FRIDAY NIGHT NEWS DUMP: Bush introduces Terror Bill - Be terrified!

[debbierlus]

"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."

Questions, questions, and questions:

How long? Stop when:

BUSH INTRODUCES TERROR BILL THAT WOULD ALLOW DETAINMENT OF 'ENEMY COMBATANTS' UNTIL HOSTILITIES CEASE...

Duration: Until hostilities cease - Hostilities? Do you mean WAR? Or, more specifically your war on a FEELING (TERRORism)...But, you probably don't mean that because a war has to be declared and them damn liberals could argue that the war on 'terror' was never a declared war with any region or people at ALL. So, war wouldn't cover his ass. But, HOSTILITIES. That is just vague enough to be open to interpretation...Anyone from any nation!Now your talking!

Next question: Who is a enemy combatant?

The bill defines enemy combatants as "ANYONE ENGAGED IN HOSTILITIES (there's that H word, again) AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OR ITs COALITION PARTNERS THAT HAS COMMITTED AN ACT THAT VIOLATES A LAW OF WAR OR THIS STATUTE...

Whaaa Whaaaaaaa...WHAT????

Anyone who engages in HOSTILITIES (we just went through that)..(Against the United States OR anyone else the US says it is engaging in hostilities against..that violates the laws of war ...(Wait, didn't we just determine that there was no declared war?...Oh wait....I didn't finish reading it)...OR THIS STATUTE...(VERY clever war OR THIS statute, the one that just determined we could detain anyone from anywhere until hositilities cease...BRILLIANT...Ties it up in a neat little package)!

More from the article:

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.

To summarize: BUSH JUST SUBMITTED A BILL THAT WOULD LEGALIZE HIM TO DETAIN ANYONE, ANYWHERE THAT HE DEEMED A THREAT!!! Who is the BIGGEST threat to Bush & co? Think hard. EVERYONE AND ANYONE WHO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT HIS ADMINSTRATION AND EXPOSE HIS LIES.

Like I said....Be terrified.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/07/28/bush_submits_new_terror_detainee_bill/

[Lindacooks]

1. Um, doesn't that mean that Bush/Cheney will be arrested?

ANYONE ENGAGED IN HOSTILITIES (there's that H word, again) AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OR ITs COALITION PARTNERS THAT HAS COMMITTED AN ACT THAT VIOLATES A LAW OF WAR...

I mean, according to the Supreme Court they have violated the Geneva Convention, which is a law of war...

I know chimpy doesn't know what the hell he's doing, and he just reads statements and speeches and then blurts out talking points again and again and again, but isn't there a point where his brain would explode with all of the cognitive dissonance he generates? The things he rails against are the same things that HE does!

[debbierlus]

2. Not as long as they are calling the shots...They DEFINE it as THEY please.

Evil.

[Rex]

3. Bush is now trying to get impeached!

I can't even see Repuke congresscritters going along with this. If they do, then Bush would have the legal authority to arrest them! Holding American citizens indefinitely, without legal representation. Even congresscritters wouldn't be immune! How fucking draconian!

[debbierlus]

4. But, Congress is ALREADY irrelevant in Bush world

He has shown them he will ignore and break their law AT WILL.

What power do THEY have? What are they going to do? Impeach him?

Not a chance. And, the dems won't get to do it since they are going to steal the election again.

These guys will NOT give up their power.

[Rex]

5. Well if publicly Bush starts arresting Congress folks

then I think you would see a breakdown in civil order. He just can't do it and maintain the illusion of us living in a Republic.

[debbierlus]

7. Hopefully, you are right.

[bdamomma]

14. let's see if those congress senators stick up for themselves

or fall in line with the bush doctrine. "enemy combatants" would protestors be funneled into that description? you know what I say to that, fuck you george.

[Rex]

17. Yeah, if they go along with the bill and fall in line then it is over.

Bush could have everyone on the SCOTUS bench arrested and held indefinitely, without contact with the outside world or representation by a lawyer. I hope people understand that. All in the name of 'national security'. :eyes:

[bdamomma]

15. let's see if those congress senators stick up for themselves

or fall in line with the bush doctrine. "enemy combatants" would protestors be funneled into that description? you know what I say to that, fuck you george.

[bdamomma]

16. let's see if those congress senators stick up for themselves

or fall in line with the bush doctrine. "enemy combatants" would protestors be funneled into that description? you know what I say to that, fuck you george.

[proud patriot]

6. No way , No how

:grr:

[me b zola]

8. This is not good

How many in congress will go along with this? Geezus this shit ain't funny. :scared:

[MzNov]

9. here it is folks, the fancy footwork after the Supremes ruling

the other week about the Geneva convention. BushCrimeCo vowed they would "work out something" to get around the ruling. These are the lowest, most evil, sleazy, scumbag inhumane fat fuckers I've ever seen in my life. I hate every stinking one of them.

huff. I feel better, but not much.


Impeach them all, now. and don't forget to take LIEBERMAN with you.

Nedrenaline!

