The_Shipbuilder wrote:
The Republican Senate completed the double play started by the House today, passing a bill which grants Bush the power of indefinite, unreviewable detention - even of American citizens. The bill also legalizes various torture techniques.
You can read the full text of the bill by searching for bill # 6166 here or download the PDF hereMost opponents of the bill focus on the fact that it authorizes interrogation techniques that, as the NYT says, "normal people consider torture".
They complain that it also gives the President the power to detain indefinitely - with no need to bring charges - all foreign nationals and legal resident aliens in the US.
The last straw is that
the bill also grants the President the power to do the same to American citizens. Yep, if the Pentagon says you are an enemy, they don't need proof. They can just lock you up and do whatever they want with you, for as long as they want, with no trial.Of course, many people might think this is great. Their idea of a fantastic country is one where our government can, without proof, declare anyone a terrorist, including you or me. And one where the government can throw you or me into a jail cell indefinitely, using whatever secret interrogation techniques they feel is appropriate.
Some people define this sort of thing as "giving the government tools to fight terrorism". It is an opinion I disagree with.
As liberally-biased, know-nothing commie
Yale Law School poly sci prof Bruce Ackerman pointed out:
Bruce Ackerman wrote:
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 [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.
The far-left pinko NY Times, who for some reason seems to value the right to fair trial over the maximization of presidential power,
summarized the flaws of the bill in a recent editorial.
The NY Times wrote:
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.
The Senate vote was 65-34. Only one Republican (
Chafee, of course) voted against it. Twelve Democrats (including Lieberman, of course) voted for it. Only 7 Republicans voted against it in the House (vs 160 Democrats).
I believe the passage of this bill is a moral disgrace and a harmful embarrassment to our country. The Democrats again falter, with many cowering at the prospect of seeming "soft on terror". The Republicans vote overwhelmingly in support of - my definitions of course - torture and tyranny.
Patrick Henry warned us about this 200 years ago.Patrick Henry wrote:
Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings--give us that precious jewel, and you may take everything else! ...Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.
Edit: added links to the full text of the bill
Edit: changed first link to something permanent