Detain citizens indefinetely, without charge.

[Ace Pace]

Since nitram won't post this here

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 (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz. — that bans cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment should "fully satisfy" the nation's obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

Sen. John W. Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said Friday he expects to take up the detainee legislation in September.

So really, if this passes, which right is really left standing?

[Narsil]

Erm... what the fucking hell?!

Guilty until proven innocent was just forgotten, if I'm to take all this at face value. Slowly, but surely, over the past six years, the USA has gone from paragon of freedom and virtue to... well there's no other term for it at this point than fascism, plain and simple fascism.

[Comrade Tortoise]

This violates the 4th, 5th, and 8th amendments of the bill of rights. What are they going to do next? Start quartering troops?What are they fucking doing pissing on the goddamn constitution? No supreme court, however much they masturbate over the power of the executive branch will eveer allow this horeshit to pass!

If this passes the congress and the scotus it would be time to start a second civil war. This sort of power-grabbing freedom-stealing EVIL shit is intolerable to any who value truth and justice!

Nitram, just so you know, ben is voting straight ticket democrat in the next election. WOnt do much good where I live, but jesus H. fucking christ.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Does anyone thing they will stop at terrorists? No. The broad wording of this legistlation would allow them to strip ANYONE THEY CHOSE of their constitutional rights. SOmething which is illegal under any and all circumstances.

[Ace Pace]

Rant

Do these fuckers not understand what made America great? do they not understand why millions of people gave up all they had and immigrated to the U.S? Do they not understand why Einstein came to the U.S to work here? Or do they just masturbate over military weapons?

Fucking hell, what makes america great and worthy is the constitution, the bill of rights, such as with do not exist all over. Instead, they seek to ruin it. They seek to drive such a wound in it that America will never recover, and rather will fall, as if this was the movie version of V for Vendetta.

What is this? Fucking 1984 crossed with a bad alternate history?

[frigidmagi]

Time to save up for a rifle if this passes.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Time to save up for a rifle if this passes.

You and me both

[Batman]

Land of the free my ass.
I don't know what scares me more-the fact that something like that is actually proposed (although coming from Dubya the Stupider this shouldn't come as a surprise), the fact that it may actually pass, or the fact that even if it does the majority of the population in the US isn't likely going to care much.

[frigidmagi]

You assume to much Batman.

Bruce Fein, a Republican legal activist, who voted for Bush in both Presidential elections, and who served as associate deputy attorney general in the Reagan Justice Department, said that Addington and other Presidential legal advisors had "staked out powers that are a universe beyond any other Administration. This President has made claims that are really quite alarming. He said there are no restraints on his ability, as he sees it, to collect intelligence, to open mail, to commit torture, and to use electronic surveillance....It's got the sense of Louis XIV: "I am the State." Richard Epstein, a prominent libertarian law professor at the University of Chicago, said, "The President doesn't have the power of a king, or even that of state governors. He's subject to the laws of Congress! The Administration's lawyers are nuts on this issue." He warned of an impending "constitutional crisis," because "their talk of the inherent power of the Presidency seems to be saying the courts can't stop them, and neither can Congress."

There is such as to far.

[Batman]

You'll excuse me if I wait to see how this turns out.
Don't get me wrong if what Dubya gets is 'Dude you realize this is unconstitutional like nobody's business, right? FUCK YOU!' I'll cheer, but given what the current maladminstration has got away with I'm not getting my hopes up.

[B4UTRUST]

And we tried to impeach Clinton over a blowjob...

And the worst part is, there are people who still support him and will try to find some way to justify this.
"Well... if you don't like it obviously you're a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer. You like freedom? You commie. When Jesus Anti-Liberal Christ came down from the Heavens Himself and told Dubya to run we all knew it was good!"

Lets see here, wiretapping phones without warrents. Reading emails without permission. Keeping track of every book we check out or buy. There goes privacy. Which is followed by the possibility of detaining citizens for unspecified crimes for an unspecificed amount of time without access to a lawyer or even a phonecall. And nobody would ever know it.

I wonder when we get to the part where citizens get "disappeared" to go "nowhere".

[frigidmagi]

I'm going to go ahead and say it even though I shouldn't. We don't impeach strong Presidents. No matter how unpopular or crazy they get, we don't impeach them. We attempt to impeach weak Presidents (no sitting president has yet been impeached form his office, Jackson and Clinton defeated the attempts and Nixon resigned), but we don't try to impeach strong ones.

Despite his popularity rating being in the basement, between the countless skeletons that Cheney, Rumsfield and others are no doubt threatening to yank out into the glare of the harsh sun and the willingness to play dirty of this adminsteration, Jr. is still strong enough to make impeachment an unlikely event.