No longer 'just a bill on Capitol Hill', 'anti-terror' law

[mburbank]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush signed legislation Tuesday authorizing tough interrogation of terror suspects and smoothing the way for trials before military commissions, calling it a "vital tool" in the war against terrorism.

Hey, Kev; NOW is it okay if this bothers me?

[kahljorn]

smoothing the way for trials before military commissions

[KevinTheOmnivore]

NO, IT CODIFIES TORTURE, YOU HEARTLESS BOOB!

[mburbank]

I'm just recalling for you the fact that in my last thread one of the reasons you said it wasn't worth getting excited over was that it was 'only a bill'. Now that it's a law, is it at all interesting, or does one need to wait until it makes it's way to the Supreme Court before it can be counted as significant?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I'd actually like you to point out to me where I said that. I didn't think there was much question that Bush would sign it, was it in doubt?

I did bring up the courts. We'll see if it stands up to the "muster".

[mburbank]

"It's most certainly hysterics, and it is, after all about a bill on Capitol Hill. We weren't a step away from dictatorship two weeks ago, were we? What triggered all of the Third Reich talk? A bill."
-Kevin the Omniscient

While I still don't think we're 'a step away' from dictatorship, I guess I'd say we were at very least a step closer. I'm just wondering if you think that now it's a law and not a bill, if that made any difference.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

No, you misunderstood me then, and you misunderstand me now.

I wasn't arguing that this bill wouldn't be signed. But you were screaming on and on about this being about something much loftier and more idealistic than simply legislation, which is what it is. You were under the impression that I was far too focused on the legislative aspect to this, even though we never would've been talking about it in the first place had it never reached the floor.

So, no, I don't think it makes any difference. Ask me next what I'll think of it after the ink dries!

[mburbank]

When I want to scream over the internet, I type in all caps. I'm not certain why you use all caps. I'll add that to the list of things I don't understand.

As to legislation being loftier (and loftier has a positive connotation I surely did not intend, but perhaps you missunderstood me because of my 'screaming'. Here's a equally loaded word I actually do mean. 'Grave'. I find the legilsation is question 'Grave'.) would you say that legislation is ever more lofty or grave than legislation? Would it be fair to say that the laws allowing for Japanese interment camps were more than just legislation?

Let me see if I can get the gist of what you WERE arguing. While you are not 100% behind it, and you don't like everything about it, it's a law, and that's what congress does, pass laws, and passing this law is better than not passing any law, ie; rejecting a law and forcing all parties back to the table is... well, how do you feel about that?

I would charcaterize your feelings about all this as tepid. Am I off base on that? I do hope I'm not hurting your ears with my nasty loud typing.

[Preechr]

The thing I STILL don't understand (I don't yell much, so I use caps instead of italics to add emphasis) is what you, Max Burbank, would rather have here. This says what we can and cannot do legally, where we did not have that before. I know you guys all read the bill, but so did all the legislators and senators and other government hacks that brought it into being.

I still think you are shooting for a law that retroactively criminalizes everything having to do with the war in general, effectively ending it and resulting in a war crimes trial for Bush. Maybe we should just amend the constitution to make this a government by Max, for Max.

[mburbank]

That's not a bad idea, but it'll never happen.

And Preech, it is ucharacteristically niave of you to think that congressman and senators read the legislation. Sure, some did, maybe even most (and that's a maybe) but repreentatives admit with appaulling regularity that they have not read legilsation they vote on.

What I would rather have is immaterial and I've already said it anyway, but I'll say it again. I would much rather have an ongoing fight for legislation that more accurately reflects what I think are key aspects to American Democracy, instead of a fight for what is politically expedient at this precise moment in time. As I've said before, this is Profies in Courage time, and what we're getting is profiles in ass coverage. Yes, without an agreement on legislation, the President has and will continue to torture, kidnap and hold without charge indeffinitely, but with the possability that he would be eventually held accountable. Now he'll do all of that a weensy bit less legally, and legal precedent has been set for future presidencies.

There will never be a war crimes trial for Bush, wether I'd like one or not. And I don't want 'everything' to do with the war retroactively anything. I would like to see gross violations of standing law actually matter, so that we don't codofy the idea that the President is above the law. The administration violated Fisa. The administration tortured people, which is against the law. All the debates about those issues are at very best extremely weak. The ONLY retoractive anything happening here is retroactive legalization, a highly dubious practice. The laws that have been broken already exist. Looking for a President who is required to obey the law is not government by and for me, it's the American way.

Do you or do you not think it is important for a President to obey the law?

[Cosmo Electrolux]

Bush and company will never stand trial for war crimes, because Congress pardoned them when they passed that piece of legislation that the shrub just signed. My understanding is that a pardon was written into the bill. While I don't see a war crimes tribunal in their future, I would like to see them testify under oath about some of the goings on during the past few years. It would make one hell of an ABC movie of the week.

EDIT: Several congressmen and senators voted for the bill, thinking that the supreme court would rule in unconstitutional. I'll have to dig up that article and list some names......

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Cosmo Electrolux

My understanding is that a pardon was written into the bill

?

[Cosmo Electrolux]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

?

hang on...I'm looking for the article I read that in....I know I didn't dream it. But, then again.....

[Cosmo Electrolux]

Originally Posted by Cosmo Electrolux

hang on...I'm looking for the article I read that in....I know I didn't dream it. But, then again.....

