Where would I find the text of the detainee treatment bills?

[shraby]

A lot has been said about the brouhaha but I haven't seen the text of the bills in writing.

[Richard D]

1. Exactly!

I've been saything the same thing.

[Solly Mack]

2. I'd very much like to see what Congress is coming up with

I already know the existing laws for detainees and I already know a good deal of what the Bush Regime has been doing...and what he wants from Congress

[wtmusic]

3. Here ya go:

Warner/McCain/Graham bill:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/WarnerMcCainGrahamFINAL.pdf

and Bushco bill (checkout the entertaining RETROACTIVE clause, at the end):

http://balkin.blogspot.com/Bush.Military.Commissions.Bill.pdf#search=%22detainee%20treatment%20bill%20text%22

[kurth]

4. "NO EX POST FACTO LAW SHALL BE PASSED"

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9
Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798)

[Solly Mack]

5. True. But then why hasn't Congress already gone after Bush for the crimes

he has already committed?

Bush acts as if what he's been doing is legal..and Congress isn't acting any different.

That's the problem...Congress isn't treating Bush like the criminal he alreaady is...

So Congress passes the CYA law...and then challenges go before the courts...and in all that time...America still tortures.

I know you're correct....but the reality is, government is acting as if there's a question of Bush's guilt...they are acting as if torture hasn't happened yet...Bush is acting as if he needs this bill to make sure it doesn't happen....when the reality is...it is happening and it's been happening..

So you're correct...and then there's the new reality Bush is trying to manufacture...

Bush is trying to pull fast one...and not without some help from some in Congress

[kurth]

6. They think they're the British Parliament catering to a King:

"The prohibition against ex post facto laws arose from the knowledge that the Parliament of Great Britain claimed and exercised a power to pass such laws. Sometimes they respected the crime by declaring acts to be treason which were not treason when committed, at other times they violated the rules of evidence by admitting one witness when the existing law required two, by receiving evidence without oath or the oath of the wife against the husband or other testimony which the courts would not admit; at other times they inflicted punishments where the party was not by law liable to any punishment; and in other cases, they inflicted greater punishment than the law annexed to the offence. The ground for the exercise of such legislative power was this, that the safety of the kingdom depended on the death or other punishment of the offender: as if traitors, when discovered, could be so formidable, or the government so insecure! With very few exceptions, the advocates of such laws were stimulated by ambition, or personal resentment, and vindictive malice. To prevent such and similar acts of violence and injustice, the Constitution of the United States, article 1, section 9, prohibits the Legislature of the United States from passing any ex post facto law...

Laws I consider ex post facto laws: 1st. Every law that makes an action, done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2nd. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3rd. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender."
- Justice Chase (1798)

[Solly Mack]

7. Good answer! and thanks for the info!!!!!

[wtmusic]

8. This is kinda like "facto ex post"

If Congress decriminalizes what Bushie has done in the past, he's off the hook.

You can't prosecute someone for something that isn't a crime--even if it was in the past.