Senate report concludes: no proof of contact between

[roguebanshee]

Undocumented aliens and those illegally in the country deserve no such consideration.

Unfortunately the MCA gives a broad enough definition of "illegal enemy combatant" to allow for the detainment of naturalized citizens of the United States of America as well as someone who has never set foot on American soil.

Heck, it's vague enough to allow for the detainment of someone who sold something to a suspected member of a terror cell. Or anyone accused by the President, the Secretary of Defense or a committee appointed by either of the two.

The definition is almost broad enough to include someone playing on the terrorist team in Counter Strike...

[kandrathe]

Unfortunately the MCA gives a broad enough definition of "illegal enemy combatant" to allow for the detainment of naturalized citizens of the United States of America as well as someone who has never set foot on American soil.

Heck, it's vague enough to allow for the detainment of someone who sold something to a suspected member of a terror cell. Or anyone accused by the President, the Secretary of Defense or a committee appointed by either of the two.

The definition is almost broad enough to include someone playing on the terrorist team in Counter Strike...

You should read up on Presidential War Powers... John Dean -- Presidential Powers In Times Of Emergency is a good article.

[Swiss Mercenary]

You should read up on Presidential War Powers... John Dean -- Presidential Powers In Times Of Emergency is a good article.

Sadly, the difference between the Civil War, WW1, The Great Depression, WW2, and The War on Terror, is that all of those emergencies had a forseeable end (Defeat of the south, Germany, significant drop in unemployment).

I don't think the Supreme Court had in mind when they made those rulings that the President should be able to execrise near-absolute power for 'Emergencies' that will never end.

When there is no such thing as 'Normality', the word 'Emergency' loses any and all meaning.

But then again, we all know that. :rolleyes:

So, in essence, it is precedented... But only in part. It is unprecedented in the sence that unlike any of the conficts/crisis mentioned above, the War on Freedom, I mean, Terror, is never going to end.

The self-preservation part of that article is also not fully applicable. The world isn't going to end tomorrow unless the US converts to an Orwellian totalitarianism, here. Especially when this self-preservation is aimed at preserving a system that is getting to the point of not being worth saving.

[roguebanshee]

You should read up on Presidential War Powers... John Dean -- Presidential Powers In Times Of Emergency is a good article.

As Swiss said, there's a difference between special procedures enacted for a limited period of time to counter a specific emergency and something like the MCA which has no such limits.

The MCA will remain in effect even if the War on Terror should be won (anyone who believes that is a possibility is unfathomably naive).

I'm at loss at finding other acts which allow the President to make anyone disappear (including political opponents) without a trace, without supplying any kind of evidence, subject them to torture, not give them a trial and not having to tell where they are or what happened to them until after a trial (which may or may not happen). It's something you're more used to hear about from a South American dictatorship or the Middle East.

[kandrathe]

As Swiss said, there's a difference between special procedures enacted for a limited period of time to counter a specific emergency and something like the MCA which has no such limits.

The MCA will remain in effect even if the War on Terror should be won (anyone who believes that is a possibility is unfathomably naive).

I'm at loss at finding other acts which allow the President to make anyone disappear (including political opponents) without a trace, without supplying any kind of evidence, subject them to torture, not give them a trial and not having to tell where they are or what happened to them until after a trial (which may or may not happen). It's something you're more used to hear about from a South American dictatorship or the Middle East.

I don't want to sound callous, but who do you think trained them? In the US vs USSR it was pragmatic to use 3rd world friendly proxy nations to do some of our dirty work. So, we helped them to create some of the most despotically evil regimes ever on this planet. Getting boundaries documented in MCA puts some structure around this evil that has been around for decades, but only limited by each persons individual morality. Here is a link to the Military Commisions Act. I've read through it, and it seems to be soley concerned with the due process around the trial, but not very descriptive of capture and detention before trial. I'm thinking that perhaps any limits you are suggesting are missing here, might be described elsewhere.

The president has (and has had within the constitution) the power to do almost anything in times of war, national crisis, or in the interest of national security. In times of peace the US is more like a democratic republic, but in times of national crisis we become more of a constitutional dictatorship.

This is why I would prefer these types of freedom curtailing provisions to have built in time limits, like the PATRIOT act. I'm ok with giving the president the tools they need to protect the nation, but also to write them to sunset when they are no longer needed.

