Bush submits new terror detainee bill Options

[dauss]

Unfortunately the article disappeared, but it is still cached on google.
Bush submits new terror detainee bill

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.

Probably like other draconian acts that have been passed, it will fly through and get passed without any changes, or anyone reading it.

[Jim]

But, national security, wah.

Wait, this should never work because it's unconstitutional. It's one of the biggest things in the Bill of Rights, as well...

[Spectatrix]

Obviously this is a violation of the 6th Ammendment and, depending on the interpretation of "hostilities against the US", could violate the 1st Ammendment as well.

[GOB]

aww, poor terrorists.

[Mommy]

US citizens not being tried in civilian courts: yeah ok red flag maybe. People like Timothy Mcvey(sp) I wouldnt have any qualms about it though. Screw them

some fucking towel head accused of terrorism: I dont give a fuck as long as they have solid PROOF that he did it.

[Psykopath]

US citizens not being tried in civilian courts: yeah ok red flag maybe. People like Timothy Mcvey(sp) I wouldnt have any qualms about it though. Screw them

some fucking towel head accused of terrorism: I dont give a fuck as long as they have solid PROOF that he did it.

white trash idiot

[pysex]

[Mommy]

white trash idiot

There is a difference between a black person and a nigger.
There is a difference between a Arab and a towel head or sand nigger, if you will.



It makes me laugh when people say that. Its just to justify them saying a racist remark. I, on the other hand, am not a racist. I dont like Muslims, but I do like Arabs. I just like the word towel head. It makes me giggle. Then again so does honkey and cracker.

Anyways, Im not white trash. White trash live in trailer parks, wear wife beaters, and talk about "linching niggers" of which I do not do. I dont like the Muslim religion one bit.

[Psykopath]

Based off of the above post...


WHITE TRASH COMMENT STANDS.


Your blanket hatred for Muslims is absolutely idiotic and backwards. I'm assuming you just hate Muslims (BTW: Islam is the religion, not "Muslim"...) because of 9/11?

This post has been edited by Psykopath: Aug 16 2006, 10:38 PM

[Jim]

Because all Muslims are bred to hate America. It says so in the Koran, I read it.

[Mommy]

Based off of the above post...


WHITE TRASH COMMENT STANDS.


Your blanket hatred for Muslims is absolutely idiotic and backwards. I'm assuming you just hate Muslims (BTW: Islam is the religion, not "Muslim"...) because of 9/11?

No, I stood up for Muslims for quite a long time after 9/11. About ooooooo a year and a half ago, I read some interesting information from a reliable source and have studied the Koran. It really is a very violent religion, and unlike Christianity, it doesnt have a New Testament. The New Testament pretty much shows that Christianity is a peaceful religion. The Old Testament, yeah I'll give in that its violent. I like all sorts of religions and philosphies: Buddhism, Hinduism, etc etc but Im sorry I dont like the Muslim religion. I dont like Bush either. Does that make me hippy white trash? Yes, I made a blanket generalization. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule, like Lauryn Hill for instance. I like her and I think she is Muslim. In all seriousness though, of course there are nice people out there who practice te Muslim religion, but generally its a very hateful religion.

[Jim]

No, I stood up for Muslims for quite a long time after 9/11. About ooooooo a year and a half ago, I read some interesting information from a reliable source and have studied the Koran. It really is a very violent religion, and unlike Christianity, it doesnt have a New Testament. The New Testament pretty much shows that Christianity is a peaceful religion. The Old Testament, yeah I'll give in that its violent. I like all sorts of religions and philosphies: Buddhism, Hinduism, etc etc but Im sorry I dont like the Muslim religion. I dont like Bush either. Does that make me hippy white trash? Yes, I made a blanket generalization. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule, like Lauryn Hill for instance. I like her and I think she is Muslim. In all seriousness though, of course there are nice people out there who practice te Muslim religion, but generally its a very hateful religion.

The New Testatment shows Christianity as peaceful, yes. But what do CHRISTIAN's show of Christianity? I mean, we can't forget about forcing their beliefs on others, the Crusades, and God's War on Terror (oops, I mean Bush's War on Terror).

[Psykopath]

Blanket statements are FUN!


And it's all about interpretation when it comes to religion and how it is practiced.

[Jim]

Blanket statements are FUN!


And it's all about interpretation when it comes to religion and how it is practiced.

No it's not. We're here to discuss that Muslims are violent. It says it in the Koran god damnit.

[Mommy]

Blanket statements are FUN!


And it's all about interpretation when it comes to religion and how it is practiced.

I will give you that, but there are countries over there that breed their kids to all practice the same way. Unlike most, I dont have a problem with Lebanon nor her people. Most of her citizens are good, law abiding citizens. Its that damn Hezbollah. I do have a problem with countries like Iran though. Do note that a large portion of Lebanon's people are Christian and not Muslim.