Let’s start slow and with the juiciest part of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, signed into law yesterday, October 18, 2006, by President George W Bush.
We'll move on to that ever-so-evil Geneva Convention in due time. Don't be in such a rush. It's not like it applies to you anymore, anyway.
(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.—(A) The term ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ means— (i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or (ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.Please read it carefully. To paraphrase, (i) spells out what qualifies a person as an unlawful enemy combatant. (ii) says "and the rest of you, too."
(ii) doesn't specify as does (i). Instead, the language of (ii) is so vague it can be used against any person on this planet and would then include all U.S. citizens—on U.S. soil or abroad. If you’re a U.S. citizen abroad, you’ll be comin’ home. If you’re not, better hope they don’t catcha.
If you don't qualify as an unlawful enemy combatant under (i), you sure as hell do under (ii). Covered that very well, they did.
Moving on to the Geneva Convention, the act says:
GENEVA CONVENTIONS NOT ESTABLISHING SOURCE OF RIGHTS.—No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights.This means anything the United States agreed to when signing the Geneva Convention on August 12, 1949 is no longer agreed to by the United States unless they wanna. And by "they," they don't mean you.
If you're not familiar with the Geneva Convention, please take the time to get familiar with it. It doesn't apply to you anymore, so maybe you could take your time doing that. Ditto on the Constitution.
In a nutshell, any provision of rights (to include not torturing someone to actual death) is no longer afforded to any "unlawful enemy combatant" of the United States. Please reread what qualifies a person as an "unlawful enemy combatant." Did you catch the word "alien" in the phrase "alien unlawful enemy combatant"? If you think this means you're off the hook as a U.S. citizen, read on:
DETERMINATION OF UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT STATUS DISPOSITIVE - A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.Again, this means everyone—as in everyone who doesn't fall under the heading of "alien" or otherwise qualifying as an "unlawful enemy combatant." That's you and me, babes.
What are some things you the citizen could do to land yourself in the category of "unlawful enemy combatant"?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Diana, you seem to have missed section 948c which specifically states that commissions apply only to "alien unlawful enemy combatants" and not to US citizens, alien being defined ion 948a as "a person who is not a citizen of the united states".
Dave
2 - gonzo marx
well done and well said, Diana...
/golfclap
now comes the spin, but the REAL question before us will be...
does the Supreme Court uphold this piece of shit when the Test comes?
i'm betting some were in on the wording from jump, will it be enough for a majority decision?
we will see...if so, and SCOTUS lets this insulting, degrading and completely bullshit bit of skullduggery stand as Law.. then it is time to do as Jefferson indicated...
the whole second amendment bit about keeping and bearing arms will become relevant real fast...
bad craziness ensues...
woe is U.S.
Excelsior?
3 - RedTard
Siding with the terrorists again I see. That's some lame ass shit just to score political points. Oh well, it's to be expected from the hate American types.
Note: If America really was becoming a police state you'd be scared shitless hiding in your basement like the coward you are. The fact that this article exists, while disgusting, is reassuring that freedom of speech and dissent is still allowed.
4 - gonzo marx
siding with the...WTF, Red are you off of yoru medication?
you do realize the writer of this article is a military wife, yes?
so, you point is that being for the writ of habeus corpus and against waterboarding is to be with *terrorists*?
well then, i guess the US government , after WW2 ..which fucking PROSECUTED people for waterboarding as torture must be straight fucked...
and all those silly folks who think that the right of habeus corpus are the bedrock fo civilization...terrorists too?
my my..what would Jefforson or Madison, or any of those wig wearing liberals have to say on the subject...
this is the weakest bit i've ever read by you, Red... fucking shame
Excelsior?
5 - Mohjho
So Dave, I take it you think the Military Commissions Act is a good idea?
6 - Dave Nalle
So Dave, I take it you think the Military Commissions Act is a good idea?
Not necessarily, but I do think it would be nice not to be put in the position of having to defend it because it's being so aggressively misrepresented, either through ignorance or intentional misrepresentation.
The facts on the MCA are pretty simple.
• In its final form it clearly does not apply to US citizens - those ambiguities in earlier drafts were cleared up.
