Tough Love & The Compassionate Conservative

Mephisto

Philosopher
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Messages
6,064
Bush signs bill to interrogate, prosecute terror suspects

POSTED: 10:16 a.m. EDT, October 17, 2006

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush signed legislation Tuesday authorizing tough interrogation of terror suspects and smoothing the way for trials before military commissions, calling it a "vital tool" in the war against terrorism.

Bush's plan for treatment of the terror suspects became law just six weeks after he acknowledged that the CIA had been secretly interrogating suspected terrorists overseas and pressed Congress to quickly give authority to try them in military commissions.

"With the bill I'm about to sign, the men our intelligence officials believe orchestrated the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people will face justice," Bush said.

Among those the United States hopes to try are Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, as well as Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, an alleged would-be 9/11 hijacker, and Zayn al-Abidin Abu Zubaydah, who was believed to be a link between Osama bin Laden and many al Qaeda cells.

"It is a rare occasion when a president can sign a bill that he knows will save American lives," Bush said. "I have that privilege this morning."

Bush signed the bill in the White House East Room, at a table with a sign positioned on the front that said "Protecting America." He said he signed it in memory of the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.

"We will answer brutal murder with patient justice," Bush said. "Those who kill the innocent will be held to account."

Among those in the audience were military officers, lawmakers who helped pass the bill and members of Bush's Cabinet.

He singled out for praise, among others, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, who has come under sharp criticism in recent months as violence has soared in Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/17/bush.terrorism.ap/index.html
____________

Now we're getting somewhere in this war on terror! We'll teach them what Democracy is all about!

"The law protects detainees from blatant abuses during questioning -- such as rape, torture and "cruel and inhuman" treatment -- but does not require that any of them be granted legal counsel. Also, it specifically bars detainees from filing habeas corpus petitions challenging their detentions in federal courts. Bush said the process is "fair, lawful and necessary."
 
but does not require that any of them be granted legal counsel. Also, it specifically bars detainees from filing habeas corpus petitions challenging their detentions in federal courts. Bush said the process is "fair, lawful and necessary."

Prior to 2001, can you find any other example from the US or any country where combatant detainees were given attorneys or granted the right to challenge detention outside of the context of a criminal trial?

Any one will do.
 
Prior to 2001, can you find any other example from the US or any country where combatant detainees were given attorneys or granted the right to challenge detention outside of the context of a criminal trial?

Prior to 2001, can you remember the U.S. endorsing a policy of "spiriting away" suspects to a foreign country for questioning away from the prying eyes of scrutiny? Prior to Abu Grahib can you remember rumors of "secret prisons" that have since seen light? Do you remember, Condy Rice unequivocally stating, "we do not torture?"

I suppose you believe that praising Rumsfeld was in order?
 
Prior to 2001, can you find any other example from the US or any country where combatant detainees were given attorneys or granted the right to challenge detention outside of the context of a criminal trial?

Any one will do.

All those people detained in the war on drugs.
 
Prior to 2001, can you remember the U.S. endorsing a policy of "spiriting away" suspects to a foreign country for questioning away from the prying eyes of scrutiny?

Yes. Rendition has been the policy of the United States for some decades now.
 
Prior to 2001, can you find any other example from the US or any country where combatant detainees were given attorneys or granted the right to challenge detention outside of the context of a criminal trial?

Any one will do.


How about the Third Geneva Convention regarding Prisoners of War?

Article 78

Prisoners of war shall have the right to make known to the military authorities in whose power they are, their requests regarding the conditions of captivity to which they are subjected.

They shall also have the unrestricted right to apply to the representatives of the Protecting Powers either through their prisoners' representative or, if they consider it necessary, direct, in order to draw their attention to any points on which they may have complaints to make regarding their conditions of captivity.

These requests and complaints shall not be limited nor considered to be a part of the correspondence quota referred to in Article 71. They must be transmitted immediately. Even if they are recognized to be unfounded, they may not give rise to any punishment.


Prisoners' representatives may send periodic reports on the situation in the camps and the needs of the prisoners of war to the representatives of the Protecting Powers.

Article 84

A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.

