Report, edit, etc...Posted by lonely_duck on 2006-09-29 at 15:01:38
QUOTE
Legal residents' rights curbed in detainee bill
By Farah Stockman, Globe Staff | September 28, 2006
WASHINGTON -- A last-minute change to a bill currently before Congress on the rights of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay could have sweeping implications inside the United States: It would strip green-card holders and other legal residents of the right to challenge their detention in court if they are accused of being ``enemy combatants."
An earlier draft of the bill sparked criticism because it removed the rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees to challenge their detentions in federal court. But changes made over the weekend during negotiations between the White House and key Republicans in Congress go even further, making it legal for noncitizens inside the United States to be detained indefinitely, without access to the court system, until the ``war on terror" is over.
It is unclear who initiated the changes. The bill, which also sets up a new system of military trials for terrorist suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, passed the House yesterday and is expected to be voted on in the Senate today, before Congress breaks for midterm elections.
Human rights advocates yesterday lobbied against the bill.
``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, 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.
In the original bill, the section banning ``habeas corpus" petitions applied only to detainees being held ``outside the United States," referring to the roughly 450 prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. But in recent days, the phrase ``outside the United States" was removed.
The White House did not respond to questions asking why the restriction was extended to people in the United States.
But at a press conference after the changes were made, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley praised the bill as ``a legislative framework that allows us to capture, detain, and prosecute and bring to justice terrorists."
Human-rights activists believe the bill would do far more, including give the president greatly expanded powers to hold people indefinitely.
``What if they had this after Sept. 11 [2001] when they picked up all kinds of folks on immigration charges and material-witness charges and tried them in secret immigration proceedings?" said Jumana Musa, a lawyer with Amnesty International. ``Those people were deported. Now [if the bill passes], they could be detained indefinitely as enemy combatants."
Eugene R. Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, added that: ``What it means is that certain categories of people are going to be second-raters in our legal system."
``You can't sneeze at the fact that citizenship has got to mean something," Fidell said. ``But if I were a green-card holder, thinking about the other pressures that are being brought to bear on green-card holders, it could make me pretty nervous."
Wartime decisions to hold people perceived as threats have often proved problematic. During World War II, the government held over 100,000 Japanese and Japanese-Americans in internment camps. (When they challenged their internment, the Supreme Court twice ruled against them. Decades later, however, the government acknowledged that the internment was unjustified and apologized.)
Jennifer Daskill , US advocacy director of Human Rights Watch, predicted that the Supreme Court would strike down the provisions in the current bill that would take away access to courts for legal US residents arrested in the United States. Still, she said, it could take years before the court rules on the issue, during which time many people could be imprisoned.
The provision would have an immediate impact on Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri , so far the only known ``enemy combatant" held inside the United States.
Marri, a Qatari student arrested in 2001, has been held in a US military brig without charges for four years.
Like hundreds of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Marri has challenged his detention in federal court; passage of the new law would throw out his case.
Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter , a Pennsylvania Republican, and Senator Patrick Leahy , a Vermont Democrat, have filed an amendment to the Senate bill under which detainees -- both inside Guantanamo Bay and in the United States -- would retain their access to the courts.
But it was unclear last night whether the amendment has enough support to pass. So far, moderate Republicans have not joined Specter and leading Democrats in supporting the amendment.
Senator Susan Collins , a Maine Republican who is considered a moderate, said she would not support Specter's amendment.
``Detainees from Guantanamo have clogged our courts with more than 420 lawsuits challenging everything from their access to the Internet to the quality of their recreation facilities," her office said in a statement that called the lawsuits ``an abuse of our court system."
Collins did not comment on the bill's restriction of rights for non-citizens in the United States.
By Farah Stockman, Globe Staff | September 28, 2006
WASHINGTON -- A last-minute change to a bill currently before Congress on the rights of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay could have sweeping implications inside the United States: It would strip green-card holders and other legal residents of the right to challenge their detention in court if they are accused of being ``enemy combatants."
An earlier draft of the bill sparked criticism because it removed the rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees to challenge their detentions in federal court. But changes made over the weekend during negotiations between the White House and key Republicans in Congress go even further, making it legal for noncitizens inside the United States to be detained indefinitely, without access to the court system, until the ``war on terror" is over.
