US legal residents' rights curbed in detainee bill

[Narsil]

Boston Globe

WASHINGTON -- A last-minute change to a bill currently before Congress on the rights of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay could have sweeping implications inside the United States: It would strip green-card holders and other legal residents of the right to challenge their detention in court if they are accused of being ``enemy combatants."

An earlier draft of the bill sparked criticism because it removed the rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees to challenge their detentions in federal court. But changes made over the weekend during negotiations between the White House and key Republicans in Congress go even further, making it legal for noncitizens inside the United States to be detained indefinitely, without access to the court system, until the ``war on terror" is over.

It is unclear who initiated the changes. The bill, which also sets up a new system of military trials for terrorist suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, passed the House yesterday and is expected to be voted on in the Senate today, before Congress breaks for midterm elections.

Human rights advocates yesterday lobbied against the bill.

``This would purport to allow the president, after some incident, to round up scores of people -- people who are lawfully here -- and hold them in military prisons with no access to the legal system, whatsoever, indefinitely," said Joe Onek , senior policy analyst at the Open Society Policy Center, a Washington-based advocacy organization

Other last-minute additions to the bill include provisions that would broaden the definition of enemy combatant to include anyone who gives material support to enemies of the United States and its allies, and would prevent detainees who have been released from US custody from suing the US government for torture or mistreatment.

But the part of the bill that worries advocates for immigrants most is the one stating that ``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 has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination."

``Habeas corpus" is the legal mechanism that gives people the right to ask federal courts to review their imprisonment.

In the original bill, the section banning ``habeas corpus" petitions applied only to detainees being held ``outside the United States," referring to the roughly 450 prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. But in recent days, the phrase ``outside the United States" was removed.

The White House did not respond to questions asking why the restriction was extended to people in the United States.

But at a press conference after the changes were made, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley praised the bill as ``a legislative framework that allows us to capture, detain, and prosecute and bring to justice terrorists."

Human-rights activists believe the bill would do far more, including give the president greatly expanded powers to hold people indefinitely.

``What if they had this after Sept. 11 [2001] when they picked up all kinds of folks on immigration charges and material-witness charges and tried them in secret immigration proceedings?" said Jumana Musa, a lawyer with Amnesty International. ``Those people were deported. Now [if the bill passes], they could be detained indefinitely as enemy combatants."

Eugene R. Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, added that: ``What it means is that certain categories of people are going to be second-raters in our legal system."

``You can't sneeze at the fact that citizenship has got to mean something," Fidell said. ``But if I were a green-card holder, thinking about the other pressures that are being brought to bear on green-card holders, it could make me pretty nervous."

Wartime decisions to hold people perceived as threats have often proved problematic. During World War II, the government held over 100,000 Japanese and Japanese-Americans in internment camps. (When they challenged their internment, the Supreme Court twice ruled against them. Decades later, however, the government acknowledged that the internment was unjustified and apologized.)

Jennifer Daskill , US advocacy director of Human Rights Watch, predicted that the Supreme Court would strike down the provisions in the current bill that would take away access to courts for legal US residents arrested in the United States. Still, she said, it could take years before the court rules on the issue, during which time many people could be imprisoned.

The provision would have an immediate impact on Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri , so far the only known ``enemy combatant" held inside the United States.

Marri, a Qatari student arrested in 2001, has been held in a US military brig without charges for four years.

Like hundreds of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Marri has challenged his detention in federal court; passage of the new law would throw out his case.

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter , a Pennsylvania Republican, and Senator Patrick Leahy , a Vermont Democrat, have filed an amendment to the Senate bill under which detainees -- both inside Guantanamo Bay and in the United States -- would retain their access to the courts.

But it was unclear last night whether the amendment has enough support to pass. So far, moderate Republicans have not joined Specter and leading Democrats in supporting the amendment.

Senator Susan Collins , a Maine Republican who is considered a moderate, said she would not support Specter's amendment.

``Detainees from Guantanamo have clogged our courts with more than 420 lawsuits challenging everything from their access to the Internet to the quality of their recreation facilities," her office said in a statement that called the lawsuits ``an abuse of our court system."

Collins did not comment on the bill's restriction of rights for non-citizens in the United States.

Call me anti-American here... but this looks somewhat like the collapse of a nation. A once noble nation which has been in steady decline since the fifties and its rampant McCarthyism. If this gets passed; I'll have lost the single last shred of hope I had for the USA.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

And how do they define 'enemy combatant', by the way?

