Military Commissions Act of 2006: I'm speechless

[Timbuk3]

congress has demonstrated their willingness to pass possibly the most heinous legislation I've ever seen...

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060926_huq.html

Fuck.

I really don't know what to say.

There was NO FUCKING REASON this legislation couldn't wait until after the election, save one.

The GOP might have become the minority party before the next congress meets.

Now, with as many Democrats as voted for this, I just don't care.

Our government is financially AND morally bankrupt, and those shit-stains that were rammed onto the SCOTUS via our collective asshole will undoubtadly uphold it.

I now live in a nation of torturers. Legally sanctioned, suspects have no rights, the President decides who the suspects are torturers.

I never thought I'd see this day.

[texpatriot2004]

1. I never thought I would see this day either nm

[Atman]

2. I knew it would be bad, but never expected it to get THIS bad.

I'm with you...does it really even matter who is "in charge" anymore? They're all a bunch of self-serving, corporate whore bags.

.

[Timbuk3]

4. When I said "I'm speechless"?

I meant that.

I really don't know what to say.

Combined with the "Anti-U.S. and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologies,'' the report says. ``This could prompt some leftist, nationalist or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack U.S. interests. The radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely and more anonymously in the Internet age," from the NIE, and the phrase "all enemies, foreign and domestic" I'm half afraid to post any more.

These guys are playing for keeps.

[Atman]

7. You don't have to say anything.

This sums it up pretty well. These motherfuckers are selling our entire nation down the river because a) the democrats are spineless wusses, and b) the republicans are authoritarian lunatics. We're all fucked because of petty politics.

[mike_c]

3. torture is the least of it....

They circumscribed habeas corpus. They legalized "disappearing" people. They snuck in "wartime powers" for the Bush misadministration. This is likely the equivalent of the Enabling Act in prewar Germany

[Timbuk3]

5. Exactly right

Make an "anti-globalist" post on the internet and you could be "disappeared".

Once you're "disappeared", and the President has the sole discretion to define who's a "terrorist" btw, who KNOWS what happens to you?

And you can't even cite the Geneva conventions for your basic human rights.

This GOP congress' "parting gift" is...

I just don't have words for this.

[Nikki Stone 1]

10. How long from the Enabling Act to WWII?

Just trying to get a timeframe here.

[mike_c]

12. march 23, 1933....

The Polish campaign began on Aug. 31, 1939.

[Nikki Stone 1]

13. Hey Dr Mike!

Thanks. Where so you see this bunch in another couple of years?

[mike_c]

16. I don't know Nikki....

I mean, if anyone had asked me that question a few years ago there is no way I would have predicted what has happened recently except in VERY hypothetical terms. Like "who knows, fascists might take over or something." Who would have guessed?

[Nikki Stone 1]

19. And still so many people don't see it

Makes it hard to sleep at night. I keep worrying about what to do and where to go. I have so little faith in the mainstream Dems at this point.

[Marie26]

28. Can you explain something?

If Hugh Grant annoyed Bush, what prevents him from labeling Grant an "alien enemy combatant", disappearing him into a secret CIA prison, and sentencing him to death w/o the case ever being made public or presented to a real judge? Is there anything preventing such a scenario in this bill? Cause I'm not seeing it & that scares me to death.

[Horse with no Name]

29. No.

He is truly now the "decider". Our Dems helped him to that lofty position.

[mike_c]

30. no-- who can be designated an "unlawful combatant" is intentionally...

...vague and broad. Anyone who's actions could be interpreted ad aiding "terrorists" would qualify for disappearing-- err, being detained indefinitely-- if I understand the act correctly, and the standards of "proof" are exceedingly lax. It still remains to be seen what the final bill will look like since the senate has not approved their version yet, but reports so far are that this is fast-tracked and a conference version will likely be approved by the end of the week, barring any unforeseen difficulties, like someone growing a spine.

[Irreverend IX]

34. Hey Mike, is this the kind of thing we should be "open-minded" about?

You were saying a few days ago that we should respect religious psychos, so how about opening our minds to the Bush Administration on this issue? After all, their viewpoint is just as valid as ours, right? We believe suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and the neocons believe they can secretly arrest, imprison, torture and execute anyone they want to. So instead of demeaning their opinions, we should try to see the good in each side's viewpoint and peacefully coexist with each other. Is that right?

(For the mentally challenged: This post is 200-proof sarcasm.)

[leftchick]

35. you are exactly right mike

wtf is all I keep saying. WTF are they thinking? Did they not read the bill before voting. OMG! I am going insane over this.

[skipos]

6. .

"The GOP might have become the minority party before the next congress meets. Now, with as many Democrats as voted for this, I just don't care."

Not me, I like this country to much to give up on it, or to "not care" if it is subjected to Republican majority rule. I don't want to cut off my nose (hundreds of worthwhile Democrats) to spite my face (the 30 Democrats who voted for this). This country will continue to be in a world of hurt with Republicans in control of all branches, and a Democratic majority in either house would at least be a large step in the right direction. Replacing the seats Chafee, Santorum, Burns, Allen, Dewine, Talent, and Frist with Whitehouse, Casey, Tester, Webb, Brown, McCaskill and Ford would be great.