In no circumstances whatever shall a prisoner of war be tried by a court of any kind which does not offer the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality as generally recognized, and, in particular, the procedure of which does not afford the accused the rights and means of defence provided for in Article 105.

Article 105

The prisoner of war shall be entitled to assistance by one of his prisoner comrades, to defence by a qualified advocate or counsel of his own choice, to the calling of witnesses and, if he deems necessary, to the services of a competent interpreter.He shall be advised of these rights by the Detaining Power in due time before the trial.

Failing a choice by the prisoner of war, the Protecting Power shall find him an advocate or counsel, and shall have at least one week at its disposal for the purpose. The Detaining Power shall deliver to the said Power, on request, a list of persons qualified to present the defence. Failing a choice of an advocate or counsel by the prisoner of war or the Protecting Power, the Detaining Power shall appoint a competent advocate or counsel to conduct the defence.

The advocate or counsel conducting the defence on behalf of the prisoner of war shall have at his disposal a period of two weeks at least before the opening of the trial, as well as the necessary facilities to prepare the defence of the accused. He may, in particular, freely visit the accused and interview him in private. He may also confer with any witnesses for the defence, including prisoners of war. He shall have the benefit of these facilities until the term of appeal or petition has expired.

Particulars of the charge or charges on which the prisoner of war is to be arraigned, as well as the documents which are generally communicated to the accused by virtue of the laws in force in the armed forces of the Detaining Power, shall be communicated to the accused prisoner of war in a language which he understands, and in good time before the opening of the trial. The same communication in the same circumstances shall be made to the advocate or counsel conducting the defence on behalf of the prisoner of war.

The representatives of the Protecting Power shall be entitled to attend the trial of the case, unless, exceptionally, this is held in camera in the interest of State security. In such a case the Detaining Power shall advise the Protecting Power accordingly.
 
Can you point me to that War Powers Act resolution? I must have missed that war.

either way it is good to see that america decided to behave like all civilized countries and remove all rights of non citizens to any appeal.

And how about you show cases of people being held as enemy combatants but not as either POW's or criminals? At least by what we would concider civilized countries, and not comiting crimes against humanity.
 
Prior to Abu Grahib can you remember rumors of "secret prisons" that have since seen light?

Are you now claiming the Abu Grahib was a secret prison?

I suppose you believe that praising Rumsfeld was in order?

No - I believe that you are the member responsible, by sheer volume, for the most moronic and anti-skeptical posts on this board and that your presence here unfortunately detracts from many serious (or at least witty) posters with opinions from all points on the political spectrum. Your sole talent seems to be in taking an opinion to bend the facts around at ever-greater levels just to be heard over the shrill of your last screed. That's not skepticism. Hell, that's not even entertaining. Thanks for asking, though.

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Friedrich Nietzsche
 
Last edited:
either way it is good to see that america decided to behave like all civilized countries and remove all rights of non citizens to any appeal.

The MCA does not apply to US citizens and does not remove the right to appeal convictions.

And how about you show cases of people being held as enemy combatants but not as either POW's or criminals? At least by what we would concider civilized countries, and not comiting crimes against humanity.

The most famous example is the XX (say "double cross") program put in place by the United Kingdom to deal with captured spies during WWII. If you read Ex parte Quirin, et al v. Cox you will find other examples from US history dating back to the Revolution.
 
Are you now claiming the Abu Grahib was a secret prison?

Don't be ridiculous - you know exactly what I was claiming.


No - I believe that you are the member responsible, by sheer volume, for the most moronic and anti-skeptical posts on this board and that your presence here unfortunately detracts from many serious (or at least witty) posters with opinions from all points on the political spectrum. Your sole talent seems to be in taking an opinion to bend the facts around at ever-greater levels just to be heard over the shrill of your last screed. That's not skepticism. Hell, that's not even entertaining. Thanks for asking, though.

Wow! I guess I struck a nerve, huh?

If I'm so infuriating, why do you bother posting?

