MSNBC Breaking News: U.S. Senate passes detainee prosecution bill

[The Dowager Mod]

Here is an interesting op/ed.
BURIED IN THE complex Senate compromise on detainee treatment is a real shocker, reaching far beyond the legal struggles about foreign terrorist suspects in the Guantanamo Bay fortress. The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights.

[nlm]

Here is an interesting op/ed.
BURIED IN THE complex Senate compromise on detainee treatment is a real shocker, reaching far beyond the legal struggles about foreign terrorist suspects in the Guantanamo Bay fortress. The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights.

The definition of "enemy combatant" is one of the most troubling things about this bill - "This dangerous compromise not only authorizes the president to seize and hold terrorists who have fought against our troops "during an armed conflict," it also allows him to seize anybody who has "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States." This grants the president enormous power over citizens and legal residents."

What can these words be interpreted to mean - quite a broad range. What checks does the bill put in place if the executive branch interpretes them too broadly - none, in fact it is careful to leave the executive branch unchecked and unfettered by oversight in this regard.

There is no protection for the average US citizen in this bill. They are left at the mercy of government and asked to trust in the good will of government towards them. Taken to the far end of what this bill makes possible - a US citizen can be falsely accused of "materially supporting hoslities towards the US", declared an enemy combatant, tortured until they confess, tried without due process, and locked away or even executed. I don't suggest that doing so is the governments intent - only that this bill makes it possible. In the United States of America - that shouldn't be possible.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

What's this about?

Where have you been?  They've been discussing it in the news all week.

working for DeVos and doing physics, calc, chem, adv. comp projects.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

b/c I don't have time to read 8 pages of debate, somebody please UNBIASEDLY explain this to me.

[MODU]

b/c I don't have time to read 8 pages of debate, somebody please UNBIASEDLY explain this to me.

Can someone explain what this bill is or does?

In short:
- establishes system to question detainees
- establishes system to prosecute detainees
- denies detainee access to US courts
- limits CIA interrogation techniques

Basically, it sets the ground rules for which detainees can be treated and tried based on the ruling of the Supreme Court earlier this year.  The military has already been limited in how they can question/interrogate detainees, putting that responsibility in the hands of the CIA.  When the detainees are being tried, they will face a tribunal with US-provided representation (no self-representation due to the access to classified materials), and they will have one chance at an appeal.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Here is an interesting op/ed.
BURIED IN THE complex Senate compromise on detainee treatment is a real shocker, reaching far beyond the legal struggles about foreign terrorist suspects in the Guantanamo Bay fortress. The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights.

The definition of "enemy combatant" is one of the most troubling things about this bill - "This dangerous compromise not only authorizes the president to seize and hold terrorists who have fought against our troops "during an armed conflict," it also allows him to seize anybody who has "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States." This grants the president enormous power over citizens and legal residents."

What can these words be interpreted to mean - quite a broad range. What checks does the bill put in place if the executive branch interpretes them too broadly - none, in fact it is careful to leave the executive branch unchecked and unfettered by oversight in this regard.

There is no protection for the average US citizen in this bill. They are left at the mercy of government and asked to trust in the good will of government towards them. Taken to the far end of what this bill makes possible - a US citizen can be falsely accused of "materially supporting hoslities towards the US", declared an enemy combatant, tortured until they confess, tried without due process, and locked away or even executed. I don't suggest that doing so is the governments intent - only that this bill makes it possible. In the United States of America - that shouldn't be possible.

The problem is when the "Enabling Act" comes, the "centrists" will all be for it. It's only the liberals (or socialists) who will stand up to fascism. The Ben Nelsons of the world don't give a sh**t about freedom.

[Ebowed]

b/c I don't have time to read 8 pages of debate, somebody please UNBIASEDLY explain this to me.

In this post, as a response to smug Republicans having great fun telling themselves that no one opposing the bill had read it, I detailed several problems with the bill which apparently was cause for said smug Republicans to stop posting there altogether.  Obviously, I am not unbiased, but I include references and quotes from the legislation's text, so you can judge for yourself from those.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=46066.msg1007337#msg1007337

[dazzleman]

b/c I don't have time to read 8 pages of debate, somebody please UNBIASEDLY explain this to me.

In this post, as a response to smug Republicans having great fun telling themselves that no one opposing the bill had read it, I detailed several problems with the bill which apparently was cause for said smug Republicans to stop posting there altogether.  Obviously, I am not unbiased, but I include references and quotes from the legislation's text, so you can judge for yourself from those.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=46066.msg1007337#msg1007337

I think you're talking about me, Ebowed.  Thanks, man.

[angus]

All I can say is that I think there is some honor in fighting cleanly.  I do think that allowing ourselves to shelve traditional defendant rights will have long-term detrimental consequences, not only by giving terrorists another recruiting tool, but also for our own domestic peace and civil liberties.  I do understand that we're bound only by tradition, and not by law, to extend civil rights to foreigners, but once we no longer hold habeas corpus and right to speedy trial as sacrosanct, it's only a matter of time before other constitutionally delineated basic liberties will be curtailed in the name of national security as well.

We have never extended constitutional rights to foreign prisoners of war.  The idea of doing so is absurd, in my opinion.  It's a great way to lose a war.  This is a war, not a legal proceeding.  Denying these rights to enemy combatants is nowhere close to denying them to legal residents of the US, even if they are criminals.

Richard Epstein, law professor at U. Chicago wrote a great op/ed piece in this weedend edition of WSJ.  Nice to see that conservative still means conservative among our nation's leading conservative publication.  Pick up a copy of this one if you get a chance.  Here's an excerpt:

"The average American naturally responds with a blank stare to that latin mouthful, habeus corpus ad subjiciendum.  But the phrase loses all of its obscurity when expressed in plain English:  Produce the  body that it may be subjected to examination."  The writ grew up in England, long before the American Revolution, to counter the power of the Crown to arbitrarily imprison and execute its foes...  Modern American practice no longer requires that the prisoner literally be brought into the court...  Nevertheless, the older concerns still animate the modern practice.  Lawful imprisonment, second only to lawful infliction of death, is the hallmark of state power.  In any system of limited government, such loss of liberty should be hedged by strong procedural protections unless some grave necessiby requires its suspension...  By eliminating habeas review for Guantanamo detainees, the Military Commisions Act has jettisoned the fundamental right of any prisoner to test the lawfulness of his dention..."


That last bit I quoted is striking, and I stated it herein earlier.  I want you to think long and hard about this dazzleman.  This legislation isn't in our republic's long-term interests.

[dazzleman]

All I can say is that I think there is some honor in fighting cleanly.  I do think that allowing ourselves to shelve traditional defendant rights will have long-term detrimental consequences, not only by giving terrorists another recruiting tool, but also for our own domestic peace and civil liberties.  I do understand that we're bound only by tradition, and not by law, to extend civil rights to foreigners, but once we no longer hold habeas corpus and right to speedy trial as sacrosanct, it's only a matter of time before other constitutionally delineated basic liberties will be curtailed in the name of national security as well.

We have never extended constitutional rights to foreign prisoners of war.  The idea of doing so is absurd, in my opinion.  It's a great way to lose a war.  This is a war, not a legal proceeding.  Denying these rights to enemy combatants is nowhere close to denying them to legal residents of the US, even if they are criminals.

Richard Epstein, law professor at U. Chicago wrote a great op/ed piece in this weedend edition of WSJ.  Nice to see that conservative still means conservative among our nation's leading conservative publication.  Pick up a copy of this one if you get a chance.  Here's an excerpt:

"The average American naturally responds with a blank stare to that latin mouthful, habeus corpus ad subjiciendum.  But the phrase loses all of its obscurity when expressed in plain English:  Produce the  body that it may be subjected to examination."  The writ grew up in England, long before the American Revolution, to counter the power of the Crown to arbitrarily imprison and execute its foes...  Modern American practice no longer requires that the prisoner literally be brought into the court...  Nevertheless, the older concerns still animate the modern practice.  Lawful imprisonment, second only to lawful infliction of death, is the hallmark of state power.  In any system of limited government, such loss of liberty should be hedged by strong procedural protections unless some grave necessiby requires its suspension...  By eliminating habeas review for Guantanamo detainees, the Military Commisions Act has jettisoned the fundamental right of any prisoner to test the lawfulness of his dention..."


That last bit I quoted is striking, and I stated it herein earlier.  I want you to think long and hard about this dazzleman.  This legislation isn't in our republic's long-term interests.

angus, I don't think those rights apply to enemy combatants.  We did not extend constitutional protections to enemy prisoners of war in World War II, nor should we have.

Our legal system was not designed to handle issues of this magnitude.  Frankly, it can't even protect us from everyday crimes, let alone major coordinated terrorist activities that are supported by large foreign groups and nations outside the reach of the system.

Stronger medicine than our legal system is required here.  This is the fundamental disagreement between liberals and conservatives.  Liberals, in my opinion, have too much of a tendency to view every issue as a legal issue, and this is highly inappropriate in many cases.  They have too much faith in the legal system, IMO.

Now, if we were talking about locking up regular criminals indefinitely without formal charges or trial, that would be different.  I think the government's ability to hold people indefinitely should be limited.  But it most definitely should exist with respect to enemy combatants.

[angus]

fundamental disagreement.