[Timbuk3]

9. List of Democrats who voted FOR this

I picked this up on Kos.

Andrews (NJ-1)
Barrow (GA-12)
Bean (IL-8)
Bishop (GA-2)
Boren (OK-2)
Boswell (IA-3)
Boyd (FL-2)
Brown (OH-13)
Chandler (KY-6)
Cramer (AL-5)
Cuellar (TX-28)
Davis (AL-7)
Davis (TN-4)
Edwards (TX-17)
Etheridge (NC-2)
Ford (TN-9)
Gordon (TN-6)
Herseth (SD-AL)
Higgins (NY-27)
Holden (PA-17)
Marshall (GA-3)
Matheson (UT-2)
McIntyre (NC-7)
Melancon (LA-3)
Michaud (ME-2)
Moore (KS-3)
Peterson (MN-7)
Pomeroy (ND-AL)
Ross (AR-4)
Salazar (CO-3)
Scott (GA-13)
Spratt (SC-5)
Tanner (TN-8)
Taylor (MS-4)

Are we going to get rid of ALL of them?

Believe me on this. I was ABSOLUTELY WITH YOU an hour or two ago. The WORST Democrat is better than the BEST Republican.

Now?

Let's say "I feel like they let me down" to keep things at a polite level.

BTW,

Republicans voting against the bill:

Bartlett (MD-6)
Gilchrest (MD-1)
Jones (NC-3)
LaTourette (OH-14)
Leach (IA-2)
Moran (KS-1)
Paul (TX-14)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/27/17617/4598

[skipos]

15. List the Republicans they are running against, and how

those Republicans are better. It is either going to be those Dems you listed or the Republicans running against them sitting in congress. Take your pick. I am all for defeating these Democrats in primaries, but I am not for Republicans defeating them in general elections. It doesn't help America in the slightest. Having a conservative Dem who occasionally votes progressively is better for American than having a Repub who never votes progressively.

[Timbuk3]

22. Now that I know this isn't law I'm back with you.

I am all for defeating these Democrats in primaries, but I am not for Republicans defeating them in general elections. It doesn't help America in the slightest.

But if any Democrat votes to pass this, they've lost my support forever.

If they won't play hardball when it's THIS SERIOUS, we HAVE to.

[mike_c]

23. all of those dems DID vote to pass it-- the MCA has passed the House....

That is a list of House dems who voted for the MCA and aided its passage. It has cleared the House. The list you posted is a list of traitors.

[Timbuk3]

24. A) I'm going to bed

B) I'm not drunk, I'm tired.
C) Thanks to everyone who set me straight.

This is heinous. That much we agree on.

And I'd hope we can agree there IS a way the Democrats, even in the minority, can prevent it's passage prior to the next session of congress.

THERE IS NO URGENCY TO THIS BILL other than the White House's desire to get the power NOW, while they have a GOP congress.

And if we don't call our congress-critters TOMORROW to tell them to do WHATEVER THEY HAVE TO DO to stop the passage of this bill, we can blame ourselves, too.

[TahitiNut]

31. Ford (TN-9) ... but no Dems from California or Michigan

I will NEVER vote for Ford for any national office. Never.

Anyone who voted for this abomination will NEVER get my vote.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

8. Same thing they did last time with the Iraq vote - don't fall for it.

[Timbuk3]

11. I'm looking for hope

What do you mean, "same thing they did with the Iraq vote"?

Do you think the Dems that voted for this were afraid of losing their seat in congress because they'd be seen as "weak on terror"?

Is that a forgiveable reason? Again?

Damn, a friend of mine got kicked off DU for being down on Democrats. I'm not exactly looking to be named as an "anti-Democrat troll", but should we EVER hold our elected representatives accountable for NOT representing us?

Or are just so weak that we have to keep caving in to the extremists on issues that matter?

[Timbuk3]

14. Is this law?

When I first posted this, I thought it had been voted into law.

Now, I'm being told it's just to insert language into the bill. It's NOT law, yet.

That would make a LOT of difference, to me.

I could even see the Democrats inserting it to make it "unpassable".

A little help, here?

[mike_c]

21. it still has to pass the senate....

The House has approved the bill (Military Commissions Act of 2006). Amy Goodman has reported that Senate democrats have agreed not to filibuster it, which would likely lead to its passage in the Senate, although even then there will probably be amendments requiring further negotiation. The best thing would be for the senate to kill it, but dems have suggested that they don't want to appear "soft of terrorism" by blocking what the GOP touts as an "antiterrorism bill." At this point, if the GOP introduces legislation legalizing cannibalism, they'll probably call it an "antiterrorism bill" and the dems will be afraid to oppose it.

[spag68]

17. This legislation

is the sickest thing that happened in my life <1942-present>, but maybe it was designed to do just that. Get everyone to be sick and lose interest in voting. The dems were put in another of roves boxes, they were screwed if they did and screwed if they didn't.Think of the outrage if they voted against this atrocity!!!! the thugs would have had a field day, so don't be totally gone, keep supporting the dems. and maybe good things will happen then. I know they are backing off impeachment and other things, but we can't give up. I'm heartsick at this crap too, but this is the way the game is played in todays tv age. Do you really believe that John Conyers is going to give up that easy?

