The Day America Died

[dave T]

When President Bush signed it yesterday morning, some opponents are referring to it as the Day America died because it effectively eliminates nine out of ten of the Bill of Rights.

I don't know all the details, but I know one of the things that can now happen is this:

An American Citizen can be detained without a warrant for an indefinate period of time and without a phone call and without legal representation...

...if, of course, they are considered and "enemy". The Admimistration determines who the "enemy" are and the definitions are rather broad.

That's not America. If I can be detained one day because my dissent of the government makes me an "enemy" or "potential suspected terrorists" just because I exercise my freedom of speech to disagree with the adminstration, then that is wrong. If that happens without legal representation, that's not America. Just because someone dissents does not make them a threat.

dt

[Three Jack]

imo, it is the price we pay to secure 300 million people. Very simplistic rationale, but if it means we have a safer country, then so be it.

[dave T]

I'm not a democrat. I've voted repub all my life; I'm just calling it the way I see it, that's all. We can agree to disagree and still kick some bookie a$$...



dt

[hydroponic]

Say what want, but BinLaden has won the battle and will ultimately win the war. He has struck fear in America and we will go broke trying to fight him. We are fighting a battle we cannot win.

[dave T]

Well put hydro, and we are the ones losing our freedoms and being cracked down on. If the hypocrites in Washington, both left and right, were serious about securing our country they would begin with the borders and ports, imo.

:christmas

dt

[BettorsChat]

Just explain why it is so bad....That's all....

I think Monte should run for office.....Gambling, whores,$100 minimum wage, no military, wooo-hooo!!!

Where did I say it was bad? Or for that fact even good?

[DIRK]

I blame Bush and Republicans all crooks exposed and can't fix the mess they created.

[BettorsChat]

Actually I just watched them talk about this last night on Bill Maher. After seeing it I would say that this bill isn't any good. Basically they can arrest anyone they believe to be a terroist and lock them up for as long as they want. The person cannot do anything about it either.

That would be like anyone charged with a felony being locked up and given no trial etc.

Anyone charged with anything should have the right to a Lawyer and know exactly what their being charged on. Plus they should be allowed to go too trial. I highly doubt any terroist that we have real evidence is going to go free in a Court. The bill also gives the right to use physical force to get info. Not that I don't think this is right, but like they said on the show there's no need to put it into law as that is likely to happen anyway.

[TwoTonTony]

Where did I say it was bad? Or for that fact even good?

2 seperate statements...1st one was to dave t....2nd was a joke towards you....


Upon further inspection i think this law may infringe on our rights...i am looking into it further since i am not always convinced by Mr. maher

[TwoTonTony]

Military Commissions Act of 2006
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Torture Bill)
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is an Act of Congress (Number S.3930[1]) enacted on October 17, 2006. Created in the wake of the exposure of a formerly secret CIA interrogation program, it codifies in law controversial practices relating to the American detention and treatment of prisoners.


Major provisions
An “unlawful enemy combatant” can be any alien (see [Sec.948a(3)], [Sec.948b(a)] and [Sec.948c]) determined to be one by a “competent tribunal” established by the President or the Secretary of Defense [Sec.948a(1)(ii)]. What comprises a competent tribunal is described in sections 948i through 948m.

The Act changes pre-existing law to explicitly disallow the invocation of the Geneva Convention when executing the writ of habeas corpus for detainees who are not U.S. citizens [Section 5(a)]. This provision applies to all cases pending at the time the Act is enacted, as well as to all such future cases.

If the government chooses to bring a prosecution against the detainee, a military commission is convened for this purpose. The following rules are some of those established for trying unlawful enemy combatants who are not citizens of the United States. [Sec.948b (a)] The Act does exclude these rules from being applied when trying unlawful enemy combatants who are American citizens, per sections 948b(a) and 948c.