• It exists because US law does not apply to illegal enemy combatants and the SC ruled that we couldn't use existing military courts to try them. The SC set parameters and the MCA set up courts to meet those requirements and the requirements of the Geneva Convention.
• It does not legitimize torture, but to the contrary it specifically prohibits torture.
These are the facts. Read it yourself to confirm them.
That said, I personally believe that the basic protections of the constitution ought to be extended to everyone as much as is possible, but that is certainly not required under US or international law.
Dave
7 - gonzo marx
Dave sez...
*• It does not legitimize torture, but to the contrary it specifically prohibits torture.*
just a second there, i saw you palm that ace....
nowhere do i see an accurate description of what constitutes this "torture" you speak of...
quick question...is waterboarding (just one example), forbidden or allowed according to this *law* ?
why do i ask? glad to tell ya, note above when i mentioned that the US prosecuted for war crimes a bunch of people for waterboard as torture...
awaiting your reply...
heh
Excelsior?
8 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
RedTard,
Your comments about Diana are unjustified. She presently lives in Germany because her husband is a US marine posted overseas. If he hated America, he wouldn't have signed on the dotted to be a career soldier. And if Diana hated America, she'd have trouble living with someone who loved the country enough to fight for it. If anyone could be nabbed by someone and hauled before a military commission, it is she. Both she and her husband are under strictures of military law.
The long and the short of it is that while you may disagree with her views, you owe her an apology that is as public as your ad hominem attacks. She and her kids live overseas because she and her husband love their country.
9 - gonzo marx
OMG..still whirring in my pointy lil head...
here's some more...
this Bill looks like it not only legalizing the following example, but also exonerates folks retroactively...
Padilla
a US citizen, accused of being an enemy combatant, arrested..held without hearing, trial or bail...NO legal recourse, for 3 years..then NEVER charged for any of the things he was accused of and foisted off on a much lesser criminal charge AFTER being held for those 3 years with NO right to basic habeus corpus...
now, i don't care about this person...nor what he did or didn't do... just that he was a US citizen and denied ANY recourse before, during ..and now after, his arrest...
this new Law makes all of that legal, and if it can be done to ONE US citizen, it can be done to ANY...
good newsand bad news department: i the speech signing this Law, W quipped that now Khalid Sheik Mohammed can be put on trial, using *testimony* gained from torture...
and that fucking hearsay *evidence* can be used in the trials outlined in the Law we are talkign about...
that's right, hearsay evidence
your dog has more legal rights than that, someone can't say they heard someone say they saw your dog bite someone....you need direct witnesses or the person who got bit...
so, no habeus corpus and in some cases hearsay is allowed
this is a Law ...in America?
unfuckingbelievable
Excelsior?
10 - Dave Nalle
Gonzo, torture is pretty inclusively defined in the MCA to meet what would be have to be considered a standard definition consistent with international law and the concept of 'cruel and unusual punishment' in the Constitution. Check page 34 of the MCA where torture is defined as "a act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering". That clearly includes waterboarding.
However, I've now had a chance to read the final version more thoroughly, and it's a LOT more detailed than the earlier draft I read in a number of areas. It goes into truly remarkable detail in defining the actions which are classed as terorism. It goes on for several pages cataloging different forms of offense. And I actually think this is a very good thing. The Geneva Convention never goes into this sort of detail, and having laid out in black and white exactly what terrorism is as a legal definition is highly desirable.
That said, the one truly troubling part of the act is included in the same section. Section 950v sub-sections 25-28 are where the real problems in the MCA are to be found. They are titled:
• Providing Material Support for Terrorism
• Wrongfully Aiding the Enemy
• Spying
• Conspiracy
The titles are fairly self-explanatory, but you can read the details on page 31 of the MCA.
The problem with this section - and why it might well be struck down by the SC - is that it does allow US citizens to be tried under the MCA under limited circumstances, which would be hard to meet without being pretty damned aware that you're doing it. All of the circumstances fall under the traditional definition of treason. To legitimize this basically unconstitutional part of the law the MCA does allow appeals to the regular US federal court system, so although the initial trial and conviction under the MCA would go through a special tribunal, everyone has the right to an appeal to the Federal District Court of DC, which would take place under normal constitutional protections. I'm not sure it's sufficient protection, but it's something.