[bbgrunt]

32. I cannot stop puking.

[Jcrowley]

18. Harrowing

Lastly--and most importantly--the MCA attempts to strip federal court jurisdiction over any challenge to the detention of any non-citizen by the United States overseas.

Some background is necessary here: Recall that, in 2004, the Supreme Court ruled in Rasul v. Bush that Guantánamo detainees can bring habeas corpus petitions. In the wake of the ruling, more petitions were filed challenging the factual and legal bases of particular Guantánamo detentions. In the December 2005 Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), Congress purported to channel all such proceedings into the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. But the Supreme Court, this year, in Hamdan, held that critical provisions of that Act only applied to suits filed after the DTA was enacted (that is, filed after December 2005).

The MCA tries to overrule this part of Hamdan, and send even the pre-December 2005 Guantánamo suits to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Moreover, it would sweep far more broadly than the DTA, encompassing all petitions arising all detentions of all non-citizens--including at the hands of the CIA--anywhere outside the United States.

What's so bad, readers may wonder, about petitions going straight to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals? The problem is that the MCA does not afford the chance for factfinding by any neutral decisionmaker. (Recall that Hamdi put a constitutional premium on having a "neutral decisionmaker") Sending all petitions to the United States District Court in D.C., where a hearing on the facts is possible, would be acceptable; sending them straight to the appeals court is not.

For Guantánamo detainees have never had a meaningful chance to challenge the facts on which their detention is based. They had no battlefield status hearings. At hearings at Guantánamo before Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs), detainees were asked to respond to vague allegations of "associating" with terrorists, based on facts and allegations to which they were not privy. The CSRTs, in short, were a charade. And whatever equivalents to CSRTs may be used in CIA secret prisons abroad--if any - are surely no less a mockery of due process.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060926_huq.html

[Timbuk3]

20. Alright

I over-reacted.

I thought this had passed and become law. From a Kos post:

the bill passed the house. it is expected to pass the senate some time tomorrow. then it will go into conference where one side (probably the house) ceremoniously bows to the other's bill, then everyone gets to vote on it again, probably friday. then bush signs it. then it's law.

I'll leave the post here, because it seems to be stimulating discussion, but I'm embarrased to admit that I misread what had happened. If we're going to discuss it, let's discuss facts, not my misinterpretation.

Rest assured, if it passes on Friday my reaction will be the same, but I'll drop "the torture meme" in favor of the "the President now has the sole power to declare you're a terrorist and disappear you" meme.

At least now I have time to work on my framing.

(Sorry if I sound a little giddy, but I really DID think we had a congress that had PASSED this heinous thing, already. The Democrats should shut down the Senate for the rest of the term. Period.)

[Marie26]

25. It's horrible

I tried to read that thing & was horrified. It's not even the torture, or the gutting of the Genvea Convention, it's that they're setting up a parallel legal system that entirely replaces 200+ years of case law, evidence rules, and Constitional rights that govern how defendants are tried. Instead, someone can be arbitrarily labeled an "enemy combatant" at the SOLE DISCRETION of Bush or Rumsfeld, and tossed into a legal limbo where no rules apply. An "enemy combatant" can also be sentenced to death with the PERSONAL APPROVAL of George W. Bush, without ever having access to a real judge or a real court. It is the death knell of our judicial system, as far as I'm concerned.

[Marr]

26. This government disgusts me.

This long, slow slide into fascism is just sickening to watch.

[Rex]

27. Welcome to the New World Order

get your papers ready.

[Timbuk3]

33. NY Times says it better than I did

In an editorial:

Here’s what happens when this irresponsible Congress railroads a profoundly important bill to serve the mindless politics of a midterm election: The Bush administration uses Republicans’ fear of losing their majority to push through ghastly ideas about antiterrorism that will make American troops less safe and do lasting damage to our 217-year-old nation of laws — while actually doing nothing to protect the nation from terrorists. Democrats betray their principles to avoid last-minute attack ads. Our democracy is the big loser.

Republicans say Congress must act right now to create procedures for charging and trying terrorists — because the men accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks are available for trial. That’s pure propaganda. Those men could have been tried and convicted long ago, but President Bush chose not to. He held them in illegal detention, had them questioned in ways that will make real trials very hard, and invented a transparently illegal system of kangaroo courts to convict them.

It was only after the Supreme Court issued the inevitable ruling striking down Mr. Bush’s shadow penal system that he adopted his tone of urgency. It serves a cynical goal: Republican strategists think they can win this fall, not by passing a good law but by forcing Democrats to vote against a bad one so they could be made to look soft on terrorism.

More at the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/opinion/28thu1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Huffpo has a list of key Senators and their contacts: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shayana-kadidal/a-vast-lastminute-expans_b_30410.html

[moondust]

36. Same old strategy as IWR.

...forcing Democrats to vote against a bad one so they could be made to look soft on terrorism.

[Atman]

37. kick

:kick: