Forum
- Home
- Forum
Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092800824.html
Congress approved landmark changes to the nation's system of interrogating and prosecuting terrorism suspects last night, preparing the ground for possible military trials for key al-Qaeda members under rules that critics say will draw stiff constitutional challenges.
The new bill is designed to legalize military commissions and to clarify interrogation techniques that CIA officers may use on terrorism suspects considered "unlawful enemy combatants," who are granted fewer protections than are prisoners of war. Hundreds of such detainees have been held for several years without trial at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, while others were held at secret prisons overseas.
The new measure, which the House approved 253 to 168 on Wednesday, rejects Bush's earlier bid to narrow U.S. obligations under the Geneva Conventions in the treatment of such detainees. But it grants the executive branch substantial leeway in deciding how to comply with treaty obligations regulating actions that fall short of "grave breaches" of the conventions.
It would bar military commissions from considering testimony obtained through interrogation techniques that involve "cruel, unusual or inhumane treatment or punishment," which the Constitution's Fifth, Eighth and 14th amendments prohibit. The bar would be retroactive only to Dec. 30, 2005 -- when Congress adopted the Detainee Treatment Act -- to protect CIA operatives from possible prosecution over interrogation tactics used before that date.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060927_molly_ivins_habeas_corpus/
The version of the detainee bill now in the Senate not only undoes much of the McCain-Warner-Graham work, but it is actually much worse than the administration’s first proposal. In one change, the original compromise language said a suspect had the right to “examine and respond to” all evidence used against him. The three senators said the clause was necessary to avoid secret trials. The bill has now dropped the word “examine” and left only “respond to.”
The bill also expands the definition of an unlawful enemy combatant to cover anyone who has “has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.” Quick, define “purposefully and materially.” One person has already been charged with aiding terrorists because he sold a satellite TV package that includes the Hezbollah network.
The bill simply removes a suspect’s right to challenge his detention in court. This is a rule of law that goes back to the Magna Carta in 1215. That pretty much leaves the barn door open.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/opinion/28thu1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
These are some of the bill’s biggest flaws:
Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.
The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there’s no requirement that this list be published.
Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.
Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.
Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.
Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.
Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.
•There is not enough time to fix these bills, especially since the few Republicans who call themselves moderates have been whipped into line, and the Democratic leadership in the Senate seems to have misplaced its spine. If there was ever a moment for a filibuster, this was it.
We don’t blame the Democrats for being frightened. The Republicans have made it clear that they’ll use any opportunity to brand anyone who votes against this bill as a terrorist enabler. But Americans of the future won’t remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration.
They’ll know that in 2006, Congress passed a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060929/ap_on_go_co/congress_eavesdropping
http://www.infowars.com/articles/bb/wiretapping_bill_sets_up_end_of_fourth_amendment.htm
http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/terror_laws_bush_given_authority_sexually_torture_us_kids.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2006/290906torturebill.htm
Subsection 4(b) (26) of section 950v. of HR 6166 - Crimes triable by military commissions - includes the following definition.
"Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct."
For an individual to hold an allegiance or duty to the United States they need to be a citizen of the United States. Why would a foreign terrorist have any allegiance to the United States to breach in the first place?
In addition, under the bill, "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."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus
Latin for "you [should] have the body", in common law countries, habeas corpus is the name of a legal instrument or writ by means of which detainees can seek release from unlawful imprisonment. A writ of habeas corpus is a court order addressed to a prison official (or other custodian) ordering that a detainee be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he or she should be released from custody. The writ of habeas corpus in common law countries is an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant
An enemy combatant has historically referred to members of the armed forces of the state with which another state is at war.[1]
In the 1942 Supreme Court of the United States ruling Ex Parte Quirin the court used the following characterizations to distinguish between unlawful combatants and lawful combatants:
Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.
In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks the United States Congress passed a resolution known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) on September 18, 2001[2]. In this, Congress invoked the War Powers Resolution. Using this authorization granted to him by Congress, on November 13, 2001, President Bush issued a Presidential Military Order: "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism"[3]. The administration chose to call those who it detained under the Presidential Military Orders "enemy combatants". Since then the administration has formalized its usage of enemy combatant by using the term specifically for detained alleged members and supporters of al Qaida or the Taliban. For exampleUnder the provisions of the Secretary of the Navy Memorandum Implementation of Combatant Status Review Tribunal Procedures for Enemy Combatant Detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base Cuba ... An enemy combatant has been defined as "an individual who was part of or supporting the Taliban or al Qaida forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces." [4]
This lead has been followed by other parts of the Government and some section of the American news media. The result of this new usage means that the term "enemy combatant" has to be read in the context of the article in which it appears as to whether it means a member of the armed forces of an enemy state, or if it means an alleged member of al Qaida held prisoner by the United States.
Great video:
http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/torture_bill_gives_bush_retroactive_war_crimes_immunity.htm
The NWO is real!!! Non white violent crime is only a symptom of that disease! Wake up fellow whites! Yesterday we just lost our rights to even be here.
