The bill that just passed

[Phantom]

Have you guys seen that new bill that passed. I am not 100% sure what it is all about but I think it is mosltly this. Various tourture techniqes are legalized. Enemy combatants no longer have the right to a fair trial and can be held infinatly in prisons. If you are suspected of being a terrorist or partaking in terrorist activitys such as funding them you can be taken and held without a trail.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h6166ih.txt.pdf

I think it also for pardoning bush of war crimes. (abu garib etc)

I am accualy not sure what to think. This kinda has me worried we might be on our way to a facism. These are major violations of human and civil rights and violations of the constitution.
They just use vague wording and call it "tools to fight terrorism" Now I am sure that I would be called weak or whatever but I believe in the principles of our country, and am very against giving up our libertys for the "need" or "security" thats the same thing hitler did.

Or maybe I am blowing this way out of proportion.
Disscus.

[cmpcmp]

Pull you head out of the smokey back room, and breath some fresh air away form the bush bashing propaganda websites.... ok now that we have our sanity back, lets see what this bill really says.
(this is a summary)
Earlier, the Senate narrowly rejected an amendment, sponsored by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), that would have allowed suspected terrorists to challenge their detention in federal court. Senators voted 51 to 48 against the amendment, which called for deleting from the bill a provision that rules out habeas corpus petitions for foreigners held in the war on terrorism. The writ of habeas corpus, which is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, allows people to challenge in court the legality of their detention, essentially meaning that they cannot be held indefinitely without charge or trial.

The issue was one of the most contentious in the bill, which authorizes the president "to establish military commissions for the trial of alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses. . . ." Under the rules in the bill, statements obtained from a detainee by torture would not be admissible as evidence, but information extracted using harsh interrogation methods that violate a ban on "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" would be allowed if they were obtained before the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 went into effect on Dec. 30 and if a judge found them to be reliable and in the interests of justice.

The proposed legislation would also set the parameters for interrogating terrorism suspects. It bars the president from authorizing any interrogation techniques that amount to war crimes, which it says include torture, murder, mutilation or maiming, rape, sexual abuse, serious bodily injury, hostage-taking, biological experiments and cruel or inhuman treatment. However, the president could "interpret the meaning and application" of Geneva Convention standards regarding less severe interrogation methods, the Associated Press reported.

Under a compromise reached last week with three recalcitrant Republican senators, the bill omits a provision sought by Bush that interpreted U.S. obligations under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Critics said that provision amounted to redefining a key part of the conventions and would put captured U.S. troops at risk if an enemy decided to do the same.

This by NPR

Legal Protections for Citizens vs. Non-Citizens

So far the courts have been vague on the topic of defining Americans as enemy combatants. The only explicit ruling the Supreme Court offered was in the case of Yasser Hamdi. The justices said an American detained on the battlefield in Afghanistan could be declared an enemy combatant, as long as he had an opportunity to challenge his detention.

The high court hasn't ruled yet on whether Americans picked up in the United States can be enemy combatants, and if so, under what standard. The new legislation spells that out. Fordham University law professor Catherine Powell says the court is more likely to defer to Congress than to a rule that comes straight from the White House.

"Going back to the Civil War, the Supreme Court has often felt more comfortable with actions that have the support of both the executive and legislative branch than those that just have the support of the executive branch," Powell says.

Americans held as enemy combatants have certain legal rights. They can challenge their detention, and if they're charged with war crimes, they get more rights at their trials than non-citizens.

By contrast, the legislation puts non-citizen enemy combatants in a very different situation. If they aren't charged with a war crime, they may never be brought to court at all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok as i understand it.....
Various tourture techniqes are legalized

sort of but not really.
Under the rules in the bill, statements obtained from a detainee by torture would not be admissible as evidence, but information extracted using harsh interrogation methods that violate a ban on "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" would be allowed if they were obtained before the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 went into effect on Dec. 30 and if a judge found them to be reliable and in the interests of justice.
thats a lot different than legalizing 'torture'.

Enemy combatants no longer have the right to a fair trial and can be held infinatly in prisons.
An enemy compatant wouldn't get an 'amercain trial', instead a military tribunal trial (which have been used on the past like civil war and such) which is still a trial.
-Im not sure about the indefinite prison though, cuz if they aren't charged w/ anything then wouldn't they have to let them go? If they never get a trial thats messed up.

If you are suspected of being a terrorist or partaking in terrorist activitys such as funding them you can be taken and held without a trail.

What you said about the second part is wrong, americans get more rights than aliens even if the american is deemed an enemy combatant.
Americans held as enemy combatants have certain legal rights. They can challenge their detention, and if they're charged with war crimes, they get more rights at their trials than non-citizens.


I think it also for pardoning bush of war crimes. (abu garib etc)

Im not 100% possitive but im pretty sure that, that only related to the use of 'harsh interrogation' (not torture) up form 9/11.
PS. Bush wasn't specificly involved in Abu Graib, how can the leader be held accountable for the actions of all the soldiers individualy?

violations of the constitution.
Non us citizens don't have our constitutional rights, so if it is an Alien enemy combatant then how can we break their constitutional rights? plus if an american is deemed an enamy combatant, then they still get the stuff like habeus corpus and such (constitutional rights).

