[RenegadeRick]

So if you don't know, the senate passed a bill yesterday that did a number of things. It has most importantly, it made it legal to indefinitely detain "enemy combatants."

I have been reviewing the text of the bill, and it is shocking.

• Who is an "enemy combatant"? Whoever the government says is one.
• What court has the power to review this determiniation? None.
• Where can this "enemy combatant" protest their detention, treatment, etc. They can't.
• Can evidence gathered through coecion and torture be admissible? Sure.
• Can the accused review and have an opportunity to refute all the evidence against them? Nope.

The text of this new law is so broad that I could be considered an "enemy combatant" for simply making this post. Funk. I hope they don't torture me.

My Rep. Mark Kirk voted for it in the house. Of my Senators, Obama tried to amend a sunset that was not passed, and Durbin did not vote for it.

Here is the text of the bill HR 6166, but the link will probably expire. just search for it on thomas.loc.gov if you need to.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:2:./temp/~c109L3OMvn::

Here is some more info:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/09/legalization-of-torture-an_115945829460324274.html
and here:
http://www.rosecoloredglasses.org/rcg_warblog/?p=9

 

[N8 v2.0]

Hahaha!!! Yet another liberal "We hate Freedom" plan to hinder American's security pwn3d!!!

 

[spincrazy]

I nominate N8 for enemy combatant.

 

[$tinkle]

life imitates the onion

 

[N8 v2.0]

life imitates the onion

blocked by firewall..

 

[Westy]

Hahaha!!! Yet another liberal "We hate Freedom" plan to hinder American's security pwn3d!!!

I hope your definition of Freedome does not include making comments about Kip Hawley on a zip lock bag.

 

[$tinkle]

Bill Of Rights Pared Down To A Manageable Six

December 18, 2002 | Issue 38•47

WASHINGTON, DC—Flanked by key members of Congress and his administration, President Bush approved Monday a streamlined version of the Bill of Rights that pares its 10 original amendments down to a "tight, no-nonsense" six.

Bush signs

As supporters look on, Bush signs the Bill Of Rights Reduction And Consolidation Act.

A Republican initiative that went unopposed by congressional Democrats, the revised Bill of Rights provides citizens with a "more manageable" set of privacy and due-process rights by eliminating four amendments and condensing and/or restructuring five others. The Second Amendment, which protects the right to keep and bear arms, was the only article left unchanged.

Calling the historic reduction "a victory for America," Bush promised that the new document would do away with "bureaucratic impediments to the flourishing of democracy at home and abroad."

"It is high time we reaffirmed our commitment to this enduring symbol of American ideals," Bush said. "By making the Bill of Rights a tool for progress instead of a hindrance to freedom, we honor the true spirit of our nation's forefathers."

The Fourth Amendment, which long protected citizens' homes against unreasonable search and seizure, was among the eliminated amendments. Also stricken was the Ninth Amendment, which stated that the enumeration of certain Constitutional rights does not result in the abrogation of rights not mentioned.

"Quite honestly, I could never get my head around what the Ninth Amendment meant anyway," said outgoing House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX), one of the leading advocates of the revised Bill of Rights. "So goodbye to that one."

Amendments V through VII, which guaranteed the right to legal counsel in criminal cases, and guarded against double jeopardy, testifying against oneself, biased juries, and drawn-out trials, have been condensed into Super-Amendment V: The One About Trials.

Attorney General John Ashcroft hailed the slimmed-down Bill of Rights as "a positive step."

"Go up to the average citizen and ask them what's in the Bill of Rights," Ashcroft said. "Chances are, they'll have only a vague notion. They just know it's a set of rules put in place to protect their individual freedoms from government intrusion, and they assume that's a good thing."

Bill of rights revisions

Bush works on revisions to the Bill of Rights.

Ashcroft responded sharply to critics who charge that the Bill of Rights no longer safeguards certain basic, inalienable rights.

"We're not taking away personal rights; we're increasing personal security," Ashcroft said. "By allowing for greater government control over the particulars of individual liberties, the Bill of Rights will now offer expanded personal freedoms whenever they are deemed appropriate and unobtrusive to the activities necessary to effective operation of the federal government."

Ashcroft added that, thanks to several key additions, the Bill of Rights now offers protections that were previously lacking, including the right to be protected by soldiers quartered in one's home (Amendment III), the guarantee that activities not specifically delegated to the states and people will be carried out by the federal government (Amendment VI), and freedom of Judeo-Christianity and non-combative speech (Amendment I).

According to U.S. Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), the original Bill of Rights, though well-intentioned, was "seriously outdated."