[Narsil]

That's what's so scary about it. It could be defined as almost anything, and a convincing enough lawyer/judge/applicable could word it enough to get anyone arrested and tortured indefintitely. It's fascism... there's literally no other term for it.

[frigidmagi]

I'm afraid you're wrong... Again Narsil. Enemy Combatent is defined, as working to harm or injure Americans on behalf of Al Qeeda or other organizations current in armed conflict with the United States. If you're a citzen that's also the same defination as treason. It is my belief that any US citizen should be tried for treason if he is doing this instead of being called an enemy combatent.

What happens if you are charged as an enemy combatant is simple, you get tried by a military tribunal which weighs evidence as to whether or not you are one and whether or not you should be released or held. Detainees have been released as a result of this process, one even went back to blow himself up, killing a number of Afghanis, but no US servicemembers. Up until now, detainees could chanlledge the military's ruling on their combatent status, these at times went into the US civil system.

That being said I do not support this bill. Because the right of the detainees to chanlledge their status is being taken away by this bill. Also taken away is the right of trail for legal residents, this right is estblished to them in the Constitution and is not for the Adminsteration. Any Adminsteration to take away. There are also serveral suggestions on tactics permissable that worry, but that's another subject.

[Narsil]

Well it wasn't outlined in the article, so I was just going off of what was there.

[frigidmagi]

Because stuff like that has been covered in several articles already. I know you're not in the US and not a US citizen but if you're going to run in and wildly comment on US affairs, try to have a little more knowledge then the average gopher okay?

[SirNitram]

You fight and sweat and go through bueacractic hell for a Green Card, and then you got no rights at all if they want you gone. Really the fucking land of the fucking free, ain't it?

[frigidmagi]

Like I said, I'm against the bill. I'm not liking the idea of pissing away any rights of any legal residents, citizens and so forth in the US itself. I think it's a bad idea that will only give birth to worse children.

[Narsil]

Cue worse child:

WASHINGTON - Congress sent President Bush a bill Friday that endorses his plan to interrogate and prosecute terror suspects, legislation Republicans hope will win them political points on the campaign trail.

Once Bush signs it, which he was expected to do very soon, the military can begin prosecuting terror suspects.

Many Democrats opposed the legislation because they said it eliminated rights of defendants considered fundanamental to American values, such as a person's ability to protest court detention and the use of coerced tesimony as evidence.

The House had already voted this week, 253-168, endorsing Bush's plan for military detainees. The Senate passed a nearly identical bill Thursday by a 65-34 vote. Rather than reconcile the technical differences between the two bills, the House voted 250-170 to send the Senate version to the president to sign.

The legislation, which sets the rules for court proceedings, would only apply to those selected by the military for prosecution and leaves mostly unaffected the majority of the 14,000 prisoners in U.S. custody, most of whom are in

Iraq. The bill would protect detainees from blatant abuses — such as rape, torture and "cruel and inhuman" treatment — but does not require that each of them be granted legal counsel and specifically bars detainees from protesting their detentions in federal courts.

The Penatgon had previsouly selected 10 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay prison to be tried and Bush is expected also to try some or all of the 14 suspects held by the CIA in secret prisons and recently transferred to military custody at Guantanamo.

The vote was considered a major election-season victory for Bush and Republicans, who will likely try to spin Democrats' opposition as being soft on terrorists.

While Bush can count on Congress for the sort of military tribunals he wants, the White House likely will have to await a lame duck session after the election to get authorization for warrantless wiretaps.

The White House failed to help bridge differences between the Senate and the House on the eavesdropping program. The House, on a 232-191 vote Thursday, approved a bill to grant legal status to the warrantless wiretapping program with new restrictions. The Senate bill was different enough that efforts to reach a compromise on the two measures was unlikely before the elections.

Most Democrats opposed the detainee bill, contending that Republicans were pushing through a sloppy measure to sell voters, but not because it made sense.

GOP policies on national security "may have been tough, but they certainly weren't smart," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid.

But Republicans said passage of the bill would withstand court scrutiny and the test of time.

"In this new era of threats, where the stark and sober reality is that America must confront international terrorists committed to the destruction of our way of life, this bill is absolutely necessary," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (news, bio, voting record), R-Ga.

The overall bill would prohibit war crimes and define such atrocities as rape and torture but otherwise would allow the president to interpret the Geneva Conventions, the treaty that sets standards for the treatment of war prisoners.

The bill on interrogations and trials also would eliminate some rights common in military and civilian courts. For example, the commission would be allowed to consider hearsay evidence so long as a judge determined it was reliable. Hearsay is barred from civilian courts.