A thousand pardons....I misunderstood the article I read. What it said was:

Ten years ago, Congress passed a law called the “War Crimes Act.” Under that bill, violating the Geneva Convention is a crime in the United States. The Administration argued that the Convention doesn’t apply to “enemy combatants,” a term of its own invention. But the Supreme Court disagreed.

In other words, the Administration officials who have spent the last five years creating and directing our torture policy, as well as the government employees who have carried it out, could be liable for criminal prosecution for violating the War Crimes Act.

And so, they have decided to go back in time to 1997 and re-write the War Crimes Act to make their actions legal. That is exactly what this bill does. When President Bush signs this bill, he was be signing away any responsibility for the potentially criminal policies he and those in his Administration have enacted during the past five years. When he signs this bill, he will be signing a pardon for himself and for all other architects of these disastrous, self-defeating, and immoral policies.

To call this strategy cynical and self-serving would be an understatemen


Sorry about that. I'll try to be more observant next time.

[kahljorn]

Violating the geneva laws is still illegal, there's just some leeway.

Kind of hard to argue for human rights in a war in which you're shooting people to death. The only argument is that there's some people who go outside of the war and start to shoot innocents, how horrible! What about those jerk faces who go outside of the law and kill innocent people they certainly need to be held accountable. WAIT THATS LIKE WHAT THE TERRORISTS ARE DOING. So all this law does is violates the geneva laws towards people who have violated the geneva law. What is it about do unto others as they would do unto you i dont know this isn't really a serious argument...

The geneva convention isn't in the united states constitution, so it's not really an american law, anyway.

there's always going to be torture in war.

if this is really about bush being held accountable for his crimes i guess i can understand but there's already a list of amillion things he's done wrong, and none of them have anything to do with whether torture is "Right" or "Wrong".
To me sometimes it seems like your stance in political issues has more to do with your dislike for bush than anything else.

[Cosmo Electrolux]

Me? I really don't think it's so much a dislike for Bush, or for republicans for that matter. I think that particular piece of legislation is dangerous and sets a bad precidence for us on the world stage. In my opinion, it gives our enemies, present and future, the green light to torture OUR captive soldiers....it lets the leaders of the hostile nations "interpret" the Geneva Conventions and define enemy combatants however they want to. I know, I know, they probably don't follow the Geneva conventions anyway, but doesn't his just bring us down to their level? I mean, maybe I'm just naive, but I always believed that America was above this type of brutality. Apparently, we're not. And the fact that AMERICAN CITIZENS can be detained indefinitly, the fact that habeus corpus has been suspended in those cases, the fact that hearsay can be admitted as evidence...it's kind of scary. I don't think my personal dislike for Bush has anything to do with the fear of my country becoming a police state.

and by the way, I don't have a problem with Republicans in general...I've voted for several. In fact, I'm one of the few people in the state of Alabama (Democrat, progressive, liberal, whatever) that really wanted Roy Moore to tone it down and keep his ass on the Alabama Supreme Court. Regardless of past posts, it's not about partisan bullshit, it's about our country and where it's heading. It's truly frightening to me to see the United Stated headed in this direction...we just seem to be floating and bickering amongst ourselves. It's become a "Libs are this " and "Cons are that" free for all with one hell of a lot of finger pointing.

[kahljorn]

not really just you i was just responding to the thread/topic in general.

the bush thing was directed at mburbank though.

"In my opinion, it gives our enemies, present and future, the green light to torture OUR captive soldiers"

Well, if they were given the same rights we give our enemy combatants according to this bill then they would only be torturing people who commited greivous unlawful crimes of war, such as needlessly and purposely killing civilians.

That's why the entire argument against it is stupid.
The geneva laws are basically still in effect except for people who themselves have violated it. I don't see how any humanitarian rights are broken. Protecting soldiers from needless slaughter is a good thing, however there should be distinction from people who kill in a war and people who murder, right? Same type of distinction between soldiers who kill other soldiers and soldiers who go around killing everyone and rape villages etc.

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by mburbank

And Preech, it is ucharacteristically niave of you to think that congressman and senators read the legislation...

Y'know, I didn't like writing that, but not because it was naive... I'm not sure I believe it, but I have even less faith in the layperson's ability to read a law and understand it. I'm certainly not trying to say we should blindly trust the government on anything, but I do believe something needed to happen in an attempt to at least clear this up enough so that the maiming and torturing could resume safely.

They may not read every bill, or even any of them, but I'm sure there are certain general qualifications something like this must contain for a vote to be cast in at least most cases. Maybe all it took was for McCain to sign off on it... Maybe that's good enough.

[mburbank]

WASHINGTON - Hours after
President Bush signed a tough anti-terrorism law, government lawyers began putting detainees on notice that the U.S. court system no longer was open to them.


Now it is up to a federal appeals court, and ultimately the Supreme Court, to decide the fate of hundreds of people who have spent years arguing the government is holding them illegally.

Such challenges normally go before federal judges. But the new law, which Bush said was necessary to fight terrorism, strips the court of any authority to hear such cases.

Under the law signed Tuesday, the military now has discretion to decide whether to charge enemy combatants before military commissions or indefinitely hold the detainees.

The Justice Department filed notices with several federal judges Wednesday, telling them the law renders their detainee cases moot.