Good News at last!!!

Dead Money

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 15, 2005
4,350
64
0
Upstairs watching sports on the big TV.
For freedom haters....


Bush Wants More Power To Disappear U.S. Citizens



http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...detainee_bill/

Bush submits new terror detainee bill

By Anne Plummer Flaherty, Associated Press Writer | July 28, 2006
WASHINGTON --U.S. citizens suspected of terror ties might be detained indefinitely and barred from access to civilian courts under legislation proposed by the Bush administration, say legal experts reviewing an early version of the bill.
A 32-page draft measure is intended to authorize the Pentagon's tribunal system, established shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks to detain and prosecute detainees captured in the war on terror. The tribunal system was thrown out last month by the Supreme Court.
Administration officials, who declined to comment on the draft, said the proposal was still under discussion and no final decisions had been made.
Senior officials are expected to discuss a final proposal before the Senate Armed Services Committee next Wednesday.
According to the draft, the military would be allowed to detain all "enemy combatants" until hostilities cease. The bill defines enemy combatants as anyone "engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners who has committed an act that violates the law of war and this statute."
Legal experts said Friday that such language is dangerously broad and could authorize the military to detain indefinitely U.S. citizens who had only tenuous ties to terror networks like al Qaeda.
"That's the big question ... the definition of who can be detained," said Martin Lederman, a law professor at Georgetown University who posted a copy of the bill to a Web blog.
Scott L. Silliman, a retired Air Force Judge Advocate, said the broad definition of enemy combatants is alarming because a U.S. citizen loosely suspected of terror ties would lose access to a civilian court -- and all the rights that come with it. Administration officials have said they want to establish a secret court to try enemy combatants that factor in realities of the battlefield and would protect classified information.
The administration's proposal, as considered at one point during discussions, would toss out several legal rights common in civilian and military courts, including barring hearsay evidence, guaranteeing "speedy trials" and granting a defendant access to evidence. The proposal also would allow defendants to be barred from their own trial and likely allow the submission of coerced testimony.
Senior Republican lawmakers have said they were briefed on the general discussions and have some concerns but are awaiting a final proposal before commenting on specifics.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England are expected to discuss the proposal in an open hearing next Wednesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Military lawyers also are scheduled to testify Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The legislation is the administration's response to a June 29 Supreme Court decision, which concluded the Pentagon could not prosecute military detainees using secret tribunals established soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The court ruled the tribunals were not authorized by law and violated treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions, which established many international laws for warfare.
The landmark court decision countered long-held assertions by the Bush administration that the president did not need permission from Congress to prosecute "enemy combatants" captured in the war on terror and that al Qaeda members were not subject to Geneva Convention protections because of their unconventional status.
"In a time of ongoing armed conflict, it is neither practicable nor appropriate for enemy combatants like al Qaeda terrorists to be tried like American citizens in federal courts or courts-martial," the proposal states.
The draft proposal contends that an existing law -- passed by the Senate last year after exhaustive negotiations between the White House and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. -- that bans cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment should "fully satisfy" the nation's obligations under the Geneva Conventions.
Sen. John W. Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said Friday he expects to take up the detainee legislation in September.
------
On the Net:
A copy of the report can be found at: http://balkin.blogspot.com/

? Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,486
165
63
Bowling Green Ky
another case of freedoms for whom--enemy combatants/terrorist ect

Can't figure how so many want to imply that that laws made to deter our enemies is against U.S. citizens--

Somehow I read quote from above--

"According to the draft, the military would be allowed to detain all "enemy combatants" until hostilities cease. The bill defines enemy combatants as anyone "engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners who has committed an act that violates the law of war and this statute."

and come away with idea that law is made to protect "we the people" and punish those wanting to harm us--where am I going wrong--

Out of curiousity is there anyone here that feels threaten by said law.

Bottom line with all the carping about our rights with wire tap issues-survailence ect that the left has been trying to imply--don't you think ACLU-Air America-NYT-Move on-ect hasn't been setting back sifting through 100's of thousands of cases to come up with "one abuse" they can run endlessly to say I told you so--and how many have they come up with?? Enlighten me!
 
Last edited:

Dead Money

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 15, 2005
4,350
64
0
Upstairs watching sports on the big TV.
Problem

Problem

The problem with this is simple....once it is in place, it will eventually be expanded to include suspected drug dealers and say, money launderers.

A couple years go by and it is decided that it should be expanded to also include protesters....

a couple years later they decide to expand it to include suspected car thieves...

Years later they will batter your door down and drag you in for "wrong-think"

Then you have a Socialistic Soviet States of America..

Hell, they have "safety checks" now, pulling motorists over.....this sh*t has to be nipped early.....
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,486
165
63
Bowling Green Ky
"The problem with this is simple....once it is in place, it will eventually be expanded to include suspected drug dealers and say, money launderers.

A couple years go by and it is decided that it should be expanded to also include protesters....

a couple years later they decide to expand it to include suspected car thieves..."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


exaggerations and hypothetical what ifs--but all still trying to protect criminal elemets to further my point---thank you
 

cooz3

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 2, 2002
6,026
2
0
boston
I have no problem with laws that take away certain protections for "terrorists" (whatever this term means??) ....but the problem is that this proposed legislation is so broad and vague that it leaves open for interpretation...and regardless of what side you fall on right or left I believe any rational person would agree that we should make such legislation clear and precise so we are not inquiring about the intent years down the road...Im sorry I may be termed cynical but the last thing i want is for a law like this to remain vague and leave it to future administrations to enforce..

cooz
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
WE never know who next President will be or make up of congress. For that matter next FBI/CIA directors. This type of law must be cast in concrete. Can not be left for interpolating.
 
Last edited:
Bet on MyBookie
Top