That’s what the headline on this Slashdot article implies about a bill signed by the President on the 17th. As Slashdot tends to be rather reactionary, with a tendency for most posters to jump to conclusions without requisite knowledge, I figured that slogging through the thread to find the gems of what’s really going on would be pointless.
Thus, I turn to the Dope, the greatest board on Earth! What’s the REAL deal on this bill?
The same bill suspended habeas corpus and - as one newscaster put it - America sighed. It’s incredibly frustrating that most people don’t realize how thouroughly we are being raped of our rights and the few who know don’t seem to care. I was surprised that this wasn’t a bigger deal on the sdmb.
No, it didn’t. It defined a certain procedure for habeas corpus for individuals who never actually had that right extended to them previously (foreign nationals who may never have set foot on US soil). The bill limited the jurisdiction of the US criminal court system for these cases to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, and any decision from that court can be appealed to the SCOTUS.
BTW, I’m not sure this is the Detainee Treatment Bill that (allegedly) suspended habeas corpus for the detainees. Wasn’t that signed into law more than 2 weeks ago? The links in the slashdot OP didn’t work for me, so I wasn’t able to view the bill in question.
It doesn’t really seem like that’s the case.
The US Code, prior to the passage of the bill, said that the president could use the military to restore order and suppress insurrection or violence if the state where the violence was so occuring was unable or unwilling to enforce the law.
This law says that the president can do the same thing if there was a natural disaster, terrorist attack, or any other condition that made the state in which it occurred unable or unwilling to enforce the law.
The millitary is also, under the law, able to bring in food, water, shelter, medical care, etc, to the struck area if the state can not.
So it doesn’t give the president the power to “impose martial law”…it just allows the military to be used in times of crisis in addition to rebellions.
The bill in question is the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act…HR 5122
The law as stated can apply to anyone, up to and including US citizens.
U.S. citizens cannot be denied the great writ, and Congress can’t suspend it excpet under certain conditions (which are not currently met). Hamdi v Rumsfeld clearly established that a designation of “illegal enemy combatant” does not strip U.S. citizens of that right.
No, it’s much more simple than that. If a country is going to ignore the Geneva Convention agreements, then solidiers who do not wear an identifiable uniform, carry an openly visible weapon and have a rank structure, ID card, etc - then they aren’t a party to the agreement, correct?
Why is it that the same folks who think this is hunky-dory complain when the government wants to lock these knuckleheads up. In other words, what do you expect?
Common Tater, I’m not quite sure what you’re saying, but I’ll try to answer you anyway. It comes down to an executive office with way too much power. Checks and balances are being disrupted.
It’s also the fact that this administration doesn’t seem to give two farts about civil rights. Have you heard the term “errosion of civil rights”? No US President is going to step into office, suspend the great writ across the board, and declare himself dictator in the span of a few months. Give a few of them a few decades though and you never know what might happen. Blood was shed for us to have these rights and we won’t get them back without more blood being shed, because no one will care until it’s far too late.
As far as I can tell, previously, the President had to get the approval of the governor or legislature to use national guard troops in their state. He no longer needs to. He may have needed approval from the governor or legislature to call up national guard troops to active duty, and no longer needs to.
Those would be fairly large changes, but I’m not sure I’m accurate.
I don’t complain that the government has locked them up. I complain that the governement has abandoned its own due process, its own treaty obligations, and its own founding principles. When that happens, government is no longer guided by laws, it is guided by men.
Tris
No, he didn’t. A good example of this was President Eisenhower’s use of the Guard to integrate Little Rock High School over the wishes of the governor, and then, later, President Kennedy’s use to integrate the University of Mississippi.
Remember what happened in 1991, when the generals took over the Soviet Union and tried to use the military to impose their will on peoples accustomed to arbitrary authoritarian government? The people stood up, and the soldiers wouldn’t obey their officers.
But Cisco has a point. The American people might be brought to accept a tyranny imposed by quiet and gradual stages.
Well, who else are you going to use to establish martial law?
Again, it’s inexplicable that critics demand adherence to the Geneva convention, when by design the GC does not apply to those who, for just one example, do not wear uniforms and target civilians. In practice this means that terrorists have more rights than civilians.
Wrong. The GC is an agreement between nations, not between nations and orgnizations (like al Qaeda). Al Qaeda couldn’t be a signatory even it wanted to be. And while parts of the GC are not applicable to “illegal combatants”, there are sections which are specifically designed to spell out how those individuals must be treated by the signatories (eg, Common Article III).
What is unlcear (at least to me) is whether or not the GC would apply in a situation like the capture of KSM. He was captured in Pakistan, and not as part of some war action or occupation activity. It would be like capturing a mafia leader in Sicily with the help of the Italian government.
Surely you’re not suggesting that terrorists deserve civil rights?
Of course they don’t deserve civil rights.
Especially if we can skip the whole messy jurisprudence phase where we determine if they are terrorists or not.
“How would you like it if Hitler killed you?”
Firstly, they are suspected terrorists. And yes, they not only deserve certain civil rights, they will get them. But that’s not even the point. Your post about the GC was factually wrong. Do you agree?
I saw plenty of pictures of US Special Forces in Afghanistan who were dressed like natives - they certainly didn’t appear to be wearing official US Army uniforms.
No complaints from you if they’re stripped, tortured, and killed?
-Joe