"The United States is a different place than it was back in 1791," Craig said. "As visionary as they were, the framers of the Constitution never could have foreseen, for example, that our government would one day need to jail someone indefinitely without judicial review. There was no such thing as suspicious Middle Eastern immigrants back then."

Ashcroft noted that recent FBI efforts to conduct investigations into "unusual activities" were severely hampered by the old Fourth Amendment.

"The Bill of Rights was written more than 200 years ago, long before anyone could even fathom the existence of wiretapping technology or surveillance cameras," Ashcroft said. "Yet through a bizarre fluke, it was still somehow worded in such a way as to restrict use of these devices. Clearly, it had to go before it could do more serious damage in the future."

The president agreed.

"Any machine, no matter how well-built, periodically needs a tune-up to keep it in good working order," Bush said. "Now that we have the bugs worked out of the ol' Constitution, she'll be purring like a kitten when Congress reconvenes in January—just in time to work on a new round of counterterrorism legislation."

"Ten was just too much of a handful," Bush added. "Six civil liberties are more than enough."
© Copyright 2006, Onion, Inc. All rights reserved.
The Onion is not intended for readers under 18 years of age.

 

[seismic]

Hahaha!!! Yet another liberal "We hate Freedom" plan to hinder American's security pwn3d!!!

N8....you are an idiot !! But I can see in your sign that you are aware of that !

 

[seismic]

I think it is a sad day that Bush, who is always taking about "freedom" and "justice" actually has proven that there are no justice or freedom whatsoever for people who are terrorist suspects.

It might be a hard fight against terrorist groups but I think the US has positioned itself with a set of rules much more resembling your enimies than your friends....

 

[RenegadeRick]

My senators voted against it. How did yours do?

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00259

 

[Echo]

NY = two nays

 

[BurlyShirley]

Of course, Alexander and Frist...yeas.

 

[valve bouncer]

Of course, Alexander and Frist...yeas.

Shirl- just out of interest mate, the longer you've been out of the military the further to the left your politics seem to have gone. Would you agree with that? To me (as an admitted leftie) you've become much more mellow in your views and I'd go so far as to say that your posts in the PAWND forum are some of the best recently. What do you say to that?

 

[RenegadeRick]

Here is another article...
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/09/28/legal_residents_rights_curbed_in_detainee_bill/

...you have to read past the part where they mention noncitizens to read the truth: (bolds and text in parenthesis mine)...

"This would purport to allow the president, after some incident, to round up scores of people -- people who are lawfully here -- and hold them in military prisons with no access to the legal system, whatsoever, indefinitely," said Joe Onek , senior policy analyst at the Open Society Policy Center, a Washington-based advocacy organization.

Other last-minute additions to the bill include provisions that would broaden the definition of enemy combatant to include anyone who gives material support to enemies of the United States and its allies (like aiding terrorisim by being critical of US laws and policies, perhaps?), and would prevent detainees who have been released from US custody from suing the US government for torture or mistreatment.

But the part of the bill that worries advocates for immigrants most is the one stating that "no court, justice, or judge 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."

"Habeas corpus" is the legal mechanism that gives people the right to ask federal courts to review their imprisonment.

Someone please tell me I am misinterpreting this or blowing it out of proportion... And prove it.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

The more I read/hear about this the more I think it is toothless. Is the president losing any power here? I mean, he's already usurped the ability to torture, hold people indefinitely, hold people without charges, bring secret charges, etc. Congress was unwilling to step up to the plate, but the courts did. Is this just a move to rebuke the courts while politically making it look like Congress is putting the reins on the president?

 

[ohio]

Bill Of Rights Pared Down To A Manageable Six
© Copyright 2006, Onion, Inc. All rights reserved.

I thought the Onion was parody?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Shirl- just out of interest mate, the longer you've been out of the military the further to the left your politics seem to have gone. Would you agree with that? To me (as an admitted leftie) you've become much more mellow in your views and I'd go so far as to say that your posts in the PAWND forum are some of the best recently. What do you say to that?

Socially speaking Im just about the same. I've realized that no amount of arguing on these type of topics will change mine or anyone else's mind, so what's really the point of it? People are set in their ways when it comes to gays, death penalty, welfare, immigration, gun control, etc... I also just care less I think.
But yeah, my mind has changed a bit on the actions of the current admin. The longer this war goes on the more jaded Ive become. I just dont see how there can possibly be a positive outcome at this point, and the admin seems to just keep digging a bigger hole. I gave them some trust from the beginning, and it went well for a while, but its gotten out of their hands from all indications, and the only solution I can see is to sack up and make a plea of international help. I mean if the true goal is saving lives and making a democracy, what does our pride matter? Make it known that the oil will be equally available to everyone and beg the UN for soldiers. Allow the UN to oversee hte new govt. and military operations. We can make a positive from it only if we accept that we need help. The current admin seems to think that you can just go out and kill all the terrists, and it just doestn work that way.

