">">Who's Watching Over Who's Watching Over You?</a>

Words and Music by Harvey Rubens
© 2006

Verse 1:

I see men looking over their shoulder,
Running hard just trying to stay alive,
And they say that it's gonna get colder before it gets better.

At the time of the crime, who believed us?
We all took a fall on the ride,
When the powers that be had deceived us to leave us the debtor.

Chorus:

And who's watching over who's watching over you?
Tell me who's telling you what to do what to do?

Verse 2:

All the forces of war were compelling,
And blacker than Colin, the Knight,
And the lies they were telling, they sell in the name of their savior.

They silence the voices arising,
From those who would show us the light.
With their guys with their spies in the skies watching you and your neighbor.

Chorus:

Verse 3:

I see men who are trying to squeeze us,
And taking whatever they can,
While they buy those who try to appease us with scraps from their table.

It gets harder each day to break even.
This wasn't a part of my plan.
Time is right to be fighting or leaving this tower of Babel.

Chorus:

RIP U.S. Constitution.

Well said.

 

[umbrella39]

Wonders how long it will take the rest of the World to get tired of our bullying before they all decide to band together and attack us. Hey, we can call them all terrorists when it happens though, so we have that going for us...

Debbie Stabenow just lost my vote. Well done biatch.

 

[LunarRay]

That a bill has passed into law does not obviate the courts from hearing a writ based on Habeas Corpus etc.. the court can order release of this person (in effect finding the law restricting the court unconstitutional) then the executive would seek a stay from the court above and back and forth depending on the opinion rendered until the SCOTUS grants cert and hears the case...

Firstly, I can't imagine the court remotely opining that IT has no jurisdiction. It always will have jurisdiction within the borders of the US and extending beyond in some cases. And secondly, I can't imagine creating a bill that boldly flys in the face of the Constitution as it relates to Habeas Corpus and related... frankly, I'm amazed at the language regarding this.

It almost seems to be a bill written directly to voters and creates a topic for finger pointing.... in the elections upcoming and for the next two years.. that it may become law is not really more than encoding what actions already occur or occured but now legally, I guess.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Pabster
:thumbsup:

A bright and shining example of the result of the deconstruction of the truth (not to mention the shallowness of the psyche of the Bush-God fanbois).


Supposedly the terrorists "hate us for our freedoms" and want to attack us because of our freedoms.


What freedoms?

 

[Jaskalas]

There?s a lot of hatred and venom here on the subject of how we process enemy combatants. Should they be set free to kill us then?

The sheer amount of hatred you use to defend them is staggering to me. Our constitution for how the US government protects its own citizens from itself, could not apply less to foreigners fighting a war against us in foreign countries.

Then you have to audacity to act like we were taking belt sanders and cheese graders to rip them apart piece by piece. Such reaction has no basis from my view where we?re only making them uncomfortable and at worst water boarding the likes of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

So I?d like to know. Do you believe our killers have the right to be set free to kill us, or are you just this determined to destroy the administration at all costs?

 

[umbrella39]

I think you need to read the bill. I think you need to start trusting your government less, too. As for your strawman, I think it might need a brain.

Not being for this particularly worded bill != let's just let them go to kill us.

:roll:

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
There?s a lot of hatred and venom here on the subject of how we process enemy combatants. Should they be set free to kill us then?

Let's stop this right there.


Fact, over over 700 detainees thru Guantanamo, 10 have been charged.



10.



And you call this justice? You call this representative of America??

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2505088

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba Sep 28, 2006 (AP)? His ankles chained to the floor of the hearing room, a Saudi detainee hoped to convince three U.S. military officers that he is not a danger to the United States, has no intelligence value and should be released from the Guantanamo Bay prison.

But in his one shot this year at getting out of here, the detainee could not produce letters from his family that he wanted to submit as evidence. They were seized by the military, along with thousands of other documents from detainees, as it investigates whether the suicides of three prisoners in June were assisted or encouraged.