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Friedrich Nietzsche[/QUOTE]

"Far more crucial than what we know or do not know is what we do not want to know."
Eric Hoffer
 
No - I believe that you are the member responsible, by sheer volume, for the most moronic and anti-skeptical posts on this board and that your presence here unfortunately detracts from many serious (or at least witty) posters with opinions from all points on the political spectrum. Your sole talent seems to be in taking an opinion to bend the facts around at ever-greater levels just to be heard over the shrill of your last screed. That's not skepticism. Hell, that's not even entertaining. Thanks for asking, though.
Yes, but you'll be happy to know that Mephisto claims to work an average of 14 hours per day. Just think how much more he could be posting if he really put his mind to it.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but you'll be happy to know that Mephisto claims to work an average of 14 hours per day. Just think how much more he could be posting if he really put his mind to it.

I'm working as we speak, Boyo. Of course it does require the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time.

(edited to ask) And what are you doing here? Isn't there some money you need to be making?

P.P.S. Did I neglect to mention that I rely heavily on the government to suppliment my income? :)
 
Last edited:
Prior to 2001, can you find any other example from the US or any country where combatant detainees were given attorneys or granted the right to challenge detention outside of the context of a criminal trial?

Any one will do.

It is irrelvant what amoral acts the U.S. has perpetrated in the past.

It is irrelevant what amoral acts other countries are perpetrating now.

What is relevant is that this administration is acting with complete disregard for the legal system, and with complete disregard for the principles of this country.
 
I think I know what you were trying to say.

Abu Grahib = bad.

Secret = bad.

Abu Grahib = Secret.

I guess you're just not as bright as I thought you were. Let's see if I can help you out.

Abu Grahib + We Do NOT Torture + secret prisons + legislation endorsing torture = Compassionate Conservative.
 
What we have are two sets of rules. One set of rules for the military, which forbids torture. Thus, the bozo soldiers of Abu Ghraib are punished. Another set of rules for the CIA, which is what Bush is signing with this legislation.

A soldier dunking a prisoner headfirst in water = bad

An intelligence agent dunking a prisoner headfirst in water = good
 
The MCA does not apply to US citizens and does not remove the right to appeal convictions.
Exactly, just like when you are abroad you have no rights, well why should non citizens ever expect to have rights


The most famous example is the XX (say "double cross") program put in place by the United Kingdom to deal with captured spies during WWII. If you read Ex parte Quirin, et al v. Cox you will find other examples from US history dating back to the Revolution.

Cool, I did not know that american torture policy had such a long history.

You missed the easy one there as well, all the concentration camps for japanese, italian, and german individuals.
 
I think I know what you were trying to say.

Abu Grahib = bad.

Secret = bad.

Abu Grahib = Secret.

Hey abu grahib was not bad, they where just putting into action rumsfelds statement about how we will have to be on the dark side to win this war. Of course you can't punish the ones who put into place the system where they had to help soffen up prisoners with out any training in interogation techniques. And besides as long as bush can interperate the geneva conventions he can simply rule that nothing was broken there. As it is only death, rape and dismemeberment that is officialy outlawed now.
 
How about the Third Geneva Convention regarding Prisoners of War?

First, those held at GITMO do not meet the Article 4 requirements for protection as prisoners-of-war under the Third Convention.

I cannot comment on the Article 78 issue other to say that the US is meeting its responsibility in making the detainees held at GITMO available for ICRC inspection and interview - even though it does not apply in this instace - so I think it's safe to assume that they are free to petetion US forces directly.

The MCA meets the Article 84 standards quoted - even though they do not apply in this instance - since the structure of the court closely mirrors those of regular courts martial - that is, it is composed of a panel of JAGs whose verdicts are independant from scrutiny from or reprisal by the detaining power.

Section 948m:

(a) Number of Members

(1) A military commission under this chapter shall, except as provided in paragraph (2), have at least five members.

(2) In a case in which the accused before a military commission under this chapter may be sentenced to a penalty of death, the military commission shall have the number of members prescribed by section 949m(c) of this title.

Section 949b:

Unlawfully influencing action of military commission

(a) In General- (1) No authority convening a military commission under this chapter may censure, reprimand, or admonish the military commission, or any member, military judge, or counsel thereof, with respect to the findings or sentence adjudged by the military commission, or with respect to any other exercises of its or his functions in the conduct of the proceedings.

