Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Attorneys for Guantanamo Detainees could be detained as Enemy Combatants

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
kerry-is-my-prez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 12:14 AM
Original message
Attorneys for Guantanamo Detainees could be detained as Enemy Combatants
http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/report.asp?ObjID=zQrItml3Gv&Content=845

ATTORNEYS FOR GUANTANAMO DETAINEES COULD BE DETAINED AS ENEMY COMBATANTS UNDER NEW LEGISLATION

President Given Undue Power to Silence Critics
Synopsis

On September 26, 2006, attorneys for the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) determined that what appears to be the final version of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 could allow the government to detain the attorneys themselves as 'enemy combatants.' CCR Legal Director Bill Goodman said: "This ominously broad definition of enemy combatants would mean that almost anyone who actively opposes the President or the government could be locked up indefinitely. This bill makes a mockery of the rule of law."


The current version of the Military Commissions redefines an "unlawful enemy combatant" (UEC) so broadly that it could include anyone who organizes a march against the war in Iraq. The bill defines a UEC as "a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" or anyone who "has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense of the United States." The definition makes no reference to citizenship and therefore could be read to include any number of individuals, including:

CCR attorneys and other habeas counsel, Federal Public Defenders and military defense counsel for detainees at Guantánamo Bay
Any person who has given $5 to a charity working with orphans in Afghanistan that turns out to be associated in some fashion with someone who may be a member of the Taliban
The bill also currently includes provisions so sweeping that they strip U.S. courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions by any non-citizen detained by the government anywhere. Because there is no geographic limitation in the bill's language, it would allow the President to detain any non-citizen without their ever having the chance to challenge their detention in court: "No court... shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination." Examples of people who could be detained indefinitely with no access to a court include:

A foreign tourist wearing an anti-Bush t-shirt at the Statue of Liberty
A protester at an immigration rally who has lived in the U.S. since she was six months old and is a lawful, permanent resident
CCR Executive Director Vincent Warren said: "This new version of the legislation grants the President frightening power to silence his critics. Habeas corpus is, like voting, one of the fundamental rights of democracy. The President's efforts to exercise the privilege of kings must be turned back, before the so-called 'war on terror' turns on our own citizens."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Ignacio Upton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 12:19 AM
Response to Original message
1. This is scary shit!
:scared: Welcome to the new America. That Bill of Rights was fun while it lasted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kerry-is-my-prez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. A foreign tourist wearing an anti-Bush t-shirt at the Statue of Liberty
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kerry-is-my-prez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. And I wouldn't doubt that they'd jail them either - w/all the harrassment
they get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 12:46 AM
Response to Original message
4. Scary, indeed.
K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kerry-is-my-prez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Those attorneys are absolute heros. The crap they have to deal with.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dem2theMax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 01:03 AM
Response to Original message
6. We knew all along why they were building the detention centers.
Here's the proof.

:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
converted_democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. My thoughts exactly.. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 05:07 AM
Response to Original message
7. Note the operative word, "non-citizen".
The next step would be for the federal government and the courts to strip citizenship and make you susceptible to these military courts. All you would have to do is to oppose government policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #7
14. Please see #13, below. . . . n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 05:27 AM
Response to Original message
8. We could just shoot them like we do Saddam's lawyers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tpsbmam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 06:52 AM
Response to Original message
9. They've already been threatened....
I'm sure this attorney isn't alone:

From today's Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329586568-111575,00.html

<snip>
A British lawyer who represents detainees at Guantánamo Bay yesterday claimed he was threatened with internment at the notorious camp by a US military officer.

<snip>
He said the alleged intimidation reached a peak last summer during a mass hunger strike. In August 2005, he said, "a military lawyer took me into a cell and said it would be for me, as he alleged I was behind the hunger strike. They have been making stuff up about the clients and now they are making it up about me."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 07:47 AM
Response to Original message
10. I was wondering if anyone remembers the ,female american
attorney, that was representing a victim in this terror assault on the world. One of the first cases, I remember reading about, who was affected by the patriot act. This female attorney was put in jail for, conversations and transporting written communication out of the jail cell. Some type of paper work for his family.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 08:04 AM
Response to Original message
12. Be afriad
Be very afraid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 08:08 AM
Response to Original message
13. Not just foreigners!!
Edited on Wed Sep-27-06 08:10 AM by annabanana
The criteria for being able to declare someone an "enemy combatant" was just softened in such a way that it COULD include American citizens...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092501514.html

The knock on the door in the middle of the night is no longer the SS.

edit for excerpt (emphasis mine):
"The definition applies to foreigners living inside or outside the United States and does not rule out the possibility of designating a U.S. citizen as an unlawful combatant. It is broader than that in last week's version of the bill, which resulted from lengthy, closed-door negotiations between senior administration officials and dissident Republican senators. That version incorporated a definition backed by the Senate dissidents: those "engaged in hostilities against the United States."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
15. Then they might just as well come get me now.
Bring it on Shrub!

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC