This is perhaps one of the more interesting clauses, one I like to call the “cover your ass clause.”
“As provided by the Constitution and by this section, the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and to promulgate higher standards and administrative regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.”
This is perhaps one of the more interesting clauses, one I like to call the “cover your ass clause.”
“As provided by the Constitution and by this section, the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and to promulgate higher standards and administrative regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.”
[quote]Sloth wrote:
100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Oh, ok, cool. Then you should have absolutely no problem with the Detainee act of of 2005, and the Military Commissions act of 2006. As it defines the exact process for doing the things you said above.
By the way, do you believe lawful enemy combatants should be arbitrarily released?
“Hey, you going to shoot at our soldiers anymore if we release you before the war is over?”
“Me? Oh no, not me. No sir, no way. I’m just going to go back home and become a dentist.”
The military actually does release some lawful combatants, if they determine that the individual can reasonably be trusted to not continue the war effort. Would kind of suck to release the combatant who went back and shot one of your soldiers.
Which is why many prisoners are not released till the war is officially over. How many prisoners did the Allies hold till the end of WW2, for example?
Not indefinate, but it can sure as hell be a long time.
The act still allows for indefinite detention. So that’s the opposite of what I(intelligent people) want.
By the way, something that might make an innocent person take up arms after release—being detained for several years without the right to see a court/tribunal/commission.
Please quote me the section that allows the government to INDEFINATELY hold the detainee without his status being reviewed.
[/quote]
Or more accurately:
Please quote me the section that tells the president he must bring charges against an enemy noncombatant.
Your apology, accepted in advance, of course.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Or more accurately:
Please quote me the section that tells the president he must bring charges against an enemy noncombatant.
Your apology, accepted in advance, of course.[/quote]
Have you even read the Detainee Treatment act of 2005, and the Military Commission Act of 2006? I’ve explained this over and over again. I’ve quoted the sections. Since 2005 a CSRT panel must determine a detainees status. It is law now. A detainee can then challenge his status to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. The status of detainees is reviewed ANNUALLY!
This is quite a bunch of hog wash. If you are not a US Citizen you are not protected by the US Consitution. Its that simple. The terrorists and illegals do not get a trial under the protection of the Consitution. There are no rights being take away. There were none for them. under our Consitution in the first place.
Section 1005 of Detainee treatment act of 2005.
(d) Annual Report-
(1) REPORT REQUIRED- The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress an annual report on the annual review process for aliens in the custody of the Department of Defense outside the United States. Each such report shall be submitted in unclassified form, with a classified annex, if necessary. The report shall be submitted not later than December 31 each year.
(2) ELEMENTS OF REPORT- Each such report shall include the following with respect to the year covered by the report:
(A) The number of detainees whose status was reviewed.
(B) The procedures used at each location.
(e) Judicial Review of Detention of Enemy Combatants-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(e) Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider–
`(1) an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; or
`(2) any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention by the Department of Defense of an alien at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who–
`(A) is currently in military custody; or
`(B) has been determined by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant.'.
[quote]blck1jack wrote:
This is quite a bunch of hog wash. If you are not a US Citizen you are not protected by the US Consitution. Its that simple. The terrorists and illegals do not get a trial under the protection of the Consitution. There are no rights being take away. There were none for them. under our Consitution in the first place.[/quote]
“The Habeas Corpus secures every man here, alien or citizen,
against everything which is not law, whatever shape it may
assume.”
-Thomas Jefferson
[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
blck1jack wrote:
This is quite a bunch of hog wash. If you are not a US Citizen you are not protected by the US Consitution. Its that simple. The terrorists and illegals do not get a trial under the protection of the Consitution. There are no rights being take away. There were none for them. under our Consitution in the first place.
“The Habeas Corpus secures every man here, alien or citizen,
against everything which is not law, whatever shape it may
assume.”