EDIT: I think having Powell jump ship took away most of the credibility. I mean, Rumsfeld is barely even a human being. You think he's going to listen to Condoleeza?

 

[RenegadeRick]

The more I read/hear about this the more I think it is toothless. Is the president losing any power here? I mean, he's already usurped the ability to torture, hold people indefinitely, hold people without charges, bring secret charges, etc. Congress was unwilling to step up to the plate, but the courts did. Is this just a move to rebuke the courts while politically making it look like Congress is putting the reins on the president?

OMFG, OMGF!

The president losing power with this bill? No way. This is just putting it in wrtiting.

Where did you get the idea that this was intended to restrain the executive branch in any way?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

OMFG, OMGF!

The president losing power with this bill? No way. This is just putting it in wrtiting.

Where did you get the idea that this was intended to restrain the executive branch in any way?

Well, it seemed as if McCain was actually making a principled stand, and Bush did actually go to the Capitol building to plead his case. Plus, with the low popularity of the pres. and congressmen seeking re-election, it seemed like it might be an opportunity for some to distance themselves from Bush. Certainly the WaPo was optimistic about it. Alas, I see that it is just putting the usurped power into writing.

 

[RenegadeRick]

Here is more of what the world is saying about this.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060927_molly_ivins_habeas_corpus/
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=105042;title=APFN
http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m27046&hd=0&size=1&l=t
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0609/S00436.htm

I hang my head in shame. I no longer live in a country we could pretend is anything but a dictatorship.

 

[Transcend]

Well you know, they outsted the world of one tyrannical dictator, so I guess they felt the need to fill the void.

Also, technically not a dictatorship as it took both the house and senate to pass this assinine bill. But it's the thought that counts.

Oh and remember, it's all about "freedom and democracy".....

Some freedom.

 

[valve bouncer]

Socially speaking Im just about the same. I've realized that no amount of arguing on these type of topics will change mine or anyone else's mind, so what's really the point of it? People are set in their ways when it comes to gays, death penalty, welfare, immigration, gun control, etc... I also just care less I think.
But yeah, my mind has changed a bit on the actions of the current admin. The longer this war goes on the more jaded Ive become. I just dont see how there can possibly be a positive outcome at this point, and the admin seems to just keep digging a bigger hole. I gave them some trust from the beginning, and it went well for a while, but its gotten out of their hands from all indications, and the only solution I can see is to sack up and make a plea of international help. I mean if the true goal is saving lives and making a democracy, what does our pride matter? Make it known that the oil will be equally available to everyone and beg the UN for soldiers. Allow the UN to oversee hte new govt. and military operations. We can make a positive from it only if we accept that we need help. The current admin seems to think that you can just go out and kill all the terrists, and it just doestn work that way.

Interesting mate, thanks for the reply. I note today that the US has just allowed NATO to take over control of US troops in Afghanistan, the first time since WW2 the US has given over foreign control to their troops.
Apparently there's 37 countries involved in the Afghan adventure and it seems WE might be actually getting something done there. You know the Aussies and the Poms will always be with your blokes, no matter what, but we think that maybe our guys know what's going on more than your blokes do.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Interesting mate, thanks for the reply. I note today that the US has just allowed NATO to take over control of US troops in Afghanistan, the first time since WW2 the US has given over foreign control to their troops.
Apparently there's 37 countries involved in the Afghan adventure and it seems WE might be actually getting something done there. You know the Aussies and the Poms will always be with your blokes, no matter what, but we think that maybe our guys know what's going on more than your blokes do.

The US military is simply designed to fight wars of attrition. Against other big miltaries (like in Irak) we perfrom just fine. But when it comes down to small bands fighting from buildings and caves, you have to have those small specialized units like the 1 RAR guys. Always lots of manuevers and fast vehicles. The US sucks at guerilla wars and we've proven it time and again. Somalia, Vietnam, Iraq...the list goes on. We only have some Marine units and one or two army units that are really built properly for this type of fighting. Since we're apparently unable to evolve (out of fear from China, USSR, whatever) its good to have you guys on board. I hope after the next big election we can really get the world behind this and get it done.