[roguebanshee]

I'm thinking that perhaps any limits you are suggesting are missing here, might be described elsewhere.

For the detainment, nothing I've been able to find. And nothing has been presented by supporters of the MCA afaik.

For the treatment of captured prisoners, the Geneva Conventions...

And about the training of various scumbags, it always seem to come up in these kinds of discussions, almost as a point of pride from the American part of the discussion. My point is, you claim to be the great defenders of democracy, freedom and liberty, should you not at least try to act that way at home?

[Ashock]

My point is, you claim to be the great defenders of democracy, freedom and liberty, should you not at least try to act that way at home?

This crap is allowed to be posted, isn't it?


-A

[kandrathe]

For the detainment, nothing I've been able to find. And nothing has been presented by supporters of the MCA afaik.

For the treatment of captured prisoners, the Geneva Conventions...

And about the training of various scumbags, it always seem to come up in these kinds of discussions, almost as a point of pride from the American part of the discussion. My point is, you claim to be the great defenders of democracy, freedom and liberty, should you not at least try to act that way at home?

We try... We throw the SOB's out every 4 to 8 years, but other SOB's take their place. The race for President is ample proof that nice persons finish last, so then every candidate we get is tainted so we are forced to choose between the "bad" and the "worse". Look at the options lately, Gore, Kerry, Clinton, Bush Jr., Bush Sr., Dukakis, Dole, Mondale. They are so obviously the lap dog puppets willing to bend over for the real power brokers in the world. "We the people" are oblivious to the real power struggles in the world, and tend to believe the predigested pablum fed to us by the "news" media. It is pretty apparent in that show of politics we call "Congress", and see what they "say" in their sound bites, as opposed to how they work together and vote.

Another thing to consider... You really don't want to go making enemies within the intelligence services now do you? They have a particular way of doing things, and upsetting the apple cart would probably result in some bad consequences for you. Ask Jimmy Hoffa...

[Occhidiangela]

And its not going to happen to the little guys, while this new Bush&Cheney brand of justice certainly has been, and will be. I'm pretty sure that people like Arar are in nil danger of being dragged into the ICC. And, frankly, I think if I had a choice, I'd be better off there, where at least I get a public trial, a lawyer, and the associated soapbox, kangaroo or not, compared to getting tortured in one of your prisons, or their wholly-supported outsourced branches, have the forced confession used against me, as well as a load of evidence that cannot be revealed for 'national security' reasons in a secret trial. Which is exactly what this bill provides Bush the power to do.

Right, chicken little. I suggest that you stay out of my country. Your absence will be appreciated. ARar was given up by the RCMP, go cry to Ottawa.

If you say that its not going to happen - then why are the provisions for all that there?

Come on over and find out. I mean, you are sure to be arrested, there are hordes of agents standing around with nothing better to do than arrest you.

I'd especially like to hear your explanation about the one where confessions extracted with torture can be used against you.

So would I. Citation?
EDIT: I doubt you are willing to do the homework, so I'll do it for you.

‘‘§ 948r. Compulsory self-incrimination prohibited; treatment
of statements obtained by torture and other
statements
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—No person shall be required to testify against himself at a proceeding of a military commission under this chapter. ‘‘
(B)EXCLUSION OF STATEMENTS OBTAINED BY TORTURE.—A statement obtained by use of torture shall not be admissible in a military commission under this chapter, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.
© STATEMENTS OBTAINED BEFORE ENACTMENT OF DETAINEE TREATMENT ACT OF 2005.—A statement obtained before December 30, 2005 (the date of the enactment of the Defense Treatment
Act of 2005) in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the military judge finds that—
‘‘(1) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value; and
(2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.
‘‘(d) STATEMENTS OBTAINED AFTER ENACTMENT OF DETAINEE TREATMENT ACT OF 2005.—A statement obtained on or after December 30, 2005 (the date of the enactment of the Defense
Treatment Act of 2005) in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the military judge finds that—
‘‘(1) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value;
(2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence; and
(3) the interrogation methods used to obtain the statement do not amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment prohibited by section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.

In short, Swiss, you are full of holes, like your cheese.

