sorry, "and jurisdictions…
That’s a perfectly legitimate argument to make.
Note, however, that it’s distinct from such arguments as, “it’s un-American,” and it’s one of the “bedrock principals of our country.” Those arguments suggest we are changing something fundamental by adopting this position.
You argue, in contrast, that we need to change something by REJECTING long-standing practice. I don’t agree, but your point is certainly a reasonable one.
Fair enough. There’s a GD thread on the bill as a whole, so I’ll take my “tortured logic” there. snicker
I now realize that the “bill” I’ve been working with is only the agreement on CA3 of Geneva. Do you have a link to the full bill? Does anyone else?
I have a funny feeling that the reason that traffic here has died down so dramatically is that I’m questioning people on the specifics of this bill, and asking if they’ve read it.
Yes, I have read the legislation. My objections to it begin with the first sentence, where no claims can be brought under the Geneva Conventions in litigation where the military is a party. I also object to the part in section (3) where the President is given the powers of the judiciary to interpret the meaning of the Geneva Convention, a treaty obligation that, under the Consitution, has the force of law. I further object to the “prohibited conduct” section which adds the “pain and suffering incidental to lawful sanctions” clause without defining what “lawful sanctons” are. I guess it’s whatever the President calls lawful, since he is one who interprets these things now, huh, Bricker?
No habeus actions for people held by the military, and the President gets to decide on his own fiat who the military holds, and the President gets to declare American citizens “enemy combatants”, like they already did to Jose Padilla, and hold them indefinitely. And if they’ve got the “wrong guy”, or if the President decides to hold me, an avowed political enemy, as an “enemy combatant”, what happens? I can’t contest that in court, because I can’t get to a court. The president gets the power to throw his political enemies in a military jail. This is where this is heading, Bricker. I know as a lawyer you hold the opinions you are paid to hold, but really, this is beyond the pale. It’s un-American. It’s disgusting. Why do you want to hand over the tools of tyranny to the President? Indefinite detention without trial and torture, Bricker, that’s what we’re talking about here. Stop trying to say “well, it’s only a little torture, and the indefinite detention will only be used on bad people. If you’re good people, you don’t have anything to worry about!” It’s the same lie totalitarians have used throught history to justify all manner of crimes. And now it’s coming from Americans. I never thought I would live to see the day. And I never thought I would actually have to have this conversation with a fellow American.
Using politicians as moral role models doesn’t make you look any better, you know.
No, my view is not the only good one; your view however is evil, as are you for holding it. I feel quite comfortable considering the majority of the Senate evil, include all or nearly of the Republicans. For all intents and purposes, if you are a Republican in modern America, you are evil or a dupe, and I’d relegate most of the leadership to the evil category.
And do you have the slightest evidence of that ?
Quite a few “detainees” would disagree with you, if they were allowed to talk. Or alive.
Magically change history. I’ve seen what the other side has done; I judge them by their actions.
You fucking liar, as you have been told over and over this is not about battlefields.
:rolleyes: Because part of the bill is about how Bush gets to define “torture” to mean whatever he wants, vermin.
Yes, you can go to the judicial system on an appeal of the outcome of a trial by a military tribunal. I’ve read sect 950g and I see nothing in it that guarantees that there will ever be a trial the results of which can be appealed.
Isn’t the main purpose of habeas corpus to compel the government to charge you and put you on trial? If you are denied the use of it how do you ever force a trial so that you can appeal to the D.C. Court of Appeals? It sure looks to me like you can be held indefinitely without trial merely on the determination of the executive that they think you are a danger.
Now that I’ve read the entire bill (available here, caution PDF) I’ll concede that there’s access to the civilian courts eventually. But only after the military commission renders its judgement, which is contigent upon the government bringing the case to trial, which may not be for quite a while. So access to the civilian courts of these military detainees is possible, but only if the government brings a case. It’s not the ordinary procedure to bring actual criminal charges against wartime detainees (e.g. German footsoldiers in WWII), so this general system really doesn’t bother me.
What bothers me is the makeup of the folks within the system. It’s who we try in the military commission system. I have serious questions as to whether the proverbial “grandma in Switzerland” who gives money to some charity that happens to be an Al Qaeda front would be best dealt with in a system normally reserved for spies, sabateurs, and the like. I’d have no problem with throwing Osama bin Laden or Khalid Sheikh Muhammad into this system (provided they aren’t tortured, but that’s not our discussion here.)
Yeah, but that’s what usually happens in a war. We detain spies and enemy soldiers all the time without trials for the duration of hostilities.
So when do these particular hostilities end?
Never.
And that’s a problem. As has been said over and over, things have changed. In conventional war there will be an end that both sides agree on. Furthermore, prisoners of war are definitely known to be just that and are not so labeled by the executive on speculation.
As to spies, there is no doubt that they are held indefinitely on speculations and I have no doubt that numerous people have been summarily shot as spies who were innocent of that charge. Is that our model?
Well, friend Bricker, if, as you aver, the currently legisltated procedures have all manner of things the detainee can access in order to prove his innocence, and if all of these effectively and justly substitute for habeas, why then was there a need to remove habeas? Assuming, as you aver, that equally effective options are available, what’s the point?
My take? I think the Admin knows that they cannot prove squat. If they were in an ordinary criminal court, their case would be quashed so fast thier collective heads would spin. The number one problem with this is that some entirely guilty persons would not be convicted, if they were permitted the protections we offer rapists, murderers, and Congressmen. Their solution is to set things up in such a way as to improve the prospect of convicting the guilty. Regretably, it also increases the likelihood of the innocent being convicted. Nobly, this is a sacrifice that they stand ready to make, as stern duty demands.
And it’s these sorts of “nuances” that are all many wish to argue here. We have to trust that at every tier the system is being run by extremely scrupulous people with the very best intentions or the potential for abuse is potentially limited only by the longevity of the “enemy combatant”, whose very status as such must potentially be taken on faith for them to be subject to this patently flawed system.
And that’s my problem as well. The system itself is fine. It’s who we put in the system that bothers me.
How can it be fine when there are no madatory safeguards against the very potential for abuses that make us uncomfortable?
Well, those are fascinating. A bit off the subject of this thread, which deals with the removal of the habeas provisions, but certainly fascinating.
Let’s take your objections seriatim:
-
No claims can be brought under the Geneva Convention in litigation where the military is a party. As the bill explains, 18 USC 2441 provides that protection instead. What is your problem with that solution?
-
The President is given the powers of the judiciary to interpret the meaning of the Geneva Convention, a treaty obligation that, under the Consitution, has the force of law. Um… yeah. The President already has the authority to interpret other treaty obligations. Why should this one be treated differently?
-
the “prohibited conduct” section which adds the “pain and suffering incidental to lawful sanctions” clause without defining what “lawful sanctons” are. In the absence of a definition, words in a statute have their ordinary meaning: in this case, “lawful sanction” are sanctions that are permitted under the law. What, specifically, is your objection to that?
Section 950g says you can get to a court. Did you miss that section?
And you have also read the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which DOES specify timelines?
I don’t agree that the system is fine. In fact no system will protect the people against abuses. That requires good faith on the part of those in power who are running the system. I have little faith in the good faith of our current overlords and our whole system is based on a distrust of those in power.
At least our maverick Republican heros got a provision that secret eveidence used at trial must be disclosed to the accused - if there ever is a trial.
No because you only cited 950g. I wonder, did GW attach a signing statement to the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005?