"What's in the Terrorism Detainee Bill?" (The "compromise" bill)

[Solly Mack]

Evidence Obtained Through Torture

The tribunals won't admit evidence obtained through torture. Evidence obtained through coercive interrogation tactics that the Bush administration doesn't consider torture (such as "waterboarding," where a detainee is made to believe he's drowning, or "stress positions," where a detainee is made to sit or stand in a painful position for extended periods of time) may be used under some circumstances.


Detainee Lawsuits

According to the bill, detainees held by the United States at any overseas location cannot file a lawsuit challenging their detention. This wipes out both pending and future lawsuits. The bill also says no one can file a lawsuit claiming a violation of their rights under the Geneva Conventions.


Presidential Power

The bill gives the president the power to "interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions," a phrase that may clash with another part of the bill, which says, "Nothing in this section shall affect the constitutional functions and responsibilities of Congress and the judicial branch."


War Crimes Act

The compromise legislation would narrow the range of offenses prohibited under the War Crimes Act. This would protect civilians (such as CIA interrogators and White House officials) from being prosecuted for committing acts that would have been considered war crimes under the old definition. The change is retroactive to 1997, which means any crimes committed since 1997 would be prosecuted under the new standard, not the old one.



More at link:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6125424

[bullimiami]

1. most of this is clearly either unconstitutional on its face or violates

the geneva conventions treaty which was ratified and therefore also united states law.

congress cannot pass a law to abrogate a treaty or change the constitution.

they would have to 1) withdraw from the treaty
2) pass a constitutional amendment and have it passed by the states.

[Solly Mack]

2. I don't get the impression that breaking the law and then denying they

broke it bothers them too much.

Someone would have to call them on it. It could be challenged in the courts, of course.

But a Congress that would pass such a bill isn't a Congress that would call Bush on his crimes.

[razors edge]

3. if the detainees can't sue

who has standing to bring it to court?

[Solly Mack]

4. I believe other groups can challenge it

on the basis of not meeting our laws or violating some existing law or contradicting an existing law...but I'm not entirely sure.

[sandnsea]

8. I don't see how

If the tortured individual has no rights, how is anybody going to be able to bring their claims to court? The only way I see a court case going forward is if a whistleblower came forward to testify to what he had seen.

[Solly Mack]

10. Not sure. Just guessing there has to be a legal way around this should it

pass

And I hope like everything someone is already looking for the loopholes

[sandnsea]

7. That's the biggest problem I have with this bill

The detainees cannot sue in civil court AND have no habeas corpus rights so NOBODY can bring accusations of torture to a court of law - except a whistleblower. This is much bigger than the torture issue to me, and something I think people would relate to more as well.

[razors edge]

12. complete and tidy

we no have our Reich, complete with the one thing that defined hitler, the camps.

[SoCalDem]

5. Democrats should just vote "present" and be ready to

say that when a REAL bill comes along, they will either support it or not..

These campaign-bills are CRAP..all of them..

and yet they pass and we are stuck with their consequences until they can be UNdone..

Republican bilss are like Ice Cream sundaes
(with shit sprinkles on them)

[Solly Mack]

6. They could do that

[Rex]

9. So if a detainee is an American citizen, does the safeguard

against cruel and unusual punishment just go out the window? Seems like a right to a fair trial and legal representation disappears too.

Are we really ready for that kind of America?

[Solly Mack]

11. That's a good question. An American citizen would have rights under our

laws...and maybe a way to challenge the whole thing since they would? Maybe?

Just hoping...

[joemurphy]

13. Section 948c says that only "alien unlawful enemy combatants"

would be subject to trial by military commissions. I don't think American citizens (like Jose Padilla) could be tried by one of these commissions.

[Solly Mack]

14. "fuzzy" ...Bush introduced "vague"

It's his way of hiding his intentions of criminal activity

[joemurphy]

15. On edit, it looks like it only applies to aliens and not U.S. citizens.