It is unclear who initiated the changes. The bill, which also sets up a new system of military trials for terrorist suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, passed the House yesterday and is expected to be voted on in the Senate today, before Congress breaks for midterm elections.
Human rights advocates yesterday lobbied against the bill.
``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, 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.
In the original bill, the section banning ``habeas corpus" petitions applied only to detainees being held ``outside the United States," referring to the roughly 450 prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. But in recent days, the phrase ``outside the United States" was removed.
The White House did not respond to questions asking why the restriction was extended to people in the United States.
But at a press conference after the changes were made, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley praised the bill as ``a legislative framework that allows us to capture, detain, and prosecute and bring to justice terrorists."
Human-rights activists believe the bill would do far more, including give the president greatly expanded powers to hold people indefinitely.
``What if they had this after Sept. 11 [2001] when they picked up all kinds of folks on immigration charges and material-witness charges and tried them in secret immigration proceedings?" said Jumana Musa, a lawyer with Amnesty International. ``Those people were deported. Now [if the bill passes], they could be detained indefinitely as enemy combatants."
Eugene R. Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, added that: ``What it means is that certain categories of people are going to be second-raters in our legal system."
``You can't sneeze at the fact that citizenship has got to mean something," Fidell said. ``But if I were a green-card holder, thinking about the other pressures that are being brought to bear on green-card holders, it could make me pretty nervous."
Wartime decisions to hold people perceived as threats have often proved problematic. During World War II, the government held over 100,000 Japanese and Japanese-Americans in internment camps. (When they challenged their internment, the Supreme Court twice ruled against them. Decades later, however, the government acknowledged that the internment was unjustified and apologized.)
Jennifer Daskill , US advocacy director of Human Rights Watch, predicted that the Supreme Court would strike down the provisions in the current bill that would take away access to courts for legal US residents arrested in the United States. Still, she said, it could take years before the court rules on the issue, during which time many people could be imprisoned.
The provision would have an immediate impact on Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri , so far the only known ``enemy combatant" held inside the United States.
Marri, a Qatari student arrested in 2001, has been held in a US military brig without charges for four years.
Like hundreds of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Marri has challenged his detention in federal court; passage of the new law would throw out his case.
Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter , a Pennsylvania Republican, and Senator Patrick Leahy , a Vermont Democrat, have filed an amendment to the Senate bill under which detainees -- both inside Guantanamo Bay and in the United States -- would retain their access to the courts.
But it was unclear last night whether the amendment has enough support to pass. So far, moderate Republicans have not joined Specter and leading Democrats in supporting the amendment.
Senator Susan Collins , a Maine Republican who is considered a moderate, said she would not support Specter's amendment.
``Detainees from Guantanamo have clogged our courts with more than 420 lawsuits challenging everything from their access to the Internet to the quality of their recreation facilities," her office said in a statement that called the lawsuits ``an abuse of our court system."
Collins did not comment on the bill's restriction of rights for non-citizens in the United States.
Uh oh...
QUOTE
Senate passes detainee, tribunal bill
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 (UPI) -- The U.S. Senate passed a bill Thursday that would give President Bush leeway in how terror suspects are questioned and allow trial by military tribunal.
The action was a major political victory for the White House.
The bill was similar to one passed by the House Wednesday, which is expected to vote on whether to adopt the Senate language Friday, The Washington Post said.
The new legislation was made necessary when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the administration's program to try terror suspects, including those at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by military tribunal needed congressional approval.
The White House launched a full-court press on the legislation, with Bush visiting the Capitol Thursday to urge senators to pass it.
"That's the legislation that will give us the capacity to be able to interrogate high-values detainees and, at the same, time, give us the capacity to try people in our military tribunals," Bush said after meeting with Senate GOP members.
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 (UPI) -- The U.S. Senate passed a bill Thursday that would give President Bush leeway in how terror suspects are questioned and allow trial by military tribunal.
The action was a major political victory for the White House.
The bill was similar to one passed by the House Wednesday, which is expected to vote on whether to adopt the Senate language Friday, The Washington Post said.
The new legislation was made necessary when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the administration's program to try terror suspects, including those at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by military tribunal needed congressional approval.
The White House launched a full-court press on the legislation, with Bush visiting the Capitol Thursday to urge senators to pass it.
"That's the legislation that will give us the capacity to be able to interrogate high-values detainees and, at the same, time, give us the capacity to try people in our military tribunals," Bush said after meeting with Senate GOP members.
Hmmm, discussion?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mini Moose 2707 on 2006-09-29 at 16:13:35
I'm all for not giving immigrants rights, but this goes a little bit too far. The government shouldn't have that much power over people, even if they aren't citizens.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Felagund on 2006-09-29 at 16:17:50
This just blows my mind. And you know what? I've not seen major reporting on it. I would think it would be a huge deal, but I bet the major networks were paid money to keep it hush hush.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by lonely_duck on 2006-09-29 at 19:56:20
Well, the Supreme Court will probably strike this bill down, also what makes me angry is that some of the legislators actually only voted for it because A)They knew the Supreme Court would shut it down and B) They wanted to look "tough" on terrorism. The fact that they won't stand against the executive branch shows that their toughness is about the same as a mouse.
The only thing that worries me is that the judicial branch (for the most part) is the only thing keeping the executive branch in check, while the legislative branch is like a ganggrene ridden limb.
This is the only part that actually makes my blood boil because of the insensitivity of the senator.
Lastly, http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...on=2&vote=00259
This is showing which senators voted for or against the bill, feel free to yell at them via e-mail if they said yea.
The only thing that worries me is that the judicial branch (for the most part) is the only thing keeping the executive branch in check, while the legislative branch is like a ganggrene ridden limb.
QUOTE
Senator Susan Collins , a Maine Republican who is considered a moderate, said she would not support Specter's amendment.
``Detainees from Guantanamo have clogged our courts with more than 420 lawsuits challenging everything from their access to the Internet to the quality of their recreation facilities," her office said in a statement that called the lawsuits ``an abuse of our court system."
Collins did not comment on the bill's restriction of rights for non-citizens in the United States.
``Detainees from Guantanamo have clogged our courts with more than 420 lawsuits challenging everything from their access to the Internet to the quality of their recreation facilities," her office said in a statement that called the lawsuits ``an abuse of our court system."
Collins did not comment on the bill's restriction of rights for non-citizens in the United States.
This is the only part that actually makes my blood boil because of the insensitivity of the senator.
Lastly, http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...on=2&vote=00259
This is showing which senators voted for or against the bill, feel free to yell at them via e-mail if they said yea.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2006-09-30 at 02:56:54
I've already lose faith in the idiots that vote for our leaders and have decided that pretty much however you dice it, America is going to the dogs.
By the way, this is just disgusting.
By the way, this is just disgusting.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mp)Excalibur on 2006-09-30 at 10:11:26
QUOTE(Mini Moose 2707 @ Sep 29 2006, 03:13 PM)
I'm all for not giving immigrants rights, but this goes a little bit too far. The government shouldn't have that much power over people, even if they aren't citizens.
[right][snapback]569734[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]569734[/snapback][/right]
I agree with the moose. Id like to quote an old avatar from a forum i used to visit:
"Fight Power, Not People"
-Ex
Report, edit, etc...Posted by (DI)Yulla on 2006-09-30 at 14:37:15
I have lost my beliefs in United States government long time ago..
Being a green card holder i am, I am utterly disgusted to hear this story. Why care about the terrorists when there are plenty of terrorists in the congress? Gosh even the president himself should be asked if he was a terrorist...
I feel like its like Salem Witch Trials again..
Being a green card holder i am, I am utterly disgusted to hear this story. Why care about the terrorists when there are plenty of terrorists in the congress? Gosh even the president himself should be asked if he was a terrorist...
I feel like its like Salem Witch Trials again..
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2006-10-03 at 01:21:00
The people who dislike this bill are the people who have no faith in Government, even though YOU elected these people.
I am not for or against this bill, I just want you people to think about it.
I am not for or against this bill, I just want you people to think about it.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2006-10-03 at 02:25:27
I elected these people?
I have no faith or trust in a government that
a) I didn't vote for (since I can't vote)
b) Even if I could vote I wouldn't vote for
c) Was elected by the bunch of mindless sheep that populate this country.
So, right, I have no faith in the government not to abuse power.
I have no faith or trust in a government that
a) I didn't vote for (since I can't vote)
b) Even if I could vote I wouldn't vote for
c) Was elected by the bunch of mindless sheep that populate this country.