The legislation also says the president can "interpret the meaning and application" of international standards for prisoner treatment, a provision intended to allow him to authorize aggressive interrogation methods that might otherwise be seen as illegal by international courts.

___

The House detainee resolution is H.R. 6166. The Senate bill is S. 3930.

The House surveillance bill is H.R. 5825; the Senate bill is S. 3931.

[LadyTevar]

Sen. Byrd tried to tack on a rider that would put the bill up for review in 5 yrs time. The rider lost 52-47.

[frigidmagi]

I want to know who was the fucking ass who didn't vote on that. 52+47=99, there are fucking 100 Senators. Who was the jerk off who didn't show up?

[Rogue 9]

I don't think I have ever seen a Senate vote with a hundred Senators present and voting.

[SirNitram]

I want to know who was the fucking ass who didn't vote on that. 52+47=99, there are fucking 100 Senators. Who was the jerk off who didn't show up?

Could've simply replied 'Present', but Rogue's right. They rarely are ALL there. Roll Call votes are only topped by Voice Votes for this, and largely only because the last six years have seen many an occasion where a half-dozen GOP'ers pop into the Chamber at 2AM or something, have a Voice Vote, all six yell 'Aye', and it's on to the other house.

[frigidmagi]

I'm one of those assholes who says we should start demanding things from the Senators, they get it to easy as it is.

[Rogue 9]

I want to know who was the fucking ass who didn't vote on that. 52+47=99, there are fucking 100 Senators. Who was the jerk off who didn't show up?

Could've simply replied 'Present', but Rogue's right. They rarely are ALL there. Roll Call votes are only topped by Voice Votes for this, and largely only because the last six years have seen many an occasion where a half-dozen GOP'ers pop into the Chamber at 2AM or something, have a Voice Vote, all six yell 'Aye', and it's on to the other house.

Wait a minute, don't they have to have quorum to do that?

[SirNitram]

Wait a minute, don't they have to have quorum to do that?

Given the news stories I saw the past few years, I'm gonna say they apparently don't. Or possibly it's just one more law violated.

[SirNitram]

As an example, the vote count from the 'Emergency legislation' during that Schiavo mess..

Vote count!

The House vote was:

Republicans: 156 aye, 5 nay, 71 absent
Democrats: 47 aye, 53 nay, 102 absent

Senate:

Republicans: 3 aye, 0 nay, absent 52
Democrats: 0 aye, 0 nay, absent 44

[frigidmagi]

Can I trouble you for the link?

[SirNitram]

Oh, how cute.

Years later, I try to dig up the official links for this.

There's no official record of the voice vote. Why? WaPo tells us.

The Senate version of the bill was passed on the afternoon of Sunday, March 20 (by voice vote -- as a result, there is not an official record of this Senate action).

After sifting through pages of Google results, I finally found a newspaper who described it as more than a 'Voice Vote'.

Link

The Senate also needed unanimous consent to take up the bill Sunday. But Frist and Minority Leader Harry Reid worked out a compromise behind the scenes beforehand so even the Democrats opposed to the bill would not return to fight it.

When the bill passed by a voice-vote, only Frist, Sen. Mel Martinez and Sen. John Warner were present.

Cute, huh?

A quick primer from the same on the usual use of a Voice Vote.

Generally, only noncontroversial bills, such as commending a winning team or naming a new post office are taken up in the same manner as the Schiavo bill was.

And Rogue was right.. For Roll Call votes.

Republican leaders went into recess, and announced they would vote on a bill shortly after midnight. They need a quorum of 218 members for a roll call vote.

But Voice Votes aren't Roll Call.

[Rogue 9]

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

When I went to the site of the National Archives to check up on the rules for this in the Constitution, I had only remembered the second paragraph and had thought to come here saying that while disgusting, the Senate gets to make it's own rules and if they don't have a quorum rule then no laws were broken.

I completely forgot about the first paragraph. Three (or six) people isn't even close to a majority, which is the constitutionally mandated quorum to do business. Something is fucking wrong here.

[SirNitram]

I completely forgot about the first paragraph. Three (or six) people isn't even close to a majority, which is the constitutionally mandated quorum to do business. Something is fucking wrong here.

Yes, it's called six years trying to make a Monarchy. The powers that the Administration wants and is taking(Including Gonzales telling the Judiciary not to 'interfere' with the President's powers of detention and whatever-the-fuck-he-wants in wartime) are nothing less.