"The MCA eliminates the constitutional due process right of habeas corpus for detainees at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere. It allows our government to continue to hold hundreds of prisoners for more than five years without charges.
It also gives any president the power to declare — on his or her own — who is an enemy combatant, decide who should be held indefinitely without being charged with a crime and define what is — and what is not — torture and abuse"http://www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/commissions.html"Makes the president his own judge and jury.
Under the Military Commissions Act, the president has the power to define what is — and what is not — torture and abuse, even though the Geneva Conventions already provide us with a guide."Allowing Bush to define torture is codifying torture - because Bush redefined torture well before the passage of the MCA of 2006. They were water-boarding LONG before the MCA 2006 and Bush does NOT define water-boarding as torture - he calls it
"Enhanced Interrogation Techniques""Turns a blind eye to past abuses.
Government officials who authorized or ordered illegal acts of torture and abuse would receive retroactive immunity for their crimes, providing them with a ‘get out of jail free' card."
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/29145res20070322.htmlYou allow for immunity for torture then you have codified immunity for torture. You have, in effect, codified the torture you are too cowardly to prosecute for...
Does the bill provide immunity for past war crimes?
"Prior to the MCA, the federal War Crimes Act stated, among other things, that all violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions were war crimes. The MCA amends the War Crimes Act so that only “grave breaches” of Common Article 3 (as defined by the MCA) now constitute war crimes. The “grave breaches” language sets a higher threshold for what constitutes a war crime. For example, Common Article 3 prohibits all cruel or inhuman treatment, including humiliating and degrading treatment and outrages upon personal dignity. But under the MCA, only the most severe cruel or inhuman treatment – that which amounts to “severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering” – constitutes a war crime. In addition, prior to the MCA amendments, it was a war crime to deprive a detainee who was covered by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, of the rights of fair trial. Under the MCA amendments, subjecting a detainee to an unfair trial is no longer a war crime under the War Crimes act.
The MCA amendments to the War Crimes Act are retroactive to November 26, 1997 (when the War Crimes Act came into effect). Thus, those who engaged in conduct that would have violated the broader scope of prohibitions prior to the MCA are now immune from prosecution for such conduct, at least as war crimes (there are many other criminal and military laws that prohibit cruel treatment). "
"Does the bill give the President authority to redefine the humane treatment requirements of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions?
Nothing in the MCA would permit the President to change the meaning and requirements of the Geneva Conventions. Those requirements remain intact, all U.S. personnel must comply with them, and the courts remain the final arbiter of their meaning.
(However - )
The MCA does recognize that the President has authority to interpret treaties as he carries them out. But anytime the President issues interpretations of Common Article 3, they must be published in the Federal Register and are subject to congressional and judicial oversight. The new law emphasizes that it is not changing the constitutional role of the courts and Congress. The courts, as always, have the duty to say what the law means.
The MCA claims to strip away a key check on Executive Branch compliance with U.S. and international law: the ability of the courts to hear challenges to detention via the writ of habeas corpus and civil lawsuits.
The MCA explicitly seeks to prevent courts from hearing claims of violations of the Geneva Conventions. "(and torture is what? a violation of the Geneva Conventions..so if you vote to prevent violations of the Geneva Conventions from getting a hearing...you are codifying torture.)
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/ca3/hrf-ca3-102406.htmlPeople in Congress can pretend they say NO to something and then add the "but the President might do something" in an attempt to place all the blame elsewhere but that's just a cowardly cop out.
They're still saying Yes...and I'm not pretending otherwise.
The Pentagon MemoThe Enhanced Language of GuiltTruly Masterful BullshitI Will Not Pretend Otherwise...How I know Cheney did confess to water boarding
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