So, right, I have no faith in the government not to abuse power.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by lonely_duck on 2006-10-03 at 02:59:15
That's a weak statement thedaddy, are you saying people that you trust have never betrayed you or did something you didn't approve? Too much faith in the government can, and will be disastrous, and I believe they crossed the line when they passed this bill that lets them treat people like second class citizens. Hell, look at Iraq, what are we doing there!? There was no reason to go in their, and it has only caused trouble since then. Did people question Bush at first? Yes, of course, but a slight minority, now? Now most people are disgruntled not knowing why we are there and having to listen to the administration focusing on Clinton's errors to stop Bin Laden so that people won't focus on the war.
Also, Bush has lied to us before, he has sactioned torturing and has played dumb to what the Geneva convention international laws are on torturing. The fact that his administration and his Republican friends changed the bill to have his executive muscle more room to flex just strengthens my belief that this bill is nothing but dangerous.
Also, Bush has lied to us before, he has sactioned torturing and has played dumb to what the Geneva convention international laws are on torturing. The fact that his administration and his Republican friends changed the bill to have his executive muscle more room to flex just strengthens my belief that this bill is nothing but dangerous.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MillenniumArmy on 2006-10-03 at 14:48:48
Who cares... There's far bigger and worse issues than the "corruption" people claim to have seen in our government.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mini Moose 2707 on 2006-10-03 at 14:50:08
QUOTE(TheDaddy0420 @ Oct 3 2006, 01:20 AM)
The people who dislike this bill are the people who have no faith in Government, even though YOU elected these people.
At most an individual person elects one of the hundred senators and one of the 423 members in the House of Reps.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by lonely_duck on 2006-10-03 at 17:25:55
QUOTE(MillenniumArmy @ Oct 3 2006, 10:48 AM)
Who cares... There's far bigger and worse issues than the "corruption" people claim to have seen in our government.
[right][snapback]571268[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]571268[/snapback][/right]
Just because there are bigger problems in the world doesn't mean we should ignore this *problem. Look at what happened with terrorism, it wasn't that big a deal for America 6 years ago. (Granted that there was the first bombing in the WTC, and the bombing of USS cole, but it was never considered a big problem until 2001.)
*this mean some people don't think of it as a problem.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Nintendo_Confed on 2006-10-03 at 18:53:50
QUOTE
I'm all for not giving immigrants rights, but this goes a little bit too far. The government shouldn't have that much power over people, even if they aren't citizens.
Um, Moose, wats your problem with immigrants?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mini Moose 2707 on 2006-10-03 at 19:32:59
I was assuming this was about "illegal immigrants", proving once again that I didn't read something. 
If someone is a citizen of this country, natural-born or immigrant, they should have full protection of the law.
If someone is a citizen of this country, natural-born or immigrant, they should have full protection of the law.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Felagund on 2006-10-03 at 21:20:20
I've heard two sides of this argument. One fellow said, "we're the good guys, and always obeying the Geneva Conventions sets us apart from those we claim are the enemies of the United States." Another fellow said, "we're not going to win this war like that." I have to side with the first guy because this war is a bloody sham to begin with. Beyond that, didn't Bush himself say we stand for freedom, justice, blah blah blah? He takes what he says, and he pisses all over it. What's really scary is that people don't even realize how much of a liar he is. The past six years have been one big political soap opera, and I think most of America is sick of it. MA thinks that we can't see nonexistent corruption in politics? "Scooter Libby," the fabrication of reports by the CIA concerning WMDs in Iraq, lies, nutcases such as Santorum calling Muslims "the enemy," labeling non-friendly nations as being in the "Axis of Evil," more lies, the utter annihilation of the First Amendment, increasing our debt more quickly than any administration before (especially considering the economy is doing "well"), giving tax cuts to the wealthy when the poor see no benefits, the attempted integration of religion and politics, Iraq itself, yet more lies, that Floridian senator who sent sexual e-mails to his underage male pages (the name evades me at the moment), the wholesale manipulation of the U.N. to sell the idea of Iraq, and on top of all of that, replacing "French" in the English language with "Freedom." That last one amuses me because it is in effect saying the French are synonymous with Freedom.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CaptainWill on 2006-10-04 at 03:38:18
Palmer and McCarthy, anyone?
This kind of thing (paranoia and witch hunting, with all the associated 'emergency' powers afforded to the government) is hardly new to the US.
