Yup. That’s about where your argument is, all right.
Oooooh, burn!
Yup. You got anything in the way of actual, substantive debate left?
So those reports we’ve read, outlining pretty much the scenario I’ve posed, those reports are all false? No innocent persons have been rounded up and shipped off? You know this or have “reason to believe”? Excellent! Well on your way ot an airtight case!
Assuming, of course, you can prove that…
True. Which is why you’ve been so careful to avoid responding to any point I’ve made attacking your view that the lack of habeas relief means that this administration will not be held accountable for any violations of this law, the Geneva Convention (unless they’re grave violations, which would be punishable under the War Crimes Act… oh wait, this administration is trying to change that law too.), or the UCMJ, which SHOULD have been the way this administration went about the handling of those detained.
I haven’t gotten into the details of the complete Act yet to determine my feelings on whether they meet due process, but the fact that they’ve removed habeas protections makes everything unenforcable. THAT’S my main problem with it. The President and his lackeys have created a law that offers absolutely no remedy to violations of that, or other laws. They are taking a systemic approach to make sure nobody gets held accountable for their actions.
And you are, apparently, fine with that.
This thread is about a new law. The Senate voted just yesterday for this law.
This new law has certain procedures. Those procedures did not exist before this law, or existed in different forms.
So those reports you read have to do with what happened before this law came along.
This thread is about this law, and whether it is a good idea.
There are no reports of this law being abused, because it was just passed by the Senate yesterday.
See my post just ahead of yours about my thoughts on the military justice system. In addition, soldiers don’t come into the milatry justice system labled as terrorists who are out to blow up all of us.
It is my opinion that the military justice system’s enforcement of the UCMJ should be handled similar to the administrative enforcement in other cases. First you must go through the administrative hoops. If you still are convinced that you have been unfairly treated, such as railroaded, you can then go to the judicial system for an impartial review of the conduct of your courtmartial.
As to congressional oversight :eek: , yes, all of the congresses since 9/11 have demonstrated a keen interest in checking and balancing the executive. :rolleyes:
There is no evidence on the planet that would convince me that I’m wrong to hold the opinion that you and 65 of our legislators, including those 10 who represent the party I generally support, are evil for supporting this piece of legislation. Considering that I have a resident alien husband who could potentially (even if unlikely) get swept up in this nightmare, I really don’t give a shit if my opinion of your morals offends you.
They’re removed habeas – they have not removed all forms of post conviction review.
There’s an analogy to criminal practice. Your state undoubtedly has either a statutory PCR process, or uses a writ of coram nobis - yes? Both of those are independent of habeas. This legislation permits appellate review by the convening authority, review by Court of Military Commission Review, review by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and review by the Supreme Court.
Your opinion is based on utter ignorance.
Have you read the legislation?
We are discussing the removal of habeas review from it. Persons convicted are still entitled to:
[ul]
[li]appeal to the convening authority[/li][li]appeal to Court of Military Commission Review[/li][li]appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit[/li][li]appeal to the Supreme Court[/li][/ul]
Why is it that level of review insufficient?
You haven’t read this legislation either, have you?
YOU CAN GO TO THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM!!! Just like those court-martialed can go to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, persons convicted under this law can go to the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
Have you ever once considered the possibility that it might be time to be a little alarmed?
I’ve considered it.
But since I appear to be the only one who’s actually read the proposed law, and all the alarm appears to be coming from people who have not taken the time to so much as read it, I believe I have an objective reason to trust my opinion over theirs.
Just curious, wasn’t Hamdan granted a writ?
Can the Congress legally redefine the laws of war by itself? There was a question about whether conspiracy could be a war crime that was raised in Hamdan. If I remember right, the court split 4-4 on that question. Stevens’s plurality opinion suggested that Congress could not do it, but that’s just 4 justices. Kennedy didn’t join that part, and if Kennedy didn’t join it, I don’t think Roberts would either. But I don’t know Supreme Court rules enough to know if a tied/plurality opinion becomes precedent-setting.