I'll answer it this way - it is not very relevant to this.

Actually, it is. The incentive to be a citizen has been removed, and needs to be restored. Maybe this isn't the best way to do that. But the privilieges of citizenship should be more than nugatory.

Citisens will still be able to vote, still have protection against deportation due to criminal activity, etc, etc. And I'll say again - your train of reasoning can be used to justify doing just about anything, including not treating them as human beings - all it takes is an executive order from one man to do so.

Then I suggest aliens do as my grandmother did: work arse off, make kids learn English and assimilate, and bust arse to become a citizen in good standing. Problem solved. Don't come to the US under false pretenses, or with a half arsed intention of buying in "sometime in the future."

There's plenty of other incentives in existance that don't require you to treat non-citisens like some sort of disease.

Given the reality being at odds with your presumption of innocence, the flood of persons into this country under false pretenses, and illegally, I'd say an incentive is needed to reconsider just why one wants to come here. I personally don't give a crap about "your tired, your poor, your huddled masses." Time and tides move forward, and that quaint little poem no longer has any currency.

That single mother who hit Ellis Island with a 5 year old daughter wasn't looking for a hand out: she was looking to build a new life in a new country, and she did so with a will. She had a sponsor, she was law abiding, she was hell on education and fitting in. If every other immigrant had what my grandmother had, in terms of attitude, there'd be no problem.

They don't, so there is.

DR

[Occhidiangela]

A question of semantics. I am an 'immigrant' (a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence) and I am a citizen. Under the existing laws, my citizenship, unlike that of a person born on American soil, is subjected to revocation.

Hmmm. :( Must do a bit more reading. They can do the same to Ahnold, in that case, eh?

Thus, it is not at all impossible that by speaking out against the policies of a popular administration at a time of heightened feelings I could be accused of treason (shortly after 9/11, for example). The right conservative judge and a jury of rednecks could then have put me in a position where my citizenship would be stripped.

People are still burning flags and not going to jail.

And the bill we are discussing could then have made my observation that Shrub is an idiot a crime meriting a life sentence. Far fetched? Yes. But in a true democracy, laws should make even far fetched possibilities like that impossible rather than enabling them.

I fail to see how your exercising First Amendment rights can be charged as Treason. I understand the pundits playing fast and loose with that term, but not any DA worthy of the name.

That is exactly my contention. But what seems to be a minor point to you is the major reason that I find the bill so offensive. I see a huge difference between locking people up with and without probable cause.

Minor or not, I agree with you that probable cause needs to be part and parcel of the language.

I agree, but maintain that this is a different topic. The bill in question applies to aliens who are in the USA legally as well as illegally and to people who are not and may never have been in the USA at all.

Good, then they can go and pick up Swiss Mercenary, arrest him, torture him, get him to confess, and he can then tell us all about how it went. :rolleyes: Then, they can turn him over to the ICC.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

For the detainment, nothing I've been able to find. And nothing has been presented by supporters of the MCA afaik.

For the treatment of captured prisoners, the Geneva Conventions...

And about the training of various scumbags, it always seem to come up in these kinds of discussions, almost as a point of pride from the American part of the discussion. My point is, you claim to be the great defenders of democracy, freedom and liberty, should you not at least try to act that way at home?

Why do that? So much more fun to round up people on a daily basis and subject them to pogroms. :rolleyes:

Occhi

[kandrathe]

...
So would I. Citation?
...

In my reading of the MCR linked above, the only way information extracted by torture can be used is as evidence of torture used against the torturer. Or, evidence gained through coercion can be used if the judge determines the evidence can be used AND if after the Act is approved that the coercion does not violate the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. I underlined the relevant sections.

. § 948r. Compulsory self-incrimination prohibited; treatment of statements obtained by torture and other statements
. (a ) IN GENERAL.—No person shall be required to testify against himself at a proceeding of a military commission under this chapter.
. (b ) EXCLUSION OF STATEMENTS OBTAINED BY TORTURE.—A statement obtained by use of torture shall not be admissible in a military commission under this chapter, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.
. (c ) STATEMENTS OBTAINED BEFORE ENACTMENT OF DETAINEE TREATMENT ACT OF 2005.—A statement obtained before December 30, 2005 (the date of the enactment of the Defense Treatment Act of 2005) in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the military judge finds that—
. (1) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value; and
. (2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.
. (d ) STATEMENTS OBTAINED AFTER ENACTMENT OF DETAINEE TREATMENT ACT OF 2005.—A statement obtained on or after December 30, 2005 (the date of the enactment of the Defense Treatment Act of 2005) in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the military judge finds that—
. (1) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value;
. (2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence; and
. (3) the interrogation methods used to obtain the statement do not amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment prohibited by section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.

