Bush signs Terrorist Bill

Status
Not open for further replies.

llad12

Diabloii.Net Member
Bush signs Terrorist Bill

From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON - 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.

Bush's plan for treatment of the terror suspects became law just six weeks after he acknowledged that the CIA had been secretly interrogating suspected terrorists overseas and pressed Congress to quickly give authority to try them in military commissions.

"With the bill I'm about to sign, the men our intelligence officials believe orchestrated the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people will face justice," Bush said ...

The law protects detainees from blatant abuses during questioning _ such as rape, torture and "cruel and inhuman" treatment _ but does not require that any of them be granted legal counsel. Also, it specifically bars detainees from filing habeas corpus petitions challenging their detentions in federal courts. Bush said the process is "fair, lawful and necessary."

"The bill I sign today helps secure this country and it sends a clear message: This nation is patient and decent and fair and we will never back down from threats to our freedom," Bush said. "We are as determined today as we were on the morning of Sept. 12, 2001."

Democratic response
Many Democrats opposed the legislation because they said it eliminated rights of defendants considered fundamental to American values, such as a person's ability to go to court to protest their detention and the use of coerced testimony as evidence. Bush acknowledged that the law came amid dispute.

"Over the past few months, the debate over this bill has been heated and the questions raised can seem complex," he said. "Yet, with the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few. Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously? And did we do what it takes to defeat that threat?"

The American Civil Liberties Union said the new law is "one of the worst civil liberties measures ever enacted in American history."

"The president can now, with the approval of Congress, indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero.

"Nothing could be further from the American values we all hold in our hearts than the Military Commissions Act," he said.
So how about it folks?

Does using sentencing people to death based on testimony obtained by torture seem fair to you?

Does not providing legal counsel for the accused seem decent and right?

Does kidnapping people, torturing them, and then going to trial based on hearsay evidence fit your qualifications of what is fair and just?

Your president and legislators believe it is ...


What do you think?
 

Dondrei

Diabloii.Net Member
Hmm, let's see - no habeas corpus, indefinite detention without charge, no independent legal counsel and evidence obtained by coersion and hearsay are admissible. Oh, and of course the President gets to say what constitutes torture.

Proud day for America. Even I am surprised they aren't letting them get legal counsel, it's like they're deliberately trying to remove all doubt that they're wiping their arses with the American flag.
 

WildBerry

Diabloii.Net Member
dondrei said:
obtained by coersion
According to my OED "coersion" is not a valid spelling.

I'd be damned if anything obtained by invalidly spelled coercion should be valid in courts of law, either. As has been pointed out to me oftentimes enough, not being an American makes me not qualified to judge the decisions they and their leadership make, for I cannot fully ever hope to understand their needs, being spatially and culturally so distant. That's a right call right there, for I cannot in my right mind deduce what need is there for this.
 

WildBerry

Diabloii.Net Member
HAMC8112 said:
America, its starting to sound like Belgium. Congrats!
Yeah, soon you'll have your very own separation movement in, say, Oklahoma, full of your own little HAMC's, growing weed, riding bikes, reading Jung and in general being detrimental to the state of the union. Good thing here is you can have their neighbours tell on their bad behaviour so they can be put away.
 

HAMC8112

Diabloii.Net Member
WildBerry said:
Yeah, soon you'll have your very own separation movement in, say, Oklahoma, full of your own little HAMC's, growing weed, riding bikes, reading Jung and in general being detrimental to the state of the union. Good thing here is you can have their neighbours tell on their bad behaviour so they can be put away.
Sarcasm does not become you Wildberry. :smiley:
 

WebDragon

Diabloii.Net Member
llad12 said:
What do you think?

What do I think?

I think I'll just cancel the trips I planned to the States. Its just too easy to fall through the cracks and be gone forever. I'll just go to Thailand instead, at least there my government can exercise its rights to protect its citizens abroad. Oh, and I get legal council.
 

SaroDarksbane

Diabloii.Net Site Pal
Also, it specifically bars detainees from filing habeas corpus petitions challenging their detentions in federal courts.
That's just . . . I can't even express how wrong that is.