Certain sections of the Uniform Code of Military Justice are deemed inapplicable - including some relating to a speedy trial [Sec.948b (d)(1)(A)], compulsory self-incrimination [Sec.948b (d)(1)(B)], and pre-trial investigation [Sec.948b (d)(1)(C)].
A civilian defense attorney may not be used unless they have clearance to view materials classified Secret. [Sec.949c(b)(3)(D)]
Based on his findings, the judge may introduce hearsay evidence [Sec.949a(b)(2)(E)(i)], evidence obtained without a search warrant [Sec.949a(b)(2)(B)], evidence obtained when the degree of coercion is disputed [Sec.948r (d)], or classified evidence not made available to the defense [Sec.949d(f)(2)(B)].
A finding of Guilty requires only a 2/3 majority [Sec.949m(a)]
No defendant may invoke the Geneva Conventions in legal proceedings on their behalf. [Section 5(a)]
The President determines “the meaning and application” of the Geneva Conventions banning the torture of prisoners. [Sec.6 (a)(3)(A)]
The accused may be tried for the same offense a second time “with his consent” [Sec.949h(a)].
If the military commission returns a finding of Not Guilty, its convening authority is not required to take action on the findings. [Sec.950b(c)(3)]
[edit]
Legislative History
The bill passed the Senate, 65-34, on September 28, 2006.[2]

The bill passed in the House, 250-170-12, on September 29, 2006.[3]

President George W. Bush signed the bill into law on October 17, 2006.

Passage through the Senate
Several amendments were proposed before final passage of the bill by the Senate; all were defeated. Among them were an amendment by Robert Byrd which would have added a sunset provision after five years; an amendment by Ted Kennedy which would have outlawed specific interrogation techniques including waterboarding, and an amendment by Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) preserving habeas corpus. Specter's amendment was rejected by a vote of 51-48. Specter voted for the bill despite the defeat of his amendment. The bill was finally passed by the house on September 29, 2006 and presented to the President for signing on October 10, 2006[4].

Official statements
John Boehner, House Majority Leader:
Tomorrow I expect the House to consider and pass the bill approved by the Senate and send it to the President’s desk so we can begin to put terrorists such as alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammad on trial for their crimes. By preserving this critical program and arming the President with the tools he needs to keep America safe, our efforts to disrupt terrorist plots and save American lives with this vital program can continue. I would urge Democratic leaders to reconsider their ‘No’ votes on bringing dangerous terrorists to justice and put the interests of the American people ahead of their own[5].

George W. Bush, President of the United States:
Today, the Senate sent a strong signal to the terrorists that we will continue using every element of national power to pursue our enemies and to prevent attacks on America. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 will allow the continuation of a CIA program that has been one of America's most potent tools in fighting the War on Terror. Under this program, suspected terrorists have been detained and questioned about threats against our country. Information we have learned from the program has helped save lives at home and abroad. By authorizing the creation of military commissions, the Act will also allow us to prosecute suspected terrorists for war crimes[6].

Russell Feingold, United States Senator:
This bill would fundamentally alter that historical equation. Faced with an executive branch that has detained hundreds of people without trial for years now, it would eliminate the right of habeas corpus. Under this legislation, some individuals, at the designation of the executive branch alone, could be picked up, even in the United States, and held indefinitely without trial and without any access whatsoever to the courts. They would not be able to call upon the laws of our great nation to challenge their detention because they would have been put outside the reach of the law. That is unacceptable, and it almost surely violates our Constitution. But that determination will take years of protracted litigation. [7].

Patrick Leahy, United States Senator:
Passing laws that remove the few checks against mistreatment of prisoners will not help us win the battle for the hearts and minds of the generation of young people around the world being recruited by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Authorizing indefinite detention of anybody the Government designates -, without any proceeding and without any recourse -- is what our worst critics claim the United States would do, not what American values, traditions and our rule of law would have us do. This is not just a bad bill, this is a dangerous bill. [8].

Carl Levin, Ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee:
The bill approved by the Armed Services Committee this afternoon is, for the most part, a bipartisan, balanced and solid bill. It meets a critical test we established in our hearings this summer – will we be able to live with the procedures that we establish if the tables are turned and our own troops are subject to similar procedures? There is a second test for this bill – does it meet the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in the Hamdan case, in other words will it withstand judicial review? In this regard, I am concerned about a provision in the bill that would strip the courts of habeas corpus jurisdiction without, in many cases, providing detainees any alternative access to the courts to test the legality of their detention. Whatever military commission procedures we enact will be the model by which we as a nation are judged. We need a bill that is consistent with American values and the American system of justice. I will continue to work toward this objective as the bill proceeds to the Senate floor. [9].