-(2) No person may attempt to coerce or, by any unauthorized means, influence--

--(A) the action of a military commission under this chapter, or any member thereof, in reaching the findings or sentence in any case;

--(B) the action of any convening, approving, or reviewing authority with respect to his judicial acts; or

--(C) the exercise of professional judgment by trial counsel or defense counsel.

-(3) Paragraphs (1) and (2) do not apply with respect to--

--(A) general instructional or informational courses in military justice if such courses are designed solely for the purpose of instructing members of a command in the substantive and procedural aspects of military commissions; or

--(B) statements and instructions given in open proceedings by a military judge or counsel.

(b) Prohibition on Consideration of Actions on Commission in Evaluation of Fitness- In the preparation of an effectiveness, fitness, or efficiency report or any other report or document used in whole or in part for the purpose of determining whether a commissioned officer of the armed forces is qualified to be advanced in grade, or in determining the assignment or transfer of any such officer or whether any such officer should be retained on active duty, no person may--

-(1) consider or evaluate the performance of duty of any member of a military commission under this chapter; or

-(2) give a less favorable rating or evaluation to any commissioned officer because of the zeal with which such officer, in acting as counsel, represented any accused before a military commission under this chapter.

Section 949l:

Voting and rulings

(a) Vote by Secret Written Ballot- Voting by members of a military commission under this chapter on the findings and on the sentence shall be by secret written ballot.

(b) Rulings- (1) The military judge in a military commission under this chapter shall rule upon all questions of law, including the admissibility of evidence and all interlocutory questions arising during the proceedings.

-(2) Any ruling made by the military judge upon a question of law or an interlocutory question (other than the factual issue of mental responsibility of the accused) is conclusive and constitutes the ruling of the military commission. However, a military judge may change his ruling at any time during the trial.

(c) Instructions Prior to Vote- Before a vote is taken of the findings of a military commission under this chapter, the military judge shall, in the presence of the accused and counsel, instruct the members as to the elements of the offense and charge the members--

-(1) that the accused must be presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established by legal and competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt;

-(2) that in the case being considered, if there is a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused and he must be acquitted;

-(3) that, if there is reasonable doubt as to the degree of guilt, the finding must be in a lower degree as to which there is no reasonable doubt; and

-(4) that the burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt is upon the United States.



Section 949m

Number of votes required

(a) Conviction- No person may be convicted by a military commission under this chapter of any offense, except as provided in section 949i(b) of this title or by concurrence of two-thirds of the members present at the time the vote is taken.

(b) Sentences- (1) No person may be sentenced by a military commission to suffer death, except insofar as--

--(A) the penalty of death is expressly authorized under this chapter or the law of war for an offense of which the accused has been found guilty;

--(B) trial counsel expressly sought the penalty of death by filing an appropriate notice in advance of trial;

--(C) the accused is convicted of the offense by the concurrence of all the members present at the time the vote is taken; and

--(D) all the members present at the time the vote is taken concur in the sentence of death.

-(2) No person may be sentenced to life imprisonment, or to confinement for more than 10 years, by a military commission under this chapter except by the concurrence of three-fourths of the members present at the time the vote is taken.

-(3) All other sentences shall be determined by a military commission by the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present at the time the vote is taken.

(c) Number of Members Required for Penalty of Death- (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), in a case in which the penalty of death is sought, the number of members of the military commission under this chapter shall be not less than 12.

--(2) In any case described in paragraph (1) in which 12 members are not reasonably available because of physical conditions or military exigencies, the convening authority shall specify a lesser number of members for the military commission (but not fewer than 9 members), and the military commission may be assembled, and the trial held, with not fewer than the number of members so specified. In such a case, the convening authority shall make a detailed written statement, to be appended to the record, stating why a greater number of members were not reasonably available.


The MCA meets the Article 105 standards quoted - even though they do not apply in this instance - with the exception of the ability to be "assistance by one of his prisoner comrades."

Since I seem to be having trouble with FindLaw, I'll have to post the sections relevant to Article 105 in a bit.
 

Back
Top Bottom