"Oh, and we made a law saying you can't complain to the justice system!"

Separation of powers, anyone? Maybe the next bill congress signs will have a "Nobody can challenge the constitutionality of this law in court or we'll arrest you." clause.
 

HAMC8112

Diabloii.Net Member
SaroDarksbane said:
That's just . . . I can't even express how wrong that is.

"Oh, and we made a law saying you can't complain to the justice system!"

Separation of powers, anyone? Maybe the next bill congress signs will have a "Nobody can challenge the constitutionality of this law in court or we'll arrest you." clause.
Yes, like i said, welcome to belgium.
 

Dondrei

Diabloii.Net Member
WildBerry said:
According to my OED "coersion" is not a valid spelling.
Oops.

SaroDarksbane said:
That's just . . . I can't even express how wrong that is.

"Oh, and we made a law saying you can't complain to the justice system!"

Separation of powers, anyone? Maybe the next bill congress signs will have a "Nobody can challenge the constitutionality of this law in court or we'll arrest you." clause.
It's okay, because these are bad guys.
 

skihard

Banned
boobie that's what I think, I think about boobies whenever some one mentions killing, guns, rape, drugs, bombs, boobies, hockey, impeachment, cars, art, sports in general, work, driving, yep I just think about boobies and nothing else seems to be that important anymore, myabe you should try it.
 

WildBerry

Diabloii.Net Member
WebDragon said:
I think I'll just cancel the trips I planned to the States. Its just too easy to fall through the cracks and be gone forever. I'll just go to Thailand instead, at least there my government can exercise its rights to protect its citizens abroad. Oh, and I get legal council.
Point taken. There are places in the world in which the rights of the citizens are more downtrodden. A fact.

I'm not sure how far it goes in meaning and successfully proponing the view that things should be worse where they previously were rather well, however.
 

myleftfoot

Diabloii.Net Member
WebDragon said:
What do I think?

I think I'll just cancel the trips I planned to the States. Its just too easy to fall through the cracks and be gone forever. I'll just go to Thailand instead, at least there my government can exercise its rights to protect its citizens abroad. Oh, and I get legal council.
I've been thinking this for years ... apart from family reasons I don't think I'd travel to teh country any more ... prehaps this is what they want?
 

llad12

Diabloii.Net Member
WebDragon said:
I think I'll just cancel the trips I planned to the States. Its just too easy to fall through the cracks and be gone forever. I'll just go to Thailand instead, at least there my government can exercise its rights to protect its citizens abroad. Oh, and I get legal council.
My apologies to you Webdragon and any others on this board who are upset.

We should run every GOP and rebel Democrat who voted for this bill outa town. We should impeach this sorry-*** president and try him for crimes against humanity.

By God, the Supreme Court better strike this law down.

This isn't what America is supposed to stand for ... this isn't my America.

Damn these people ... damn them all to Hell.
 

thejdawg2

Diabloii.Net Member
How many more crimes against human decency will the US commit before the "war on terror" is no longer a valid blanket justification for pretty much...anything.

How many more countries will we invade?
How many more rights must we have taken from us?

More importantly, is there anything we can do to stop it?
 

Talga Vasternich

Diabloii.Net Member
Carnage-DVS said:
Wow. I'm kinda scared living here now.
I'll get shouted down again, but I'll say it again.
This law does not apply to American citizens, so if you live in America, it does not apply to you.
If you check the law that was just signed, you'd also realize that there is a court system set up to handle these trials and a review system to handle any issues of legality that may be raised during these trials.
I do agree, a confession given under duress may be questionable, but it is a confession.
All this about "whittling away our rights" is merely fear-mongering and is no different than the to-do made about wiretaps....a whole lot of hand wringing about an issue that had NO consequences.
 

Bordillo

Banned
llad12 said:
From the Associated Press:



So how about it folks?

Does using sentencing people to death based on testimony obtained by torture seem fair to you?

Does not providing legal counsel for the accused seem decent and right?

Does kidnapping people, torturing them, and then going to trial based on hearsay evidence fit your qualifications of what is fair and just?

Your president and legislators believe it is ...


What do you think?
Doesnt your article say that they are protected from torture
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top