Dave
11 - Dave Nalle
One more note. The limitation of Habeas Corpus is troubling in general, but it DOES specifically apply only to aliens and not to those US citizens who may be covered under section 950v.
Dave
12 - gonzo marx
ok..so according to what you have found so far, it appears to you that this new Law makes the practice of waterboarding unlawful
again, much in it (and no, i have not analyzed the entire thing yet) appears to bestow retroactive forgiveness, so to speak... so folks up for these tribunals can be tried with evidence gained from waterboarding, or even more stringent means, as well as the hearsay bit...
and what about that hearsay....
as for where habeus corpus still applies, i still cite Padilla... as well as the possible examples you mention
we will see hwo this stands up to the inevitable challenges, but i still think it's pure shit amidst some needed clarifications that i agree need to be done
it's the shit i have problems with
Excelsior?
13 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
I live in a country where there is no such thing as habeus corpus, no fourth amendment to protect you and your effects from unreasonable search and seizure, no fifth amendment to protect you from self-incrimination, no first amendment to protect your right to assemble and petition the government, or even to worship freely, and no second amendment to protect the right to bear arms. In addition, for all the learned decisions handed down by what is praised overseas as a very professional judiciary, the fact of the matter is that there is barely any due process or equal protection under the law, and judges - all of them - are for sale.
In addition, if you are a Jewish Israeli, you have no protections under international law. hat happened in Gush Qatif last year proved that.
Bearing all that in mind, I thought about what it would be like being arrested under the MCA act.
If you were deemed as an "unlawful enemy combatant" by the arresting authorities, whatever rights you may have would have been flushed down the toilet because
1. Your access to a lawyer would be problematic at best, and
2. If you got access, your lawyer would have trouble figuring out how to challenge the legitimacy of the arrest or your rights under it.
3. Even if you could get access to a lawyer, and even if he could figure out your legal position under the MCA, you would not be able to afford his fee...
Welcome to Israel, folks. Hell, I didn't have to immigrate here. Our unjust legal system just emigrated there!
14 - Kyle McBee
Fantastic article. well done. I am so furious right now. i have been warning my peers for five years that this sort of thing was coming. i have never been more sorry to be right. I suppose we should all get used to black vans and dissapearances.
15 - synecdoche
The act does/ could apply to my mother who is a legal US resident of 50 years, but not a citizen. I hold dual citizenship and might also be held under this act, at leasy until such time as someone takes the time to figure out which citizenship carries precedence. How anyone in their right mind can argue against the right to habeus corpus is beyond me. What happens if a case of mistaken/stoen identity occurs. in the meantime you will become one of the "disapppeared." And don't think that it can't happen, because it does. I can only hope that somehow, some way the judiciary and /or a new congress and presidency will trouble themselves to correct this gross mistake. In the meantime, people such as my mother have to be extremely careful as to what they say, buy, give to charity etc. Here in the land of the free.
16 - Teri Centner
I'm friends with Diana and I know she does not hate America any more than I do. She loves America, but also she loves her Freedom of Speech. She would like to see everyone who lives in America - citizen or otherwise - be afforded the same rights.
So even if she doesn't fall into the "alien" category, both of us have a lot of friends who do, and it is scary to think that if any of them did the things on her list that they *could* land in the category of "unlawful enemy combatant."
17 - diana hartman
Dave Nalle: Diana, you seem to have missed section 948c which specifically states that comissions apply only to alien enemy combatants and not to US citizens.
Dave, just because there are stop signs on a given street doesn't negate the open intersections down the way on the same street.
RedTard: The fact that this article exists, while disgusting, is reassuring that freedom of speech and dissent is still allowed.
RedTard, so far.
Dave Nalle: That said, I personally believe that the basic protections of the constitution ought to be extended to everyone as much as is possible, but that is certainly not required under US or international law.
Dave, did you just say you believe in the basic protections of the US constitution but that this protection should not be required under US law? where ever would the protection come from then?
Dave Nalle: Check page 34 of the MCA where torture is defined as "a act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering". That clearly includes waterboarding.