This kind of thing (paranoia and witch hunting, with all the associated 'emergency' powers afforded to the government) is hardly new to the US.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Lithium on 2006-10-04 at 06:35:53
The Skit! US Citizens Stupidity!
After 9-11...
Bush: I suggest to go to war!
Citizens: We urge to go to war!
Congress: Damn right you guys are. We're going to war.
After people noticed that war kills people! Great job citizens!
Citizens: We don't like the war now. We have to pull off.
Bush: What the hell do you think I'am, God? We can't pull off now.
Citizens: Well we don't like the taxes either. Why the hell do you keep putting on taxes?!
Bush: Well its a god damn war you dimwits. Didn't you guys know what it was?
After people let their rights taken away by starting a war.
Bush: It's a war. If you didn't know what it was, why did you support me in the first place?
And after that kind of a explanation, I believe the people in United States are retarded. The government runs the best in the world. Except the people and the citizens who have been granted almost godlike authority don't ever use it to the full potential.
Do you think the people ever go to the offices and pick up brochures or even think of going to the politician's sites and reading their statements and others etc? No. Most people just follow their families' heritage of voting a party. The most common case.
I have hatred against ignorance. Especially the goofy ones. "I don't care about politics, but I do hate Bush." "I don't give a crap about politics, but I like voting for people who look good."
After 9-11...
Bush: I suggest to go to war!
Citizens: We urge to go to war!
Congress: Damn right you guys are. We're going to war.
After people noticed that war kills people! Great job citizens!
Citizens: We don't like the war now. We have to pull off.
Bush: What the hell do you think I'am, God? We can't pull off now.
Citizens: Well we don't like the taxes either. Why the hell do you keep putting on taxes?!
Bush: Well its a god damn war you dimwits. Didn't you guys know what it was?
After people let their rights taken away by starting a war.
Bush: It's a war. If you didn't know what it was, why did you support me in the first place?
And after that kind of a explanation, I believe the people in United States are retarded. The government runs the best in the world. Except the people and the citizens who have been granted almost godlike authority don't ever use it to the full potential.
Do you think the people ever go to the offices and pick up brochures or even think of going to the politician's sites and reading their statements and others etc? No. Most people just follow their families' heritage of voting a party. The most common case.
I have hatred against ignorance. Especially the goofy ones. "I don't care about politics, but I do hate Bush." "I don't give a crap about politics, but I like voting for people who look good."
Report, edit, etc...Posted by lonely_duck on 2006-10-04 at 14:02:03
You give Bush too much credit Lithium.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mini Moose 2707 on 2006-10-04 at 14:51:02
You forgot the "display of evidence supporting war that may have not been true" between the President and citizen steps. The citizens naturally TRUST their leaders, government, and media a lot, so a suggestion to go to war with evidence that sounds good is enough to justify war in there minds. Even though that may not be so... "Remember the Maine!".
Report, edit, etc...Posted by HolySin on 2006-10-04 at 16:39:57
Here's the fact, most of the people in the U.S. at the time supported going to war. We rushed our decisions, and a couple years later, we regretted it and blame it on the government. The U.S. government often responds to what the citizens want, but sometimes we have problems with making the connection to be able to do so.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by lonely_duck on 2006-10-04 at 18:10:13
I never actually met people that said Irad was a huge threat and we should invade it, it was the government that said it was a threat, and after some time in Iraq had passed we found out Iraq really wasn't a threat at all. People then got angry with the government for the huge intelligence mistake.
As far as I know the war on terror has been "suspended" by the Bush administration; not because they don't care about it, but because they have done a botched job of it and haven't really been effective besides their succsess in taking the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan.
As far as I know the war on terror has been "suspended" by the Bush administration; not because they don't care about it, but because they have done a botched job of it and haven't really been effective besides their succsess in taking the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Felagund on 2006-10-04 at 21:14:46
However, the Taliban are making a resurgence in Afghanistan because of depleted allied troop levels there. Also, I think you're mixing up the popularity of Iraq with Afghanistan. It was pretty much unanimous socially to invade Afghanistan because of September 11, but the nation was split on Iraq. Half of us want to say "we told you so" while the other half are blaming the government for fabricating lies.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Lithium on 2006-10-05 at 05:55:27
The thing is. We don't know what really happens if they decide not to tell us. America sure is good at making propagandas.