-Thomas Jefferson
[/quote]
I seriously doubt he was talking about alien COMBATANTS. After all, the founders set up the jurisdiction of Military Tribunals for alien combatants. By the way, the act doesn’t suspend habeas for an alien car thief. It’s for alien COMBATANTS.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
blck1jack wrote:
This is quite a bunch of hog wash. If you are not a US Citizen you are not protected by the US Consitution. Its that simple. The terrorists and illegals do not get a trial under the protection of the Consitution. There are no rights being take away. There were none for them. under our Consitution in the first place.
“The Habeas Corpus secures every man here, alien or citizen,
against everything which is not law, whatever shape it may
assume.”
-Thomas Jefferson
I seriously doubt he was talking about alien COMBATANTS. After all, the founders set up the jurisdiction of Military Tribunals for alien combatants. By the way, the act doesn’t suspend habeas for an alien car thief. It’s for alien COMBATANTS.
[/quote]
Well, he did say every; however, I was really only taking issue with the post’s general point that if one isn’t a citizen of this country, one is exempt from the protections afforded by the Constitution (especially with regards to “illegals”).
[quote]blck1jack wrote:
This is quite a bunch of hog wash. If you are not a US Citizen you are not protected by the US Consitution. Its that simple. The terrorists and illegals do not get a trial under the protection of the Consitution. There are no rights being take away. There were none for them. under our Consitution in the first place.[/quote]
Flatly false.
You’ve heard of the supreme court I presume. They disagree with you.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
100meters wrote:
Or more accurately:
Please quote me the section that tells the president he must bring charges against an enemy noncombatant.
Your apology, accepted in advance, of course.
Have you even read the Detainee Treatment act of 2005, and the Military Commission Act of 2006? I’ve explained this over and over again. I’ve quoted the sections. Since 2005 a CSRT panel must determine a detainees status. It is law now. A detainee can then challenge his status to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. The status of detainees is reviewed ANNUALLY![/quote]
Please quote the passage requested, as it’s not present in the MCA nor the DTA.
or easier…
Sloth,
What’s the time limit for the U.S. to provide a CSRT?
ok since the answer to that question was “none”
what recourse does a detainee have if not given a CSRT?
answer again: none. (that whole removal of habeas and all…)
As I said before, if Bush doesn’t want to try you, you’re screwed. And that’s wrong(but that’s just me and the SCOTUS) Hence, the outrage.
Get it now?
[quote]100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
100meters wrote:
Or more accurately:
Please quote me the section that tells the president he must bring charges against an enemy noncombatant.
Your apology, accepted in advance, of course.
Have you even read the Detainee Treatment act of 2005, and the Military Commission Act of 2006? I’ve explained this over and over again. I’ve quoted the sections. Since 2005 a CSRT panel must determine a detainees status. It is law now. A detainee can then challenge his status to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. The status of detainees is reviewed ANNUALLY!
Please quote the passage requested, as it’s not present in the MCA nor the DTA.
or easier…
Sloth,
What’s the time limit for the U.S. to provide a CSRT?
ok since the answer to that question was “none”
what recourse does a detainee have if not given a CSRT?
answer again: none. (that whole removal of habeas and all…)
As I said before, if Bush doesn’t want to try you, you’re screwed. And that’s wrong(but that’s just me and the SCOTUS) Hence, the outrage.
Get it now?[/quote]
I quoted the passage, section 1005, look above…However, I’ll post additional info for you via link futher below.
It is a REQUIREMENT to review the status of each detainee ANNUALLY. Annually means a year, by the way. That first review is a CSRT, afterwards the status is by an Annual Review Board (ARB).
This is how this works, in short. It is required that each detainee is notified about the CSRT. This was required to have been done since July 17, 2004 and so on. After the detainee has been notified, and consulted by his represenative, and the represenative has reviewed the government information, a tribunal will be scheduled within 30 DAYS.
Look for G. Tribunal Procedures.
Further, according to the DoD, as of March 2005, 558 CSRTs had been performed. That was all of the detainees at Guantanamo.