Dave, "severe" is in the nervous system of the beholder...by not spelling out specifics, they leave it open...if your phone company said they would not charge for "short" calls but did not say what constituted "short," you'd be in no position to argue over charges for a one-minute call and might feel puzzled over not being charged for one-hour long calls...
Gonzo, Ruvy in Jerusalem and Teri, thanks for the love!
18 - robin
These sorts of new "laws and bills" are what continue to make being an American living abroad so difficult. We are constantly faced with ridicule of our president. Ok I can deal with that easily as I think he's a "RedTard" myself. Then there is criticism of our troops--"Why don't they just not go?" is a common theme. Followed by denial of torture (personally Im all for torture, just be open about it!)and the recent debacle of a Syrian Canadian who was arrested and deported and tortured before it came out the the RCMP made it all up and the US ran with the story. All you Americans--fercrissakes stay home, because there's no love out there....
Now we have His Royal RedTardness signing arbitrary legislation that requires lawyers to decode (and how many Gunnery Sergents are lawyers?) that clears the path for more of the same.
Thank you, forefathers, for limiting presidential terms to 8 years.
19 - SFC SKI
Considering Lynne Stewart, a US Citizen, was given a slap on the writst for aiding known terrorists, I think it's a good thang that we are defining how the US can deal with non-citizens who aid terrorists.
I'd like to see in specific detail what acts are or are not "torture". Let me rephrase that, I'd like to see torture legally delineated by act, and have that definition seen by the approriate congressional oversight committee and adopted. I don't not want the specifics of just how far the US can go to obtain information made public only because the terrorists will train to resist everything we announce we will do. It's been proven in this war already. If they know our limits thay will hold out against them. While fear of the unknown is only one psychological factor that aids an interrogator, to take that tool away only makes the process harder and take more time. I don't believe, and I am not an expert, that torure can is reliabe in yielding information. I do believe that if a detainee knows that we cannot cross a line, he will wait on the other side of it, content in the knowldge that we will not cross it. That makes gaining information hard as well.
20 - gonzo marx
as usual, Ski makes soem great points...
but on this very topic, i stand in Awe of another, a sports journalist who is now a cable network prime time anchor of extrodinairy insightfulness, and whose "special comments" of the last month or so , have been beacons showing what Freedom of the Press is all about...
on this topic, try this link...
there's both transcript and video
this gonzo can only Wish he could say it all as succinctly and powerfully...
Excelsior?
21 - gonzo marx
here is another link, talkign specifically about habeus corpus...
Excelsior?
22 - Taloran
Dave et al;
The article Gonzo cites in #20 above sums up my fears about this bill precisely. In particular, one paragraph negates, in my mind at least, your protestations that "this doesn't apply to Americans."
And if you somehow think habeas corpus has not been suspended for American citizens but only for everybody else, ask yourself this: If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an “unlawful enemy combatant”"exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not? Do you think this attorney general is going to help you?
Please consider the preceding paragraph dispassionately before slamming me as un-American for my opposition to this bill and this President.
23 - diana hartman
taloran, dave hasn't slammed anyone, much less as un-american...
perhaps you speak of the 'tard...
24 - Nancy
Well, "Redtard" has the "-tard" part of his name right, only he misspells it with a "d" in the middle. Basically, this is Bush setting up for his 2008 refusal to cede office, citing "national security" and some sort of half-assed emergency he'll drum up &/or have created by the FBI/CIA/NSA. When the MSM & citizenry rise up in fury over his coup, he will have set the stage to be able to legally designate all those who oppose his power takeover as "enemies of the state" (i.e. him; apparently he's absorbed what "L'etat c'est moi" means), & round them up to be held or just to disappear at his pleasure. Do I have any bets? Meanwhile, half-assed yellow-bellied retards like Redtard who have the consummate gall to criticize those who HAVE served while they themselves skulk in safety will of course rise up to do whatever killing or bullying BushCo bids them do. So ... any takers on my prediction of the near future?
25 - Taloran
Dave, my mistake. I should have separated my previous comment into two. You do not tend to slam people, nor do you use the un- or anti-American argument. Please do not take anything in my comment #22 after the word "dispassionately" as directed at you. My apologies to you.
Diana, thank you for correcting me.