 

[Jaskalas]

You?re working entirely under the assumption that we?re picking up random innocent people off the street. After that, there?s nothing to bridge the difference.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
You?re working entirely under the assumption that we?re picking up random innocent people off the street. After that, there?s nothing to bridge the difference.

The facts seems to indicate you are. Or more accurately, Pakistan is.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
You?re working entirely under the assumption that we?re picking up random innocent people off the street. After that, there?s nothing to bridge the difference.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_detainees.htm

It was revealed in late April/early May 2003, that US Secretary of State Colin Powell had written a letter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld complaining of the indefinite detention and lack of progress on the determination of the status of detainees there. It was also revealed that the detainees included also "one 13-year-old, one 14-year-old, two 15-year-olds, one 16-year-old, an 88-year-old, and a 98-year-old".

http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares

Check out Part 3 where it covers the Northern Alliance rounding up anyone Arab-looking in exchange for cash.



http://www.intel-dump.com/archives/archive_2005_05_29-2005_06_04.shtml

This [interrogation] policy has not worked well, Rose writes. As an initial matter, it required the effective sorting of detainees into high-value, low-value, and no-value (or innocent). You can reasonably argue for the application of coercive interrogation measures, and possibly even torture, to members of the first group. But to Rose, the system for finding and classifying the detainees was inherently flawed. The United States' policy of paying as much as $5,000 for each detainee led to the capture of many innocents by Afghan rebels seeking a bounty. Compounding that problem, the American military intelligence units in Afghanistan charged with sorting detainees had little knowledge of relevant cultures or languages to help them deal with men captured there, let alone any past experience in conducting field interviews with battlefield prisoners. To this day, the Army has an acute shortage of soldiers capable of speaking Arabic, Farsi, Pashto, Urdu, and other languages critical for the war on terrorism. The average 25-year-old soldier doing the screenings was woefully ill-equipped to make an accurate decision regarding a particular detainee's status or intelligence value. Most decisions erred on the side of detention, since no one was rewarded for letting prisoners go.

...

One detainee who said he was an Afghan refugee in Pakistan accused the country's intelligence service of trumping up evidence against him to get U.S. bounty money.

"When I was in jail," he told the tribunal, "they said I needed to pay them money and if I didn't pay them, they'd make up wrong accusations about me and sell me to the Americans and I'd definitely go to Cuba. After that I was held for two months and 20 days in their detention, so they could make wrong accusations about me and my [censored], so they could sell us to you."

Another prisoner said he was on his way to Germany in 2001 when he was seized and sold for "a briefcase full of money," then flown to Afghanistan before being sent to Guantanamo.

"It's obvious," he said. "They knew Americans were looking for Arabs, so they captured Arabs and sold them - just like someone catches a fish and sells it."

Several detainees who appeared to be ethnic Chinese Muslims - known as Uighurs - described being betrayed, along with about 100 Arabs, by Pakistani tribesmen. They said they went to Afghanistan for military training to fight for independence from China. When U.S. warplanes started bombing near their camp, they fled into the mountains near Tora Bora and hid for weeks, starving.

One detainee said they finally followed a group of Arabs, apparently fighters, being led by an Afghan to the Pakistani border. "We crossed into Pakistan," he said, "and there were tribal people there, and they took us to their houses and they killed a sheep and cooked the meat and we ate."

That night, they were taken to a mosque, where about 100 Arabs also sheltered. After being fed bread and tea, they were told to leave in groups of 10, taken to a truck, and driven to a Pakistani prison. From there, they were handed to Americans and flown to Guantanamo.

"When we went to Pakistan the local people treated us like brothers and gave us good food and meat," another detainee said. But soon, he said, they were in prison in Pakistan where "we heard they sold us to the Pakistani authorities for $5,000 per person."

Shove your foot any further into your mouth and you'll have to walk on your ass.