Thanx to Demonica and Garret for letting me back. I guess this is now a CENSORED forum so I'll just stick to topics outside VNN that don't offend certain mods. Fucken unbelievable!
[url=http://video.google.com/url?docid=-515319560256183936&esrc="sr1&ev=v&len=12919&q=money%2Bmasters&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-515319560256183936&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-515319560256183936%26q%3Dmoney%2Bmasters%26total%3D1892%26start%3D0%26num%3D10%26so%3D0%26type%3Dsearch%26plindex%3D0&usg=AL29H215m40AxxXXEy5mxBMlQmfwiU4N1g"][color="Red"]The Money Masters[/url]
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
R.I.P. Yankee Jim
[color="White"]Todd Vanbiber
Posted : 29/09/2006 9:35 pm
Topic starter
This is much worse than Patriot Act 2.
When, not if, Bush signs this we won't even be able to protest in public.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ackerman28sep28,0,619852.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman states in the L.A. Times, "The compromise legislation....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."
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/09/imagine-giving-donald-rumsfeld.html
Similarly, law Professor Marty Lederman explains: "this [subsection (ii) of the definition of 'unlawful enemy combatant'] means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to 'hostilities' at all."
http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/terror_laws_bush_given_authority_sexually_torture_us_kids.htm
We have established that the bill allows the President to define American citizens as enemy combatants. Now let's take it one step further.
Before this article is dismissed as another extremist hyperbolic rant, please take a few minutes out of your day to check for yourself the claim that Bush now has not only the legal authority but the active blessings of his own advisors to torture American children.
The backdrop of the Bush administration's push to obliterate the Geneva Conventions was encapsulated b y John “torture” Yoo, professor of law at Berkeley, co-author of the PATRIOT Act, author of torture memos and White House advisor.
During a December 1st debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel, John Yoo gave the green light for the scope of torture to legally include sexual torture of infants.
Cassel: If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?
[url=http://video.google.com/url?docid=-515319560256183936&esrc="sr1&ev=v&len=12919&q=money%2Bmasters&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-515319560256183936&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-515319560256183936%26q%3Dmoney%2Bmasters%26total%3D1892%26start%3D0%26num%3D10%26so%3D0%26type%3Dsearch%26plindex%3D0&usg=AL29H215m40AxxXXEy5mxBMlQmfwiU4N1g"][color="Red"]The Money Masters[/url]
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
R.I.P. Yankee Jim
[color="White"]Todd Vanbiber
Posted : 29/09/2006 9:41 pm
This is much worse than Patriot Act 2.
When, not if, Bush signs this we won't even be able to protest in public.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ackerman28sep28,0,619852.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/09/imagine-giving-donald-rumsfeld.html
http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/terror_laws_bush_given_authority_sexually_torture_us_kids.htm
Todd,
What these people are forgetting is that many of us have weapons. They overthrow our rights, they will be overthrown.
A jew can't handle "truth" with dignity, but refutes with lies of exaggeration.
Jews -- tall, tall, tall, tales they tell. Famous fairytale storytellers of the Holocaust.
Posted : 29/09/2006 9:59 pm
The pen is mightier than the sword. But is it mightier than a cop with a semi-automatic pistol, armor, tear gas, helicopter support, tanks, and orders to arrest any dissenters?
Bush and his gang of thugs could have had everything they wanted and more. But they chose to serve a master who has used them most maliciously.
Their greed, their actions, their blind stupidity will be their own undoing.
This government charade is playing out like something out of a sad movie. And the Commander in Chief can hardly formulate a coherent sentence.
Hopeless stupidity, the chief failing of otherwise sane men. Add in religion, just for good measure. What could possibly assuage the greedy ambitions of a man who is PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
Do these lucky born silvers spooner idiots ever have enough wealth and power? What the f is wrong with otherwise normal human beings?
I am in awe of human cruelty and malice. It beggars any description.
When does the government (a bunch of powertripping losers) have enough of controlling the lives of other people?
Posted : 29/09/2006 10:32 pm
I imagine they will have enough after they disarm the populace and really start taxing them.
Posted : 30/09/2006 10:41 am
The pen is mightier than the sword. But is it mightier than a cop with a semi-automatic pistol, armor, tear gas, helicopter support, tanks, and orders to arrest any dissenters?
Bush and his gang of thugs could have had everything they wanted and more. But they chose to serve a master who has used them most maliciously.
Their greed, their actions, their blind stupidity will be their own undoing.
This government charade is playing out like something out of a sad movie. And the Commander in Chief can hardly formulate a coherent sentence.
Hopeless stupidity, the chief failing of otherwise sane men. Add in religion, just for good measure. What could possibly assuage the greedy ambitions of a man who is PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
Do these lucky born silvers spooner idiots ever have enough wealth and power? What the f is wrong with otherwise normal human beings?
