Solarbird ([info]solarbird) wrote,
@ 2006-09-28 18:52:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood: sad
Current music:Гимн партии большевиков
Entry tags:politics

Better not piss off the executive
The torture/ending of habeas corpus/executive can declare anyone an enemy combatant bill just passed the Senate. 12 Democrats voted for it; only one Republican voted against. Mr. Bush is expected to sign it tomorrow. Whether unlimited detention powers and the degree of denial to access to courts includes citizens is unclear, but I imagine that the Bush administration will argue that it does. I can't speak more to the bankruptcy of the American political system than Arlen Specter's own words and actions:

During the debate on his amendment, Arlen Specter said that the bill sends us back 900 years because it denies habeas corpus rights and allows the President to detain people indefinitely. He also said the bill violates core Constitutional protections. Then he voted for it.*
These are not the powers of a president in a republic.

Thanks to everyone who worked against this abomination. Everyone who voted for this has to lose in the next election, but, of course, most won't. It is a very long road back to sanity from here; even the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 and the Sedition Act of 1918 didn't attempt to remove the right to court review. How vile.
* Link is to source, one of many.

(Post a new comment)


[info]foibos
2006-09-29 07:09 am UTC (link)
Interesting to speculate on how what the next move is. I don't really see this coming up until the next presidential election, but I wouldn't be surprised if Mr Bush decides the Nation needs him for longer than two terms. Would he then just remove the limit on terms, or would he dispense with elections completely?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]solarbird
2006-09-30 05:03 pm UTC (link)
He has talked within Republican circles about needing to get things done by 2006 because "after that, I'll be quacking like a duck," which is to say, will be a "lame duck" president serving out the reset of his term. This was not particularly for press consumption, so presumably the thought was genuine. Plus, there are too many others who will want the position next. Indeed, the fundamentalists have been grooming Senator Brownback - who is deeply and truly one of their own - as a successor.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]britzkrieg
2006-09-29 03:16 pm UTC (link)
What's the bill's official designation? It's SB number? I can't seem to find this anywhere. Thanks.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]llachglin
2006-09-29 04:02 pm UTC (link)
S.3901
Military Commissions Act of 2006

http://thomas.loc.gov has the full text, but the text is on a generated search results page and not a static URL.

I found the language difficult to parse. On the surface, it appears to only apply to non-citizens, but some legal commentators have been saying that it might apply to citizens through some other language in the legislation. While the Geneva Conventions are out, other treaties against torture and Constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment seem intact at first glance. But again, knowledgeable legal commentators have suggested that language, popularly known as the McCain amendment, is overridden by an earlier section. I don't have the ability to parse either of those claims.

What is clear is that the right of "alien illegal enemy combatants" to habeas corpus, and to a speedy trial, are entirely revoked. The president can order the military to seize anyone who is not a US citizen, hold them indefinitely without charge, interrogate them with techniques most people would consider torture, delay their trial forever, and deny any avenue for review or appeal. Fun.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]dogemperor
2006-09-29 04:23 pm UTC (link)
Hell, knowing this fucking administration, they'd probably find some way to strip citizenship from Americans. (I'm not gonna say too much on that; I REALLY don't want to give them ideas.)

If we can't take the country back in 2006 or 2008 (thanks to the fucking rigged Diebold voting machines, this is, sadly, possible) people either need to start looking at 2nd-amendment options (which aren't likely--what the fuck you gonna fight a TANK with?) or start seriously exploring asylum options. I'm looking VERY hard at the second and have very seriously discussed the matter of other countries willing to offer asylum or that would otherwise be "safe havens"; Belgium, Sweden and Finland are my three main EU choices in case I have to bail the country and a good friend has also mentioned the Phillipines (which has a large ex-pat American community).

And yes, if things get much worse, I may have to bail the country. It makes me sick to think about, but with me being an outspoken walkaway from the very group that's hijacked the country, I'm gonna have a big red target painted on my ass. And I fucking refuse to end up like Anne Frank where I have to hide in a Hidden Annex for six years only to be dragged to a death camp (and in the dominionist churches, they DO talk about killing the unbelievers when they consolidate control, make no mistake).

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]llachglin
2006-09-29 04:06 pm UTC (link)
I suppose I should ask you. Do you understand the argument that says this legislation applies equally to citizens? I have read in many places that it does, but after reading the text it seems to apply only to "aliens." I'm also curious if you understand the argument that the "McCain amendment" is not operative.

This legislation is really bad regardless. But if those things are true, it means the suspension of our republic in all but name, at least until such time as this legislation is reversed.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]dogemperor
2006-09-29 04:28 pm UTC (link)
And--as others have noted on other forums--what legal protection IS there to keep the government from pretty much stripping citizenship from anyone accused of being an illegal combatant--or, worse yet, the president passing an executive order to that effect (seeing as the prez is who gets to decide who's an illegal combatant and who isn't)?

More and more I'm thinking it's going to come to an exodus of people from the US (a la the days before the Nazis completely locked down the borders) or people getting pissed enough to take things back (I'd say through the ballot-box, but anymore we have no guarantee that a fair vote is even possible due to Diebold; talking about other options is liable to get me monitored by three letter agencies (Hi NSA Mom! :D) so I'll not talk too much on that, but let your imagination do the walking).

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]solarbird
2006-09-29 09:26 pm UTC (link)
That's the thing; the bill is such a mess that nobody's entirely sure. There are sections that seem to clearly indicate that citizens fall under some - or all - of the previsions. Those are sometimes, and sometimes not, contradicted by other sections.