 

[$tinkle]

The US military is simply designed to fight wars of attrition. Against other big miltaries (like in Irak) we perfrom just fine. But when it comes down to small bands fighting from buildings and caves, you have to have those small specialized units like the 1 RAR guys. Always lots of manuevers and fast vehicles. The US sucks at guerilla wars and we've proven it time and again. Somalia, Vietnam, Iraq...the list goes on. We only have some Marine units and one or two army units that are really built properly for this type of fighting. Since we're apparently unable to evolve (out of fear from China, USSR, whatever) its good to have you guys on board. I hope after the next big election we can really get the world behind this and get it done.

bs, don't let the leftists here lull you into becoming a jizzlapper.

yeah, you.

we do not SUCK at guerilla wars, unless you define "suck" as greater than 0% mortality. recall in vietnam our kill ratio was 20:1, and iraq the ratio of being removed from theater is better than 5:1 (recall we both capture and kill). name for me one city/village/town/outpost that we unsuccessfully engaged (i.e. got chased out). you care to look at afghanistan? as you should know, a popular m.o. employed by the taliban is to drag off their fallen brethren and purpose not to report it. even so, their deaths are disproportionate to ours.

this is to say nothing of your evaluation is based exclusively upon engagements on foreign soil, where there is little (if any) comfort & aide given by the indigenous population. that is to say, the deck is greatly stacked against us, & we're still pwning them on the scorecard. guerilla war isn't about hearts & minds. to make it fair, perhaps some of them should have a wet dream & try it over here.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Typical lib tatic of spinning good news into bad in an effort to demoralize voters in order to gain power.

 

[seismic]

Typical lib tatic of spinning good news into bad in an effort to demoralize voters in order to gain power.

and the good news was what ? Turning the US into a dictatorship ?

 

[RenegadeRick]

Also, technically not a dictatorship as it took both the house and senate to pass this assinine bill. But it's the thought that counts.

And since we are talking techincally, it's not a law until the decider decides to sign it.

I'm banana sure Bush will do the right thing and veto it.

Also, I'm sure we can count on the courts to protect us from it's unconstitutionality.
Oh wait, "no court has jurisdiction", you say?

 

[N8 v2.0]

and the good news was what ? Turning the US into a dictatorship ?

Riiiight... not the brightest bulb in the box are ye?

 

[BurlyShirley]

bs, don't let the leftists here lull you into becoming a jizzlapper.

yeah, you.

we do not SUCK at guerilla wars, unless you define "suck" as greater than 0% mortality. recall in vietnam our kill ratio was 20:1, and iraq the ratio of being removed from theater is better than 5:1 (recall we both capture and kill). name for me one city/village/town/outpost that we unsuccessfully engaged (i.e. got chased out). you care to look at afghanistan? as you should know, a popular m.o. employed by the taliban is to drag off their fallen brethren and purpose not to report it. even so, their deaths are disproportionate to ours.

this is to say nothing of your evaluation is based exclusively upon engagements on foreign soil, where there is little (if any) comfort & aide given by the indigenous population. that is to say, the deck is greatly stacked against us, & we're still pwning them on the scorecard. guerilla war isn't about hearts & minds. to make it fair, perhaps some of them should have a wet dream & try it over here.

Yes, an A-bomb is indeed more powerful than an AK-47, but that doesnt make us better warriors for using one. It means we have a mechanical advantage. You seem to view this whole situation just he same as the Bush admin. Basically its "Well, we have more and bigger guns, eventually, we should win" But like Vietnam, it really doesnt matter how many you kill, because anyone you DO kill is easily replaced. And once you've commited your own holocaust and annihilated entire cities, how can you claim "justice was served"?

 

[Changleen]

we do not SUCK at guerilla wars, unless you define "suck" as greater than 0% mortality. recall in vietnam our kill ratio was 20:1, and iraq the ratio of being removed from theater is better than 5:1 (recall we both capture and kill). name for me one city/village/town/outpost that we unsuccessfully engaged (i.e. got chased out). you care to look at afghanistan? as you should know, a popular m.o. employed by the taliban is to drag off their fallen brethren and purpose not to report it. even so, their deaths are disproportionate to ours.

Deeee-nial... You still LOST bro.

 

[$tinkle]

Yes, an A-bomb is indeed more powerful than an AK-47, but that doesnt make us better warriors for using one. It means we have a mechanical advantage. You seem to view this whole situation just he same as the Bush admin. Basically its "Well, we have more and bigger guns, eventually, we should win" But like Vietnam, it really doesnt matter how many you kill, because anyone you DO kill is easily replaced. And once you've commited your own holocaust and annihilated entire cities, how can you claim "justice was served"?

hippie

 

[$tinkle]

Deeee-nial... You still LOST bro.

nu-uh.

and i didn't come from apes, not even this one

 

[BurlyShirley]

hippie

mexican

 

[Changleen]

Is $tinkle actually a wetback or is that just your worst insult?

