Parts of the Act you should know: Habeas Corpus? Nope.

[ryanus]

"(a) IN GENERAL.—No person may invoke the Geneva
Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus
or other civil action or proceeding to which the United
States, or a current or former officer, employee, member
of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States
is a party as a source of rights in any court of the United
States or its States or territories."

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h6166eh.txt.pdf

No other source of rights besides this act. Bummer.

[madmusic]

1. This is good stuff, ryanus!

But we need it all one one place so anyone wanting to know/research it can find anything quickly.

[silverweb]

3. Agreed.

We also need the entire piece of legislation translated from legalese into plain English. That way, we can all fully read and understand it, which seems to me to be very necessary.

[silverweb]

2. And judges are warned not to contest it.

Yup, it's official. The second _georgie signs this piece of shit legislation, we are officially a dictatorship.

I never believed I'd see the day....

[hvn_nbr_2]

4. What does "you show know" mean?

I've seen at least half a dozen posts with that phrase in them.

[babylonsister]

5. Show now? Should know? Yes, I'm confused, too! nt

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. You mean "habeas corpus"?

The phrase is Latin and translates roughly as "show us the body." It is a principle from English Common Law (from which the US judicial system is derived.) Habeas corpus gives "intereted parties" the right to demand that the government bring a person being held by them before an impartial court, and obligates the government to do so.

For example, you have been taken as a suspected traitor because of your donations to the American Civil Liberties Union and participation in the Democratic Underground. Your lawyer, acting as your agent (presumably, you are a very interested party with regards to your detainment) can get a writ of habeas corpus, which in normal times would obligate the US State department to present you in court before a real judge (kangaroo "enemy combattant tribunals" wouldn't count.) This allows you to testify in open court, to provide depositions as to your treatment, and generally speak out in your own behalf. As such, it has been a foundational cornerstone of criminal law for centuries and was so important that the Constitution strictly forbids suspension of this power.

[silverweb]

9. And more such posts coming.

Ryanus is going through the entire 98 pages of the legislation and plucking out important passages we should be very aware of. Each "you should know" post contains a different passage.

Hopefully, when he's done with this task, he'll proceed to translate the entire document from archaic legalese into plain English for us.

[ryanus]

11. Sorry about the typo "show"

I fixed all the threads. I'm a little flustered.

[silverweb]

14. I appreciate what you're doing.

I'm sure I speak for many of us.

Don't worry about silly typos; your meaning is still clear.

Translation of this monstrosity is essential to our understanding and I thank you.

[ryanus]

16. Thanks

I'm kind of tired now. I figure, how much more do I need to post? I imagine everyone gets the idea after like 20 of those threads.

[silverweb]

17. Rest up.

Are you planning to translate/summarize the whole thing? We really do need it in simple English and all in one place.

[ryanus]

18. I'm not planning on it

I think others like the L.A. Times have already given it a pretty good review.

I just hadn't seen specific extracts where people could read the actual text themselves without being overwhelemed by 90+ pages.

I was thinking that if I could point out just a few obvious problems and have people read it with their own eyes, then they would be "converted." But when I got started, I just couldn't stop finding all the terrible things.

[silverweb]

19. Okay.

What you're doing is very valuable and important. Hopefully, it will encourage many to seek out and thoroughly read the whole thing. One chunk at a time is the best way to do it, as you said, without being overwhelmed.

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. Presumably the Constitution overrides this in the United States

The way this is worded, it looks like it only applies to habeas corpus in the context of the Geneva Conventions. Not at all good (can you say Guantanamo and Abu Graib?) but not as bad as first reported.

Assuming, of course, that the United States courts still have jurisdiction over cases in the United States.

[MrCoffee]

10. You assume too much. Section 950j(B) of the Act divests courts of

jurisdiction to hear claims based on the Act.

[TechBear_Seattle]

13. Claims dealing with habeas corpus under the Geneva Conventions

NOT the Constitution. Again, it is still pretty bad, but not as bad as is being reported. Then again, in some ways it is worse: this act skirts the Constitution but does not directly violate it, which means that it would likely stand as constitutional.

[mom cat]

8. And McCain - Bush's main squeeze - said Geneva would not be compromized!

[mmonk]

12. Republicans are liars.

[mom cat]

15. Bingo! ... Why didn't I think of that? ..... Silly me!

[mmonk]

20. I just love saying it every chance I get.

;)

[mom cat]

21. LOL ... With a line like that, you will never be wrong!

:rofl: