quote:

---

# Davis Says:
September 29th, 2006 at 12:55 am

The terrorists hate our freedom. So if we get rid of it, they'll leave us alone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf

Nor does it clearly define 'terrorist' as far as I know.

Edit: A system would be established to prosecute an "unlawful enemy combatant," defined as a person "who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its cobelligerents."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf

Population appeasment.

---

quote:

---

The legislation would establish a military court system to prosecute terrorism suspects and grant defendants more legal rights than they had under the administration's system, but it would eliminate rights usually granted in civilian and military courts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dude

The problem with this bill, aside from the fact it legalizes torture, is that is suspends habeus corpus rights to "unlawful enemy combatants", and provides a loophole that lets the government declare anyone (US citizens included) an unlawful enemy combatant if they suspect they have provided assistance to somebody who is, in fact, an enemy combatant.

Shit, the secret service already thinks they can arrest you for publicly (to his face) criticizing Darth Cheney.

When Bush signs this bill into law (it passed both house and senate), everyone is at risk of being detained without any real reason. Check out a few books on Islam from the library? Use you credit card to buy some from B&N? Surf Arabic terrorist websites, or maybe even the Aljazeera website?

Evidence is no longer needed to detain you.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps you could provide evidence of some of these claims? Notably:

2) It suspends habeus corpus rights to anyone that had them before the bill.

3) It could be used against any US citizen for merely visiting a web site or checking out the wrong book from the library.

---

quote:

---

Ackerman of Yale Law says:

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.

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. They can be designated as enemy combatants if they have contributed money to a Middle Eastern charity, and they can be held indefinitely in a military prison.

Not to worry, say the bill's defenders. The president can't detain somebody who has given money innocently, just those who contributed to terrorists on purpose.

But other provisions of the bill call even this limitation into question. What is worse, if the federal courts support the president's initial detention decision, ordinary Americans would be required to defend themselves before a military tribunal without the constitutional guarantees provided in criminal trials.

Legal residents who aren't citizens are treated even more harshly. The bill entirely cuts off their access to federal habeas corpus, leaving them at the mercy of the president's suspicions.

---

quote:

---

One of the most disturbing provisions of this bill eliminates the right of habeas corpus for those detained as enemy combatants. I support an amendment by Senator Specter to strike that provision from the bill. I ask unanimous consent that my separate statement on that amendment be put in the record at the appropriate point.

Habeas corpus is a fundamental recognition that in America, the government does not have the power to detain people indefinitely and arbitrarily. And that in America, the courts must have the power to review the legality of executive detention decisions.

Habeas corpus is a longstanding vital part of our American tradition, and is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

As a group of retired judges wrote to Congress, habeas corpus "safeguards the most hallowed judicial role in our constitutional democracy--ensuring that no man is imprisoned unlawfully."

This bill would fundamentally alter that historical equation. Faced with an executive branch that has detained hundreds of people without trial for years now, it would eliminate the right of habeas corpus.

Under this legislation, some individuals, at the designation of the executive branch alone, could be picked up, even in the United States, and held indefinitely without trial and without any access whatsoever to the courts. They would not be able to call upon the laws of our great nation to challenge their detention because they would have been put outside the reach of the law.

---

quote:

---

The MCA greatly expands the definition of enemy combatants, because it greatly expands the definition of "unlawful enemy combatants." If the government may detain any enemy combatants, a fortiori it may detain unlawful ones. The new definition is fuzzy: it includes citizens who "materially support" hostilities against the U.S. or whom the DoD says are unlawful enemy combatants.

Hamdi, however, states that citizens have the right under the Due Process Clause to contest their designation as enemy combatants. Because section 948a(1)(ii) purports to make determinations of enemy combatant status conclusive, it is unconstitutional to that extent. Moreover, some applications of "material support" in section 948(1)(i) would violate the Due Process Clause or the First Amendment.


But even putting those cases to one side, the new definition is still troubling: there would be many cases where the new definition is not otherwise unconstitutional but sweeps up people who pose no serious threat to national security. For example, suppose a person knowingly lets an al Qaeda operative stay at their house overnight. That person may be in violation of federal law, but it's hardly clear that the government should have the right to detain such a person indefinitely in a military prison without Bill of Rights protections until the end of the War on Terror, whenever that is. The problem with 948a(1) is that it may place Congress's stamp of approval on a definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" that is far too broad and that allows the government to move a wide swath of citizens outside of the normal procedural protections of the criminal justice system and into a parallel system where the Bill of Rights does not apply.

---

quote:

---

The bill also expands the definition of an unlawful enemy combatant to cover anyone who has “has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.” Quick, define “purposefully and materially.” One person has already been charged with aiding terrorists because he sold a satellite TV package that includes the Hezbollah netw

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dude

Mycroft asked:

quote:

---

Perhaps you could provide evidence of some of these claims? Notably:
1) That the bill legalizes torture.

---

Scratch that one, different bill. My bad.

---

quote:

---

The US Senate has passed controversial legislation endorsing President George W Bush's proposals to interrogate and prosecute foreign terror suspects.

The bill forbids treatment of detainees that would constitute war crimes - such as torture, rape and biological experiments - but gives the president the authority to decide which other techniques interrogators can use.

Others backed claims by human rights groups that worry that the complex set of rules will allow harsh techniques that border on torture - such as sleep deprivation.

"This bill gives an administration that lobbied for torture exactly what it wanted," said Senator John Kerry.

But there is the possibility that this new legislation could also be challenged in the Supreme Court.

---

quote:

---

Detainee bill lifts Bush's power to new heights President now has legal authority even courts can't challenge

Rather than reining in the formidable presidential powers that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have asserted since Sept. 11, 2001, the law gives some of those powers a solid statutory foundation. In effect it allows the president to identify enemies, imprison them indefinitely and interrogate them -- albeit with a ban on the harshest treatment --

The bill...does more than allow the president to determine the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions; it strips the courts of jurisdiction to hear challenges to his interpretation.

And it broadens the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" to include not only those who fight the United States, but also those who have "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States." The latter group could include those accused of providing financial or other indirect support to terrorists, human rights groups say. The designation can be made by any "competent tribunal" created by the president or secretary of defense.

Overall, the legislation reallocates power among the three branches of government, taking authority away from the judiciary and handing it to the president.

"The president walked away with a lot more than most people thought," Ackerman said. He said the bill "further entrenches presidential power" and allows the administration to declare even a U.S. citizen an unlawful combatant subject to indefinite detention. "And it's not only about these prisoners," Ackerman said. "If Congress can strip courts of jurisdiction over cases because it fears their outcome, judicial independence is threatened."

---

quote:

---

Bush could bypass new torture ban, Waiver right is reserved
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | January 4, 2006

WASHINGTON -- When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.

After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.

''The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote, adding that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

Some legal specialists said yesterday that the president's signing statement, which was posted on the White House website but had gone unnoticed over the New Year's weekend, raises serious questions about whether he intends to follow the law.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dude
Perhaps it is an improper assumption on my part, but if we can assume that we (US citizens) have habeus corpus rights, then we must also assume that every human on the planet has that right. Anything less is pure hypocracy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dude
There has been, in the US, a person arrested and charged with aiding terrorists because he sold a satellite TV package with the Hizbollah network included.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beskeptigal
But, it will take a few years to travel through the courts. Thus when the Democrats take control of the House and Senate in November, the bill will prevent them charging Bush with war crimes and/or crimes against habeas corpus and human rights abuses until the bill is thrown out by the court.

---