 

[MMike]

Oh come on guys.....you know N8 would sell his mother into gang-rape porn if he was told it were in the name of freedom.....which coincidentally, is how he was conceived...

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Oh come on guys.....you know N8 would sell his mother into gang-rape porn if he was told it were in the name of freedom.....which coincidentally, is how he was conceived...

It's times like these that I miss the reputation button.

 

[dhbuilder]

So if you don't know, the senate passed a bill yesterday that did a number of things. It has most importantly, it made it legal to indefinitely detain "enemy combatants."

I have been reviewing the text of the bill, and it is shocking.

• Who is an "enemy combatant"? Whoever the government says is one.
• What court has the power to review this determiniation? None.
• Where can this "enemy combatant" protest their detention, treatment, etc. They can't.
• Can evidence gathered through coecion and torture be admissible? Sure.
• Can the accused review and have an opportunity to refute all the evidence against them? Nope.

The text of this new law is so broad that I could be considered an "enemy combatant" for simply making this post. Funk. I hope they don't torture me.

My Rep. Mark Kirk voted for it in the house. Of my Senators, Obama tried to amend a sunset that was not passed, and Durbin did not vote for it.

Here is the text of the bill HR 6166, but the link will probably expire. just search for it on thomas.loc.gov if you need to.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:2:./temp/~c109L3OMvn::

Here is some more info:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/09/legalization-of-torture-an_115945829460324274.html
and here:
http://www.rosecoloredglasses.org/rcg_warblog/?p=9

best damn thing they've done in D.C. all year.

i'm amazed at how frikkin out of touch some people in this country are as to how real the threat is.

let em rot in gitmo.
those sub-humans are eating better and getting better medical care than most working poor in this country.

you want to rail on something, jump on that.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

best damn thing they've done in D.C. all year.

i'm amazed at how frikkin out of touch some people in this country are as to how real the threat is.

let em rot in gitmo.
those sub-humans are eating better and getting better medical care than most working poor in this country.

you want to rail on something, jump on that.

While I agree that it is scandalous that the richest country in the world can't do more to help its own poor, the other stuff you said is ridiculous. Yeah, I'm sure that the people in Gitmo have it so great that they'd rather be there than free from incarceration and at home with their families. I'm sure the three squares a day makes up for that...oh and I'm sure it makes up for the waterboarding, etc.

You want to talk about how real the threat is? Then tell us how real it is. Tell us how torturing a captive does anything to abate that threat. Torture is not an effective way of gaining information. The abused will either clam up or tell you what he thinks you want to hear when the abuse becomes too much. Further, how many innocents are we will to torture? Records show that many of the detainees have been released after no case could be made against them, but not before being held for years with no chance to show they were innocent while being tortured in the process. Doesn't that disturb you?

 

[RenegadeRick]

you want to rail on something, jump on that.

You betcha.

i'm amazed at how frikkin out of touch some people in this country are as to how real the threat is.

You mean people like you? According to this chart:

there are 19 times as many deaths from work as there are from terrorisim.
I would absolutely support a war on work. But this? This is bullcarp. Get serious.

best damn thing they've done in D.C. all year.

Pass a law that prohibits review and oversight? Sure that is just great. Democracy does not happen in secret, it happens in the open light of day. Unquestionable authority is the hallmark of dictatorships. Not the land of the free.

I'm not trying to say that there aren't bad people. There are. But if they did something wrong, CHARGE them. Present the EVIDENCE against them. Don't think that this just applies to non-citizens either. Remember Jose Padilla? He is a US Citizen that spent three years in custody without charges. Yes this could happen to you. Just on somebody's say so. And if you are not allowed to challenge your detention or view the evidence against you, you can't defend yourself. There is something very unconstitutional about that.

let em rot in gitmo.
those sub-humans are eating better and getting better medical care than most working poor in this country.

So you would be willing to trade your freedom for three squares a day and medical care? Trade that for the freedom to ride and enjoy the sun on your back and the wind in your face as you cruise the trails you have put so much of yourself into? I weep for you, man.

 

[dhbuilder]

it disturbs me when we're getting all wrapped up in looking out for those who filet our servicemen wide open, drag their entrails all over and put it out on the web for all to see.
never is there outrage over actions like that.

but let us waterboard somebody, and "oh my god we're such a villianous bunch"
spare me.

i don't get my info from all those websites out there.
i've talked with real people who actually been over there serving.
the stories i've heard have never made it to the airwaves.
and would never be posted on a huffington blog or other such site.