Terror bill targets Americans

[babylonsister]

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061004/OPINION/610040326/1166

Bruce Ackerman is a professor of law and political science at Yale and author of Before the Next Attack: Preserving Civil Liberties in an Age of Terrorism.

Terror bill targets Americans
By Bruce Ackerman
Special to the Los Angeles Times


Buried in the complex Senate compromise on detainee treatment is a real shocker, reaching far beyond the legal struggles about foreign terrorism 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.

We are not dealing with hypothetical abuses. The president has already subjected a citizen to military confinement. Consider the case of Jose Padilla. A few months after 9-11, he was seized by the Bush administration as an "enemy combatant" upon his arrival at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. He was wearing civilian clothes and had no weapons. Despite his American citizenship, he was held for more than three years in a military brig, without any chance to challenge his detention before a military or civilian tribunal. After a federal appellate court upheld the president's extraordinary action, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, handing the administration's lawyers a terrible precedent.

more...

[AX10]

1. TAKE BACK THE CONGRESS!

Vote November 7th!

[sam sarrha]

2. what do you expect with people like Negraponte and Killinger in the GOV

Negraponte is known as the Butcher of Guatemala.. responsible for the murder of over 80,000 peasants, Killinger was involved of the murder of millions of North Viet Namese, some say 3 million.. because he said to stay the course.. remember the Christmas civilian Bombings.. they carpet bombed the capital of N Viet Nam with B52's

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. Recommended

I really hope this post makes the first page. These facts should be trumpeted around the blogsphere as loudly as possible.

[Double T]

4. With the stroke of bushco's pen, America becomes........

a police state and democracy ends.

[Dhalgren]

5. And it happens with hardly a whimper. Most Americans don't

even know about the bill, at all. I have spoken with literally dozens of liberal-leaning people (most at a university!) and they were all but unaware of this bill. And those who were aware of it, did not understand its importance. After the first couple of people I talked with, I became (perhaps overly) excited and began button-holing folks left and right. I began to understand what Clark meant about having his "hair on fire"...

[bandb 88]

6. THANKS

for posting
the dream and the idea of The United States of America died on sept 28 and nobody knows or cares.:cry:

[babylonsister]

7. You came to the right place, bandb 88. We know, and care!

And welcome to DU! :hi:

[sarcasmo]

8. Kick and Nom.

[glitch]

9. Weren't they supposed to come for a lot of other people before they got to

us? "First they came for..." guess they learned to be more efficient and just come for everybody.

[pat_k]

10. RIGHTS NOT JUDICALLY ENFORCEABLE provision applies to ALL PERSONS

You don't need to be a lawyer to be horrified by this one. It is simple.

1. Every instance of person thoughout this document is qualified in some manner, except ONE.
   
   For example, we see
   ". . .person who has engaged in hostilities. . ."
   ". . .person who is part of the Taliban. . ."
   ". . .persons who are authorized to detail such counsel for such commissions. . ."
   ". . .person subject to chapter 47 of. . ."
   ". . .person accused of torture. . ."
   ". . .person subject to this chapter. . ."
   ". . .such persons. . ."
   
   The exception is the provision that STRIPS us of our right to enforce our rights.
   
   
   • Final version
     (Enrolled Bill) as passed by both Houses
     
     SEC. 5. TREATY OBLIGATIONS NOT ESTABLISHING GROUNDS FOR CERTAIN CLAIMS.
     (a) In General- No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories.
     
     To view the bill search at http://thomas.loc.gov (enter "S.3930.ENR" and select the Bill Number radio button. The printer friendly version is easiest to search)
   
   
   
   • Original
     White House version
     SEC. 6. SATISFACTION OF TREATY OBLIGATIONS.
     (b) RIGHTS NOT JUDICIALLY ENFORCEABLE.— (1) IN GENERAL.—No person in any habeas action or any other action may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto as a source of rights, whether directly or indirectly, for any purpose in any court of the United States or its States or territories. . .
     
     http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/nkk/documents/MilitaryCommissions.pdf



2. The phrase: "RIGHTS NOT JUDICIALLY ENFORCEABLE."
   
   The phrase itself demonstrates a recognition that rights actually existed, and the intent to violate those rights through non-enforcement.
   
   The WH intent to violate our rights was advanced by the Congress. Omitting the phrase was a deliberate act on the part of Congress to hide their criminal intent.
   
   Yes. It is just that simple.
   
   Case Closed on the newly inaugurated War Criminal Nation.

If they are Rights they Cannot be Unenforceable.

[OneBlueSky]

11. but wait . . . there's more . . .

I'm not yet sure what the "more" is, mind you, but . . .

I can't wait for his signing statement for THIS one! . . .