Damn.  I thought quoting the WSJ would surely do the trick.  guess that's it then.  I keep hoping someone as intelligent, well-educated, and, frankly, as old as you are will see the light.  Guess you're thinking the same thing.  So we'll have to agree to disagree Unless that's really the "fundamental disagreement!"  You see clearly that I'm intransigent in my position but I refuse to accept your intransigence.

Still do.  I'll try to think of something really smart to convince you. 

[dazzleman]

fundamental disagreement.

Damn.  I thought quoting the WSJ would surely do the trick.  guess that's it then.  I keep hoping someone as intelligent, well-educated, and, frankly, as old as you are will see the light.  Guess you're thinking the same thing.  So we'll have to agree to disagree Unless that's really the "fundamental disagreement!"  You see clearly that I'm intransigent in my position but I refuse to accept your intransigence.

Still do.  I'll try to think of something really smart to convince you. 

I can see the whole issue conceptually.  You have two competing interests.  Which one is more pressing?  There's the issue of limiting governmental power, and how far that should go, versus the issue of protecting large numbers of people from a fiery death.

As I said, I don't favor unlimited governmental powers to detain anyone and everyone at will.  That should be left to school teachers and administrators only.....

But you really haven't answered my fundamental question of the difference between legal sanctions and war.  Our constitution applies to people living legally within our boundaries, not to those who live outside of our borders, or have entered the country only for the purpose of committing mass murder.

War is fundamentally different from relatively disorganized criminal activity.  Mind you, our civilian justice system is not highly successful even at dealing with these much lower level threats.  You seem to be suggesting that any individual soldier who makes war against us is entitled to the full rights of a US citizen residing in the US, under the constitution.

Taken to its logical extreme, this would mean that any US soldier who kills an enemy soldier in battle could be charged with murder.  So are you really implying that we can shoot any enemy soldier that we're doing battle with, but if we capture him, we have to supply full constitutional rights?  Or do you think we have no right to kill soldiers that are fighting us?

I just don't think that you are considering the potentially catastrophic outcomes of the position that you are taking.  I think that government's blanket detention rights should be limited to those participating in a war against us, but that it is perfectly acceptable to hold prisoners of war, just as we have done in every war.

Do you think it was wrong that we held several hundred thousand German prisoners of war in the US for the duration of the war without charges?

[angus]

But I don't think it is the same.  Those German POWs weren't going to be tried.  They were held because they were enemy combatants.  Moreover, they were in uniform and under contract to perform for a state enemy of the US.  Once their government surrendered unconditionally in 1945 they were free to go.  There were exceptions, high-ranking officials who were tried and convicted and hanged for crimes, but the detainees overwhelmingly weren't tried.  Same here.  If these guys are merely prisoners of war, and we're awaiting the unconditional surrender of Al Qaeda so we can release, that's one thing.  But they're not being classified or treated that way.  Nor are they being treated the way we usually treat criminals.  They're some weird hybrid, or newly defined group, so the government needs newly defined rules.  This is what bothers people.  The government now can arbitrarily create special definitions for detainees and make special rules for them.  And you gotta wonder who's next.  One day maybe we'll start having debters prisons and all those things the Patriots rebelled against.

[opebo]

But I don't think it is the same.  Those German POWs weren't going to be tried.  They were held because they were enemy combatants.  Moreover, they were in uniform and under contract to perform for a state enemy of the US.  Once their government surrendered unconditionally in 1945 they were free to go.  There were exceptions, high-ranking officials who were tried and convicted and hanged for crimes, but the detainees overwhelmingly weren't tried.  Same here.  If these guys are merely prisoners of war, and we're awaiting the unconditional surrender of Al Qaeda so we can release, that's one thing.  But they're not being classified or treated that way.  Nor are they being treated the way we usually treat criminals.  They're some weird hybrid, or newly defined group, so the government needs newly defined rules.  This is what bothers people.  The government now can arbitrarily create special definitions for detainees and make special rules for them.  And you gotta wonder who's next.  One day maybe we'll start having debters prisons and all those things the Patriots rebelled against.

It is funny you should mention 'unconditional surrender'.  I was thinking about it just last night.  Hah, no, not what you're thinking - I was watching a WWII documentary on Australian TV.  The documentary was focusing on the ill-treatment of African-American soldiers by their own country, but in passing it did mention the unconditional surrender of the Japanese.

Why is it that the Empire always demands unconditional surrender from those who dare defy it?  I guess it is just a power differential thing - if you have the power to utterly destroy an opponent, why not?  But it seems to me it might often be overkill.

As for Al Queda, what a joke.  You might as well ask for the unconditional surrender of the Mafia.

[The Dowager Mod]

History should record October 17, 2006, as the reverse of July 4, 1776.

From the noble American ideal of each human being possessing  “unalienable rights” as declared by the Founders 230 years ago amid the ringing of bells in Philadelphia, the United States effectively rescinded that concept on a dreary fall day in Washington.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/101806.html