Heh, I beat you Occhi by 2 seconds...

[Swiss Mercenary]

This crap is allowed to be posted, isn't it?
-A

Funny how you aren't running your mouth about the US's use of torture.

After all, if we were to make one of your comparisons... Let's see...

The KGB used torture...

Now the US is going to do the same...

Therefore, US = Devil?

Why doesn't this follow for you again? You seem to love making those kinds of associations between just about everything else.

And Occhi, you've still failed to show me those ICC enforcers just itching to set up shop on your street, if the US were to sign on. Yet, aparrently, the non-existance of a CIA guy on every street corner is a good enough reason for you to support this bill.

As for your non-citisen rant, you've ignored some fairly inconvenient points, there.

[Ashock]

Funny how you aren't running your mouth about the US's use of torture.

After all, if we were to make one of your comparisons... Let's see...

The KGB used torture...

Now the US is going to do the same...

Therefore, US = Devil?

Why doesn't this follow for you again? You seem to love making those kinds of associations between just about everything else.

Heh, there's torture and there's torture. Our so-called torture is sleep depravation and scare tactics. KGB's torture is scare tactics that become real and sleep depravation that is caused by death. What can I say, before you open your mouth, make sure you have something semi-intelligent to say.


Edit: Oh and btw.... if you were saying what you are saying about your own country in my old country or in a number of coutries of today, you'd be dead, your family would be dead and pretty much anyone you've talked to in the last year would be dead. Hmm, in certain cases, that's not such a bad thing, I guess....


Have a nice day.


-A

[roguebanshee]

the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.

I had a look at that:

(d) Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined- In this section, the term `cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.

A bit more digging revealed:

"I. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following reservations:

(1) That the United States considers itself bound by the obligation under article 16 to prevent `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment', only insofar as the term `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

You can find a more indepth look at how the reservations work out here (not an impartial site, then again this discussion hasn't been so either).

But basically the message is: The US doesn't consider much, if anything, torture if information can be gained.

[kandrathe]

Funny how you aren't running your mouth about the US's use of torture.

After all, if we were to make one of your comparisons... Let's see...

The KGB used torture...

From Bob woodward's book, Veil;

Hezbollah had kidnapped four Soviet diplomats from Beirut during the fall of 1985. One they murdered straightaway. The others they held in captivity. In response, the KGB seized the relative of a Hezbollah leader. As part of Moscow's anti-terrorism policy, the KGB "castrated him, stuffed his testicles in his mouth, shot him in the head and sent the body back to Hezbollah. The KGB included a message that other members of the Party of God would die in a similar manner if the three Soviets were not released." Shortly afterward, Hezbollah set free the three remaining Soviet hostages. Soviet interests in Lebanon were never similarly menaced again. Russian President Vladimir Putin and his cadre of KGB veterans certainly have a policy template to deal with the abduction and recent vicious murders of four Russian Embassy workers in Baghdad.

At the same time the KGB was making a point, in the middle east...

• April 18, 1983, an Islamic Jihad suicide bomber drove a truck loaded with explosives into the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 60 people, including 17 Americans<>
  
• Jan. 18, 1984, an Islamic Jihad gunman killed Malcolm Kerr, the president of the American University of Beirut,<>
  
• Six months later, another Islamic Jihad suicide bomber attacked the U.S. Marine barracks at the Beirut airport, killing 241 American servicemen.<>
  
• A few months later, Islamic Jihad kidnapped William Buckley, the CIA station chief in Beirut, whom they tortured and eventually murdered.<>
  [st]What did the US do in response to any of the above?
  
  From below;

  You might want to note that this law means that the president can consider just about anything under the sun an 'acceptable' level of torture. If you think that it's only scare tactics, you are quite and wide, naive, or ignorant.