:bounce:

[GrpCaptMandrake]

10. I have a sinking feeling that this is the bill

Specter promised that the Congress would pass in response to the Hamdan case.

I'll say it again, only differently: this bill is on greased rails. It has been crafted specifically for the holdings in the Hamdan case.

They're going to do this, and a lot of Democrats will be too timid to oppose it. I bet I could compile a list of Dem senators who will support it and not be off by more than 2 or 3.

Let's start the list:

Lieberman
Ben Nelson
Robert Byrd
Bill Nelson
Blanche Lincoln
David Pryor
Mary Landrieu
Herb Kohl

. . .

[zapp]

11. Joe Biden

[GrpCaptMandrake]

13. Oh, yeah!

I forgot the Senior Senator from CitiCorp

[Pokey Anderson]

19. I think I know where you got your crib sheet

Looks a lot like those slime who greased the skids to get Alito confirmed.

I believe that was one of the most important votes a congresscritter has made in the past decade.

Course, if you just saw an MSNBC poll that had 87% (of over 1/4 million voting) favoring impeaching Bush, I guess you'd be trying to pass draconian laws too.

[izzie]

12. More power for our little generals. Just Great. Does any one

hear Washington spinning in his grave?

[DistressedAmerican]

18. If it it possible to recommend a thread and blow chunks at the same time

I just did. :puke:

[madmusic]

20. More details here:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/

[magellan]

21. K&R

All I can say is we (the US) are doomed if this passes.

[Cleita]

22. Betcha he's got Cindy Sheehan in his gun sights.

He had her ejected at the state of the union speech. I really believe he wants the authority to get her arrested as a terrorist. D'ya think?

[Kablooie]

23. They are rushing to consummate the dictatorship before the elections.

Expect to see a lot more monstrous horror laws being passed before November.
By the time the Democrats get in, the laws may be all wrapped up and taken
out of their hands.

[MoseyWalker]

31. Sure looks that way to me

man. What next?

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. The "Abolishment of Habeas Corpus" Bill? The "Star Chamber" Bill?

Astounding. Surely it's all unconstitutional?

[Disturbed]

25. Defintion of "Combatant"?

Combatant
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A combatant is a person who takes a direct part in the hostilities of an armed conflict who upon capture qualifies for prisoner of war under the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII). An unlawful combatant is someone, such as a mercenary, who take a direct part in the hostilities but who upon capture does not qualify for prisoner of war status.<1>

To qualify for Prisoner of war status persons waging war must have the following characteristics to be protected by the laws of war:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict
2. or members of militias not under the command of the armed forces
* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
* that of carrying arms openly;
* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. or are members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. or inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. 'Combatant' as defined by the bill

As for who can be detained and tried in military court:

On first glance, the proposal does not appear to be limited to aliens (the word "alien" was repeatedly deleted), nor even to Al Qaeda and other groups and individuals covered by the September 18, 2001 AUMF -- it covers any and all "enemy combatants" against the U.S. and its allies in any conflict, anywhere and at any time. And "unlawful enemy combatant" is defined to include -- but not be limited to -- an individual or is or was "part of or supporting" Taliban or Al Qaeda forces, or associated forces engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or its coalition partners. If I'm reading this right, if you're a citizen alleged to have "supported" a hostile group "associated" with Al Qaeda, you can be (i) detained until the "cessation of hostilities" (with whom? doesn't say); and (ii) tried before a military commission.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/07/bush-administration-draft-hamdan.html

[debbierlus]

26. Yes. Everything they do is against the constitution and law.

What will it take?

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

28. Jesus... He's setting the table for The New American Gestapo...

It's open season on any and all that might displease the Chimperor or his minions.

[The Cleaner]

29. Freedom is spreading like wildfire!

Liberty is on the move!
:sarcasm:

(as if I REALLY needed the sarcasm smilie)

[Up2Late]

30. Grrr!

:grr:

[WilliamPitt]

32. This is the legislation to get them out from under Hamden v. Rumsfeld

[BelgianMadCow]

33. Yeah. Just put in a little "retroactive application" signing statement

and woopsie daisy, job's done.

Well, good to know all the tx $$$$ spent on building extra detention ... erm, camps I guess, is foreseen to have some "good" use.

The world right now is beyond scary but mostly everybody just tags along. People over here think the US has gone crazy but they don't see the implications.

[mhatrw]

34. They simply can NOT get away with this one.

We have to fight them tooth and nail on this. We can not let BushCo use the Repukongress to rescind the Bill of Rights!

[greiner3]

35. Does anyone know if there is anyone in the legislative branch;

Who's name or nickname is Brutus? :rofl:

[MsMagnificent]

36. That takes care of protesters

Now we know why those massive detention centers (read: Concentration camps) for a vague & unspecified population were being built.

K & R, absolutement!

[BelgianMadCow]

37. ttt!

[Armstead]

38. Of course most political leaders will let this one get through

Why not?

The leadership of both parties have basically allowed George "Orwell" Bush and his buddies to ram through all kinds of rotten termites into the foundation of a free society.


No reason to think anything will change now.