Or maybe I am blowing this way out of proportion.
I think so, and i sure hope so. If this was what many left wing sites made it out to be, there would be riots in the streets all over america, and i would take part in them.

[Phantom]

This is not left wing propaganda, just look at the bill. I did not find this on some bush bashing site

[cmpcmp]

Ok, sorry if i miss characterized ur source, but if u look at a sample left wing blog summary of the bill, we now live under hitler.

[Phantom]

Ok, sorry if i miss characterized ur source, but if u look at a sample left wing blog summary of the bill, we now live under .Its not that bad, as the libs like to make it out to be.
I dont aggre with this bill from what I have read, , infinate holding, basicly if the gov dosnt like you they can classifie you as an "enemy combatant" and imprison you for as long as they want while they think up ways to charge you.

[cmpcmp]

basicly if the gov dosnt like you they can classifie you as an "enemy combatant" and imprison you for as long as they want while they think up ways to charge you.
the gov can't really characterize you as an enegy combatant willy nilly, there are review boards and such. If you are an american citizen, you also have all fo your judicial rights (does that include the clisifed evidence stuff?) intact. If you live in a 1st world nation the US has a treaty w/ ur country, so i highly doubt that the US would cause an internationnal incident to arrest u as an enemy combatant.

[Whisper]

A canadian citizen has just been released
he was takin by america without just cause transported to another country and tortured

it seems he was innocent all along

[cmpcmp]

A canadian citizen has just been released
he was takin by america without just cause transported to another country and tortured

it seems he was innocent all along
-was he in canada when he was arested?
-was it reasonaly to think that he did it, at all, before all the facts had been played out?
-By torture do you mean physical beating, and excessive pain type stuff,
-or do you mean the stuff that is cruel or demening that has been clasified as agressive interrogation?
-if you abide strictly by the geneva convention (which the terrorist didn't sign, don't follow, and don't claim to either), we couldn't use Woman CIA interrogators of middle earstern extremists becuase it would be unnecesarily demening to to the prisoner. Do you think thats right? cuz they are sexist we have to follow what they want? Also playing Christine Agulara may also break the geneva convention. lol

[*Dissident*]

im going to have to side with Phantom on this one, really. It does appear that Bush and the Senate are actually moving the way of Facism, but it is yet to be seen if they will really go that far. I think its up to everyone of us to openly protest Torture and and this bill in general.

[cmpcmp]

Currently the definition of torture in the US (by the military, which is where the tribunals are) includes physical beating and excessive use of pain, im pretty sure water with-holding (not to the point of death or loss of serious health) is now torute, and under the bill it isn't admissable in court, even if it already happened before the bill.

Agressive interrogation (or interrogation at all) is still legall, it includes things like playing american music of anykind, sleep deprivation (not to a loss of health), and other such things. I don't consider this torture but the geneva convention forbids anything other than "questioning". If we caught Osama, would you be ok with only asking him questions and then relesaing him/jailing him while we probly knew of many terrorist plots currently in action?

[Phantom]

If we want to tourture people we send them to cuba to have their penis and balls cut open with a razor. Our founding fathers would be proud.

[cmpcmp]

If we want to tourture people we send them to cuba to have their penis and balls cut open with a razor. Our founding fathers would be proud.

If you have some kind of evidence that torture (things like mutilation as u "cite" above) is institutionalized in Guantanamo go ahead and post ur sources. I know and can find sources that are relible, that say that Guantanao prisoners aren't tortured in a currently illegal in america sense. .... ir ur alegations were founded in any way shape or form, I might have taken the time to find a source or 2.

SO untill then.....

[Phantom]

If you have some kind of evidence that torture (things like mutilation as u "cite" above) is institutionalized in Guantanamo go ahead and post ur sources. I know and can find sources that are relible, that say that Guantanao prisoners aren't tortured in a currently illegal in america sense. .... ir ur alegations were founded in any way shape or form, I might have taken the time to find a source or 2.

SO untill then.....I didnt say guantanamo, there they just burn prisoners with cigaretes and cover them in shit and get on top of each other naked in a mass orgy. If we want to tourture people we deport them. Yes some guy did get deported somewhere where they slashed his penis and testicals with a razor blade.

[cmpcmp]

we send them to cuba
Sounded like a Gitmo reference. SRY

we send them to Cuba? Im confused

[Melchi0r]

That bill = unfair to the max.

[Phantom]

Sounded like a Gitmo reference. SRY

we send them to Cuba? Im confusedIts cool. I am accualy not sure on the exact country we send them to, it varies syria,cuba or some other 3rd world country.

[cmpcmp]

That bill = unfair to the max.
-Nice reasoning....

Phantom, are you saying that we deport ppl from thoes countries, or that we deport americans?

[Phantom]

-Nice reasoning....

Phantom, are you saying that we deport ppl from thoes countries, or that we deport americans?Well with this new bill anybody can be a combatant if the goverment labels you so.
I am saying that insurgents or whoever are the ones getting deported to get their balls sliced.

[cmpcmp]

Well with this new bill anybody can be a combatant if the goverment labels you so.
I am saying that insurgents or whoever are the ones getting deported to get their balls sliced.

In the bill we detain them and try them here....
-I think its harder than you make it sound to male some one an illegal combatant, and US illeagl combatants get all or nearly all of their constitutional rights (Im not sure abouth the secret evidence stuff)