![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
saavedra77You know, even if the president were my closest political ally, even if the president were my best friend, I wouldn't want him or her to wield this kind of power:
“BURIED IN THE complex Senate compromise on detainee treatment is a real shocker, reaching far beyond the legal struggles about foreign terrorist suspects in the Guantanamo Bay fortress. The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights. . . .
“. . . What is worse, if the federal courts support the president's initial detention decision, ordinary Americans would be required to defend themselves before a military tribunal without the constitutional guarantees provided in criminal trials.”
The Senate passed the bill, late today:
"The legislation broadens the definition of enemy combatants beyond the traditional definition used in wartime, to include ... anyone determined to be an enemy combatant under criteria defined by the president or secretary of defense.
"It strips detainees being held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, of a habeas right to challenge their detention in court, relying instead on procedures known as combatant status review trials, which have looser rules of evidence than the courts.
"It allows evidence seized in this country or abroad to be taken without a search warrant. It bars evidence obtained by cruel and inhumane treatment, except that obtained before Dec, 30, 2005 ...
"The legislation establishes several 'grave breaches' of Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions that are felonies under the War Crimes Act, including torture, rape, murder and any act intended to cause “serious” physical or mental pain or suffering.
"It leaves to the president the definition of specific interrogation techniques and rules barring any techniques that do not rise to the level of grave breaches."
Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter called the detainee bill "patently unconstitutional on its face," but then voted for the measure with the excuse that the courts would "clean it up." We can only hope you're right, Sen. Specter.
“BURIED IN THE complex Senate compromise on detainee treatment is a real shocker, reaching far beyond the legal struggles about foreign terrorist suspects in the Guantanamo Bay fortress. The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights. . . .
“. . . What is worse, if the federal courts support the president's initial detention decision, ordinary Americans would be required to defend themselves before a military tribunal without the constitutional guarantees provided in criminal trials.”
The Senate passed the bill, late today:
"The legislation broadens the definition of enemy combatants beyond the traditional definition used in wartime, to include ... anyone determined to be an enemy combatant under criteria defined by the president or secretary of defense.
"It strips detainees being held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, of a habeas right to challenge their detention in court, relying instead on procedures known as combatant status review trials, which have looser rules of evidence than the courts.
"It allows evidence seized in this country or abroad to be taken without a search warrant. It bars evidence obtained by cruel and inhumane treatment, except that obtained before Dec, 30, 2005 ...
"The legislation establishes several 'grave breaches' of Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions that are felonies under the War Crimes Act, including torture, rape, murder and any act intended to cause “serious” physical or mental pain or suffering.
"It leaves to the president the definition of specific interrogation techniques and rules barring any techniques that do not rise to the level of grave breaches."
Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter called the detainee bill "patently unconstitutional on its face," but then voted for the measure with the excuse that the courts would "clean it up." We can only hope you're right, Sen. Specter.
