Improving the Bill of Rights. (Leaving Alien Terrorists no safe refuges in the courts

Pure

Fiel a Verdad
Joined
Dec 20, 2001
Posts
15,135
Many parts of the BR seemingly apply to foreign born residents of the US, for example Amendments V and VI seemingly allow "persons" a speedy trial. An oversight of the founding fathers. Finally remedied:

Rushing Off a Cliff

NY Times editorial on recent legislation 'giving' the President those powers already exercized in the war on terror.


Published: September 28, 2006

Here’s what happens when this irresponsible Congress railroads a profoundly important bill to serve the mindless politics of a midterm election: The Bush administration uses Republicans’ fear of losing their majority to push through ghastly ideas about antiterrorism that will make American troops less safe and do lasting damage to our 217-year-old nation of laws — while actually doing nothing to protect the nation from terrorists. Democrats betray their principles to avoid last-minute attack ads. Our democracy is the big loser.

Republicans say Congress must act right now to create procedures for charging and trying terrorists — because the men accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks are available for trial. That’s pure propaganda. Those men could have been tried and convicted long ago, but President Bush chose not to. He held them in illegal detention, had them questioned in ways that will make real trials very hard, and invented a transparently illegal system of kangaroo courts to convict them.

It was only after the Supreme Court issued the inevitable ruling striking down Mr. Bush’s shadow penal system that he adopted his tone of urgency. It serves a cynical goal: Republican strategists think they can win this fall, not by passing a good law but by forcing Democrats to vote against a bad one so they could be made to look soft on terrorism.

Last week, the White House and three Republican senators announced a terrible deal on this legislation that gave Mr. Bush most of what he wanted, including a blanket waiver for crimes Americans may have committed in the service of his antiterrorism policies.

Then Vice President Dick Cheney and his willing lawmakers rewrote the rest of the measure so that it would give Mr. Bush the power to jail pretty much anyone he wants for as long as he wants without charging them, to unilaterally reinterpret the Geneva Conventions, to authorize what normal people consider torture, and to deny justice to hundreds of men captured in error.

These are some of the bill’s biggest flaws:

Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.

The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there’s no requirement that this list be published.

Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.

Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.

Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.

Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.

Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.

•There is not enough time to fix these bills, especially since the few Republicans who call themselves moderates have been whipped into line, and the Democratic leadership in the Senate seems to have misplaced its spine. If there was ever a moment for a filibuster, this was it.

We don’t blame the Democrats for being frightened. The Republicans have made it clear that they’ll use any opportunity to brand anyone who votes against this bill as a terrorist enabler. But Americans of the future won’t remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration.

They’ll know that in 2006, Congress passed a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
 
In all fairness, Lincoln suspended Hadius Corpus during the Civil War for several years. It was judged to be wrong afterwards. This is an attempt by the Bush administration to "legalize" what Lincoln did, illegally.

The other issues have even a bigger hole than you have pointed out. It has long been the custom of our courts to extend the same rights under the U.S. Constitution to anyone held for crimes, regardless of nationality or citizenship. These rights included but are not limited too, representation by an attorney, full disclosure of the evidence, a speedy trial, and so on.

It would appear that Mr. Bush had something like these laws in mind when he appointed John Roberts Chief Justice with the idea of gaining a Supreme Court "rubber stamp" for these unjust and inappropriate laws. :rolleyes:
 
I have this feeling that the person who wrote this editorial shall be disappeared soon.

From my interpretation of the law Bush will now be allowed to do so.

I'm remembering a line from Space Viking. "You had a wonderful society here. You could have done anything with it. It's too late now, the gates are down and the barbarians are in."
 
The author of this Op-Ed piece in the NYT did just fine. No one will even ruffle his hair, let alone disappear him.

If he had such a keen appreciation of the emergency which this attack on fundamental freedoms represents, why in the name of sanity did his newspaper not oppose it BEFORE it was already passed? This damn thing appeared directly afterwards. His newspaper's coverage of the bill was not about the bill, but about the political effect of it for those same elections. The paper ran many stories about the rift in the Anti-Republican party its proposal caused, the uproar among the Anti-Democratic party, and so on-- hardly a word on its content. No word at all to suggest the paper opposed it in any way appeared in the NYT beforehand.

All you have to do is say nothing. And now we have a raft of Anti-Republicans and Anti-Democrats alike, walking around the country like good little Hitler Youth, supporting torture on the flimsy idea that everyone they've imprisoned is as black an evildoer as ever walked the earth. It's a damn sad day.
 
one small correction, cant. this was the lead editorial in the NY Times, not just any 'op ed' piece.

that said, the paper was very spineless untill recently, and appeared initially to support the Iraq war. HOWEVER, as I stated in the torture thread, working and speaking against a war president and party is not only dangerous, but usually ineffective .
 
Already worked and spoke against a couple war presidents. Wrote, too. Always give my full name and address. Seen the boys in the shiny black shoes taking down my license plate number. Made the demos. Healed up fine. Still kickin.

My beef in this case is with a war congress. If the supreme court has nothing to say about this last piece of business, it may be time to take stronger measures than mere talk.
 
The problem is, no matter what laws are passed by this Congress, Bush will simply put out another "Signing Letter" and do as he pleases anyway. Then the next Congress in 2007, after the Republicans are out on their asses, will have to spend years cleaning up the mess.

In the meantime, over the next two years, Bush will continue to do as he pleases, legal or not. When is someone going to remind him of US v Richarad M. Nixon?


The unanamous decision read in part: "It is the job of the Legislative Branch to make the laws. It is the Job of the Judiciary to decide what the law means. And it is the job of the President to follow and enforce the law."

Appearantly that doesn't mean much to Bush.
 
Back
Top