Here are three analyses; all of them say that there is at least leeway for some or all of the provisions to apply to American citizens:

Instapundit
National Review Online
Balkinization

With this junk heap of a bill, I feel pretty sure the executive will find plenty of ways to apply them to American citizens if and when they so desire.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]llachglin
2006-09-29 10:22 pm UTC (link)
The first two of those links really don't clarify the matter much. The third one helps a bit. Essentially, it seems to confirm that citizens designated as unlawful enemy combatants retain their habeas corpus rights under this law. That's good. However, the fact that citizens are now clearly subject to being declared unlawful enemy combatants is not good, even though they retain rights in civilian courts. Presumably, citizens can be detained as UECs, but at least we have rights to defend ourselves.

However, I recall that "Patriot II" legislation was floated (but not introduced) a while back that provided a means of stripping citizenship for involvement in various acts supporting terrorism. It seems the likely next step for the administration would be to revive those proposals in new legislation. Then we're all well and truly screwed.

As I said, these proposals are bad enough even if they only apply to non-citizens. I think Chris Clarke's "I am an enemy combatant" suggestion is the proper response. If we keep thinking this is something that happens to other people, we'll eventually find out it applies to ourselves, while immediately condemning innocent people. The better way to proceed is to acknowledge what this legislation really does: it makes all of us potential "unlawful enemy combatants," at the whim of the executive, and that puts everyone at risk.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]banner
2006-09-30 04:55 am UTC (link)
Okay, I sat down and read through the most pertinate (did I spell that right?) parts of this report, and I cannot see what all the fuss is about!!!! Unless of course you think illegal combatants should be tried in a court of law and not a military tribunal (mind you, soldiers and legal combatants are tried by military tribunal!).

I'm really starting to think that all the people whining about this are really rooting for the enemy, hate this country, and want to see us all die. I have yet to see anything in this that grants the President any new powers really. It just codifies what was always done; i.e. says you can try by tribunal and punish illegal combatents.

I'll keep digging though to see if there is anything in there that was worth all this noise.

Also, why does everyone here think that a military court is a kangaroo court? Talk about your BIAS.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]solarbird
2006-09-30 06:49 pm UTC (link)
I'm not surprised; you have been, after all, pro-torture - or at least pro-redefinition-of-torture to suit administration power desires. Personally, as far as I'm concerned, if we called it torture when the North Vietnamese, Soviets, and Khmer Rouge did it, then it's torture when we do it. For that matter, as far as I've been able to tell, you have supported essentially every addition of administrative power that has come up, and either opposed or had no interest in oversight rules. If you support unlimited executive power in general, or specifically to declare people enemy combatants without oversight or recourse, and if you support torture as a method in general, Constitutional issues asside, and if you see access to the courts as an unaffordable luxury, then indeed, I see very little reason to oppose this bill. And that side is well-represented in Congress, as is evidenced by the quick passage - largely unread! - of this legislation.

As for the military tribunals, many examinations have been made of them and they have generally found to be lacking in many respects. Amoungst these are their use of secret evidence which the defense is not allowed to see, much less prepare for; the complete lack of ability to face an accuser, and, shall we say, rather unenthusiastic defense attourneys appointed by the military. That's when they are actually invoked, which they rarely are.

I continue to assert that each time this administration fails, their response is to grab more power - Constitution be damned - as is typical of the incompetent. I further assert that these cannot be considered temporary measures, as the administration itself has said this war will go on for decades, and that we won't even know when it is over; in other words, that these are not even pretending to be emergency rules - these are the new normal. I refuse to accept this.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]banner
2006-09-30 09:02 pm UTC (link)
I don't support 'torture'. I'm sorry but what we do doesn't rise to the definition. I don't even think waterboarding really qualifies because you can't die from it, and it doesn't damage you in any way or form. I am willing to say that things like waterboarding should only be reserved for people like terrorists, and not regular POWs. So calling me pro-torture just isn't true.

Military tribunals do have some different rules, however you can get your own defense attorney if you want one. You can also appeal to the regular justice system, there being a court for military appeals run by the court system, and then you can go above that one to the Washington DC court of appeals. But I have NO problems with foreign terrorists not being able to see the accuser, secret evidence, etc. They're not citizens, they're not civilized, they're not entitled to all the nice wonders of our system if they're not going to play by the rules.

Lastly, I don't think our administration is grabbing any more power than any other administration does during a time of war. Incompetant? Compared to what? Who? There isn't anyone out there looking like they can do a better job, but there are one whole hell of a lot of people who want to surrender and run away. As long as we have people supporting Cindy Sheehan, believing that 9/11 was our fault, beleive that Bill Clinton tried to catch Bin Laden, and listening to the likes of Ted Kennedy, I think it's fair to say that Bush and Company are rocket scientists. Because by comparison, they are.

Bush just tried to do to the prisoners what every administration back to George Washington did. The Supreme court decided to get involved where they did not belong. So Congress passed a law codifing what precedent allows, plus telling Judges to stay out of something that they're not really allowed to butt into. When people who have already committed treason start being arrested for it, then I'll think that maybe you have a point. But they don't even go after those people so I find it hard to believe that this is some big evil conspiracy.

Like I said before, I keep hearing all this wailing and moaning and then when I go look there is nothing there. The only thing the left is doing is making me start to wish someone actually -would- arrest them all and throw them in jail, just to shut them up if nothing else. Boy. Crying. Wolf.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…