I am in awe of human cruelty and malice. It beggars any description.
When does the government (a bunch of powertripping losers) have enough of controlling the lives of other people?
These so-called people you are referring to are jews. Jews are mentally disturbed. This is all the explanation we need to understand their motive. Besides, they are naturally psychopaths out for revenge because the Whites have treated them so badly. Since when do they think they are human beings to be treated so badly?
A jew can't handle "truth" with dignity, but refutes with lies of exaggeration.
Jews -- tall, tall, tall, tales they tell. Famous fairytale storytellers of the Holocaust.
Posted : 30/09/2006 1:17 pm
There ain't gonna be no shooting, there ain't gonna be no bloodletting. Get over your violent fantasies. 
Posted : 30/09/2006 1:30 pm
There ain't gonna be no shooting, there ain't gonna be no bloodletting. Get over your violent fantasies.
I have to agree.
100 years ago the American people could have taken back this nation by force, but as the technology stands in the year 2006 the American people no longer have the firepower to be anything more than a nuisance.
Just like Waco, if anyone tries to make a stand they will get burnt/bombed/shot right out of existence.
If they pull off another 9-11 I'm pretty certain they will start going after gun owners and once they get our guns it's all over but the screaming.
Take a look at Australia:
A country many think of being filled with independant, tough minded Europeans that wouldn't take any crap from anyone...
They gave up their guns without so much as a whimper and the USA is next on the list to be disarmed.
Bank on it.
.
Posted : 30/09/2006 2:10 pm
There ain't gonna be no shooting, there ain't gonna be no bloodletting. Get over your violent fantasies.
Who do you think you are referring your post to?
A jew can't handle "truth" with dignity, but refutes with lies of exaggeration.
Jews -- tall, tall, tall, tales they tell. Famous fairytale storytellers of the Holocaust.
Posted : 30/09/2006 3:28 pm
Who do you think you are referring your post to?
I was refering to a certain girlyman here on VNN that has multiple nicks on this board but yet invited me to give out my real name. Actually, there are two girlymen mods on this board.
Posted : 30/09/2006 3:52 pm
I have to agree.
100 years ago the American people could have taken back this nation by force, but as the technology stands in the year 2006 the American people no longer have the firepower to be anything more than a nuisance.
Just like Waco, if anyone tries to make a stand they will get burnt/bombed/shot right out of existence.
If they pull off another 9-11 I'm pretty certain they will start going after gun owners and once they get our guns it's all over but the screaming.
Take a look at Australia:
A country many think of being filled with independant, tough minded Europeans that wouldn't take any crap from anyone...
They gave up their guns without so much as a whimper and the USA is next on the list to be disarmed.
Bank on it.
.
The only people that are fighting against impossible odds are the Arabs. To me, that says volumes about white men today.
Posted : 30/09/2006 3:53 pm
The only people that are fighting against impossible odds are the Arabs. To me, that says volumes about white men today.
Maybe that's because most Arabs have nothing to lose. Let's see what happens when the white lemmings have nothing to lose. Granted, that will be then, not today; as you say.
If it weren't for me, where would I be?
Posted : 30/09/2006 7:07 pm
In addition, under the bill, "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."
Assuming that is true, and if you read it as it is written, then the traitors in the ZOG have no protections under the Geneva Convention, even as they claim that their enemies have none.
Expect no quarter, and give none. :cheers:
"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information."
-US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring and its connections to 9-11.
Posted : 30/09/2006 8:00 pm
Maybe that's because most Arabs have nothing to lose. Let's see what happens when the white lemmings have nothing to lose. Granted, that will be then, not today]
That is the usual explaination for popular uprisings -- having nothing to lose -- but one has to question the courage of whites for a long while now, as someone who has been ther you might want what he had to say:
FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE
"And how we burned in the camps latter, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?
After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you'd be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur --- what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked? The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!
If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more---we had no awareness of the real situation. We spent ourselves in one unrestrained outburst in 1917, and then we hurried to submit. We submitted with pleasure! ... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward."
From footnote #5, page 13 The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn:
Posted : 01/10/2006 12:16 pm
Topic starter
Great post, Grog!
Alexander was right then and even moreso now.
Considering the circumstances a great read reflective of that statement is Unintended Consequences by John Ross.
[url=http://video.google.com/url?docid=-515319560256183936&esrc="sr1&ev=v&len=12919&q=money%2Bmasters&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-515319560256183936&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-515319560256183936%26q%3Dmoney%2Bmasters%26total%3D1892%26start%3D0%26num%3D10%26so%3D0%26type%3Dsearch%26plindex%3D0&usg=AL29H215m40AxxXXEy5mxBMlQmfwiU4N1g"][color="Red"]The Money Masters[/url]
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
R.I.P. Yankee Jim
[color="White"]Todd Vanbiber
Posted : 01/10/2006 9:06 pm
Page 1 / 2
Next