Criticism
The Act has been denounced by critics who assert that its wording authorizes the permanent detention and torture (as defined by the Geneva Conventions) of anyone - including American citizens - based solely on the decision of the President.[10] One has described it as "the legalization of the José Padilla treatment" - referring to the American citizen who was declared an unlawful enemy combatant and then imprisoned for three years before finally being charged with a lesser crime than was originally alleged.[11] A legal brief filed on Padilla's behalf alleges that during this time he was subjected to sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, and enforced stress positions.[12]

Amnesty International said that the Act "contravenes human rights principles."[13] An editorial in The New York Times described the Act as "a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts."[14]

American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Anthony D. Romero said, "The president can now, with the approval of Congress, indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions." [15]

Isolated individuals and groups have announced a call to arms to revolt against the government and "restore the Constitution". They cite the bill as evidence that the state apparatus is now corrupt to its foundations, and that only revolution to depose current officeholders is the only recourse to reclaim official guarantees of individual freedom and due process.

[TwoTonTony]

I think the spirit of the law is fine....for terrorists.....But the vagueness of who can be targeted by the executive branch without habeas corpus is plain wrong & concerns me.......I am sure this section will be argued long and hard....Many democrats voted for it too, which is a little wierd.......It still needs refinement and i think it will get it on the Senate Floor

[fuzzebear]

imo, it is the price we pay to secure 300 million people. Very simplistic rationale, but if it means we have a safer country, then so be it.

Exactly. If they gotta detain some towelhead extremest here in NJ to keep me and my kids safe then I am all for it. If they detain me on some suspicion for whatever reason and I didn't do anything they'll let me go free. I Don't mind paying such a small price so a bomb doesn't go off where I work or a building falls on my head.

This is the greatest country in the world. If we have it so bad and people like you do nothing like bitch and moan go live in Quatar for a year and then you'll see how good the U.S. is.

Bottom line, and think about it, the United States never was and never will be a FREE country. There are some sacrafices we all (some more then others IE soidiers who fought and died for this country) have to make to maintain the lifestyle we all enjoy.

[TwoTonTony]

Exactly. If they gotta detain some towelhead extremest here in NJ to keep me and my kids safe then I am all for it. If they detain me on some suspicion for whatever reason and I didn't do anything they'll let me go free. I Don't mind paying such a small price so a bomb doesn't go off where I work or a building falls on my head.

This is the greatest country in the world. If we have it so bad and people like you do nothing like bitch and moan go live in Quatar for a year and then you'll see how good the U.S. is.

Bottom line, and think about it, the United States never was and never will be a FREE country. There are some sacrafices we all (some more then others IE soidiers who fought and died for this country) have to make to maintain the lifestyle we all enjoy.

Those are all valid points and i think the letter and spirit of the law point to that...However and i am very conservative.....there is no discrening what an enemy of the state is and who can be held....It is designed for an enemy combatent of the US......but the letter of the law is very loose here and i do not want to see the foundations of how this country was built weakened by an overzealous bill.....I think the actual fine tuning of the bill will take place on the senate floor and since it was a bipartisan bill i am confident it will be resolved

[TwoTonTony]

Exactly. If they gotta detain some towelhead extremest here in NJ to keep me and my kids safe then I am all for it. If they detain me on some suspicion for whatever reason and I didn't do anything they'll let me go free. I Don't mind paying such a small price so a bomb doesn't go off where I work or a building falls on my head.

This is the greatest country in the world. If we have it so bad and people like you do nothing like bitch and moan go live in Quatar for a year and then you'll see how good the U.S. is.

Bottom line, and think about it, the United States never was and never will be a FREE country. There are some sacrafices we all (some more then others IE soidiers who fought and died for this country) have to make to maintain the lifestyle we all enjoy.

However if the executive branch rules you are an enemy of the state for no reason....you also can be held without the same rights as those same towel heads.......That is where there has to be checks and balances....I do not like to see an uneven balance of power tip to the executive branch...IMHO

[BettorsChat]

Exactly. If they gotta detain some towelhead extremest here in NJ to keep me and my kids safe then I am all for it. If they detain me on some suspicion for whatever reason and I didn't do anything they'll let me go free. I Don't mind paying such a small price so a bomb doesn't go off where I work or a building falls on my head.

This is the greatest country in the world. If we have it so bad and people like you do nothing like bitch and moan go live in Quatar for a year and then you'll see how good the U.S. is.

Bottom line, and think about it, the United States never was and never will be a FREE country. There are some sacrafices we all (some more then others IE soidiers who fought and died for this country) have to make to maintain the lifestyle we all enjoy.

We've already had people suspected of being terriost held for years that were later released, because they weren't.

As for this being a Free Country it was at one time, but is becoming more and more a dictatorship IMO.