  The section I underlined is the portion you refuse to understand. Prior to the bill the president had the same power, and after the bill the power is diminished in that it is defined rather than nebulous. Every new law passed by Congress is a curtailment of power and/or rights. The "OMG the presidents power is out of hand!" crap is pure BS. Show me any law that Congress has passed that gave the President more power than he had that was not given to him by the Constitution!

[Swiss Mercenary]

Heh, there's torture and there's torture. Our so-called torture is sleep depravation and scare tactics.

You might want to note that this law means that the president can consider just about anything under the sun an 'acceptable' level of torture. If you think that it's only scare tactics, you are quite and wide, naive, or ignorant.

Edit: Oh and btw.... if you were saying what you are saying about your own country in my old country or in a number of coutries of today, you'd be dead, your family would be dead and pretty much anyone you've talked to in the last year would be dead. Hmm, in certain cases, that's not such a bad thing, I guess....
Have a nice day.
-A

Your hypocricy in these kinds of matters is really quite staggering. Then again, reasoning was never your strong point.

Edit: Oh and btw.... if you were saying what you are saying about your own country in my old country or in a number of coutries of today, you'd be dead, your family would be dead and pretty much anyone you've talked to in the last year would be dead. Hmm, in certain cases, that's not such a bad thing, I guess....

As can be evidenced by that lovely example of 'You have it better then ____, sit down, and shut up.'

Hey, if you're interested in waiting until point, its your head, not mine.

[kandrathe]

I had a look at that:

A bit more digging revealed:

You can find a more indepth look at how the reservations work out here (not an impartial site, then again this discussion hasn't been so either).

But basically the message is: The US doesn't consider much, if anything, torture if information can be gained.

Well, you missed section 1002...

SEC. 1002. UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR THE INTERROGATION OF PERSONS UNDER THE DETENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
( a ) In General- No person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.
( b ) Applicability- Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to any person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense pursuant to a criminal law or immigration law of the United States.
( c ) Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the rights under the United States Constitution of any person in the custody or under the physical jurisdiction of the United States.

And here is the Field Manual 34-54 on Intelligence Interrogation. Section ( a ) requires that the Army Field Manual govern the treatment of persons captured, and that says, if you check on pages 1-8 through 1-10, that every person captured must be treated as a Prisoner of War, until the they are detained and their status is changed. Section ( b ) rescinds ( a ) for prisoners who are wanted, or held and are subject to criminal law or immigration law. Section ( c ) holds that this Act is subservient to the Constitution and does not affect it or anyone protected by it.

[Ashock]

You might want to note that this law means that the president can consider just about anything under the sun an 'acceptable' level of torture. If you think that it's only scare tactics, you are quite and wide, naive, or ignorant.
Your hypocricy in these kinds of matters is really quite staggering. Then again, reasoning was never your strong point.
As can be evidenced by that lovely example of 'You have it better then ____, sit down, and shut up.'

Hey, if you're interested in waiting until point, its your head, not mine.

Listen, it's very simple, really. You live in a fantasy world of theorization and speculation. I live in the real world, as I know things that frankly you can't imagine. We have nothing additional to discuss, as you are too stubborn to realize that there are people and governments in this world that simply do not abide by your standards of what's normal.

As I've said before, have a nice day. Really, it is better than you deserve.


-A

[Ashock]

Hezbollah had kidnapped four Soviet diplomats from Beirut during the fall of 1985. One they murdered straightaway. The others they held in captivity. In response, the KGB seized the relative of a Hezbollah leader. As part of Moscow's anti-terrorism policy, the KGB "castrated him, stuffed his testicles in his mouth, shot him in the head and sent the body back to Hezbollah. The KGB included a message that other members of the Party of God would die in a similar manner if the three Soviets were not released." Shortly afterward, Hezbollah set free the three remaining Soviet hostages. Soviet interests in Lebanon were never similarly menaced again. Russian President Vladimir Putin and his cadre of KGB veterans certainly have a policy template to deal with the abduction and recent vicious murders of four Russian Embassy workers in Baghdad.

Sniff, sniff. This made me teary eyed. Prolitariat of the World, Unite. Misty water-colored memories..... Mwahaha. Umm, sorry.... nostalgia and all.


-A