Yes, I’ve read the bill. I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve read the bill
I think that this “absolutely no access to the courts” business deals with the lack of an ability to gain access to the civilian courts. I realize, of course, that it’s not unfair in general to keep wartime opponents out of civilian courts. My concern is that President Bush hasn’t exactly been doing a great job either in setting up lawful military tribunals (his first attempt was struck down as illegal in many ways, not only because it wasn’t expressly authorized by congress) or in arresting the right people (the numerous innocents who’ve been sent to GTMO or rendered to countries with dubious human rights records.)
Having said that, the crux of my disagreement with the bill lies with the treatment of detainees. Section 8 (b) spells out what exactly is prohibited: Torture, cruel or inhuman treatment, biological experiments, murder, mutiliation, rape, taking hostages, and so on. The torture and cruel or inhuman treatment sections prohibit “severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering.” For mental suffering to be illegal, it must be “serious and non-transitory mental harm,” which, I suppose, would allow temporary but hellish mental anguish such as is brought on by waterboarding. For physical suffering to be illegal, it must involve “substantial risk of death, extreme physical pain, a burn or severe physical disfigurement, or signifigant loss or impairment of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty.” Thus, I suppose, extreme sleep deprivation of weeks at a time would be allowed. No cuts or bruises to speak of, and no real pain as such. Perhaps it could be prohibited under the “signifigant impairment of mental faculty,” but that’s certainly debatable. If someone would give anything at all for a few hours of sleep, it’s perhaps a rational decision, and the decisionmaking is unimpaired, because sleep would be, at that moment, the most important thing in the world - more important than air.
And under this bill, this would be legal?
Oh, yes, I understand completely. My bad for not mentioning that in my last post. I’ll continue to check back in. 
Oh, and Bricker. Although I disagree with you on the desirability of this new law, I certainly respect your attempt to respond to all these criticisms of your position.
I don’t understand your question. Section 950g gives access to the civilian courts, does it not?
The OP to this thread discusses the removal of the habeas provision from the bill. That’s what I’m discussing here. Your concern is a reasonable one, and I have some opinions on it, but is this thread the right place to discuss it?
Read and understood the whole law and considered how the executive will interpret it? No. But this thread is, as you pointed out, about the denial of habeas corpus and that seems clear. Whether or not it has ever been granted to unlawful combatants if a matter of precedent and precedent sometimes needs to be overturned, such as in Brown v. Board of Education, and the long acceptance of human slavery.
I don’t see this as a narrow question of legalisms. It seems to me to be more a question of how we are going to conduct ourselves in the face of adversity. If you can do it to any non-citizen, you can do it to a citizen if the fear is great enough.
Maybe no system will protect the people against the government when the fear and hysteria rise above a certain level. Witness the Japanese internment of WWII which was also upheld by a judicial ruling. Those in authority are not right because they are in authority and our system is founded on the plain fact that they are never to be trusted. I’ll go with principle over all the legalese that can be piled up.
Is it? Not like this hasn’t been beaten to death already, but what the hell. To argue on narrow legal grounds, there’s precedent in Johnson v. Eisentrager and Ex parte Quirin, the examples with which I’m now mininally familiar, for denying combatants, legitimate and otherwise, habeas rights, at least in certain circumstances as jurisdictions. But, so far as I know, there’s little or no reasonable dispute about the status of the concerned parties as combattants. I’ll ignore all other concerns for the sake of agrument for now and highlight this point with which I struggle. As mentioned often above, I cannot discern, at all, what recourse a defendant may have to challenge evidence about their very status as a combattant, and hence if they even belong in the sorts of courts we’re discussing. Is the govt’s say-so sufficient? I would say not. All other potential abuses relating to duration of incarceration before even getting a trial and so forth, follow rather magnified fashion from this fundamental source of error. I do not trust the govt. at their word about the status of these detainees, and I can’t think of a single good reason why anyone should. The onus should be on them, it seems to me, to offer some independently verifiable evidence that the defendant is a combattant, and then they may try them as such (supporter of terrorists, war criminal, whatever). If the defendant is denied even the ability to challenge this basic point, I’m not even sure what’s being argued anymore. The very applicability of the present law seems in question, and the pontential for grave injustice multiplied.