Here’s a nice little article.
With the passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), Congress has firmly committed itself to the view that the nation is at war and that the legislative branch of government has a significant role to play in a variety of legal issues associated with the ?enemy combatants? ? both legal and illegal - that seek to do great physical harm to the United States and its allies. While the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 provided an advanced signal that Congress was at last willing to get involved in a limited manner in some of the thorny legal aspects of the War on Terror, the MCA represents a major Congressional shift in scope. In short, the MCA is a resounding statutory broadside that impacts forcefully and with great effect across the entire legal landscape.
Above all, the MCA has certainly washed away all doubt regarding Congress? willingness to characterize the War on Terror as a real global war against real enemies who desire to murder and terrorize. Accordingly, Congress has demonstrated that it is more than willing to employ the full weight of the rule of law pertaining to armed conflict against our enemies. Prompted by the Supreme Court?s holding in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, an energized Congress understood that they could no longer remain on the sidelines in the War on Terror. Congress established the creation of military commissions, affirming quite satisfactorily that the MCA is consistent with the requirements of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions ? the military commissions so established constitute a ?regularly constituted court,? affording all the necessary ?judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.?
Not only does the MCA provide crystal clear guidance in the context of the establishment and operation of military commissions to try ?any alien unlawful enemy combatant? (al-Qa?eda and al-Qa?eda-styled Islamic terrorists) it provides concrete statutory definitions concerning a wide variety of terms that have been previously hotly debated. The MCA also clearly places a large legal ?seal of approval? on many of the initiatives taken by the Bush Administration in the War on Terror. For instance, the MCA defines ?unlawful enemy combatants? in precise language while recognizing in the same breath the lawful functioning of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal for enemy combatant determination set up by the Department of Defense in response to the 2004 Hamdi v. Rumsfeld ruling:
(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.
The MCA also lists in detail the criminal offenses that fall within the jurisdiction of the military commission. Apart from the traditional list of war crimes the MCA appropriately includes ?conspiracy? and ?providing material support for terrorism,? drawing definitional language from the Material Support provisions at Section 2339A for the later offense. In addition, reaffirming the fact that the United States is in a state of hostilities, the MCA addresses the matter of streamlining the process for dealing with the large number of petitions filed by lawyers on behalf enemy combatants in the federal court system. Again, if one recognizes the government?s premise that the nation is at war and the laws of war apply, then the MCA properly deals with restricting habeas corpus and providing for other limitations on the jurisdiction of civilian courts.
In the sphere of authorizing trial by military commission, the Congress wisely allows for the military commission to operate in the traditional manner of all previous military commissions (hundreds were tried by military commissions in World War II, some were even U.S. citizens) and consider, for example, hearsay evidence and information gathered without a search warrant. The MCA holds that ?[e]vidence shall be admissible if the military judge determines that the evidence would have probative value to a reasonable person? and ?[e]vidence shall not be excluded from trial by military commission on the grounds that the evidence was not seized pursuant to a search warrant or other authorization.? While the MCA correctly excludes all statements obtained by use of torture, the MCA also tackles the hard question of statements taken from an illegal enemy combatant where a ?degree of coercion is disputed.? Such statements may be admissible under strict guidelines depending on when they were obtained. Statements obtained before the enactment of Detainee Treatment Act ?in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the military judge finds that (1) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value; and (2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.? Statements obtained after enactment of Detainee Treatment Act in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the military judge finds that in addition to (1) and (2) above, ?(3) the interrogation methods used to obtain the statement do not amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.?
Ironically, some view the common sense evidentiary provisions in the MCA as a violation of Common Article 3?s requirement that the accused be afforded all the necessary ?guarantees ? recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.? Such ethnocentric views are quickly dispelled when one considers the day-to-day activity of most modern European criminal courts where hearsay is regularly considered and far different legal avenues regarding the introduction of evidence are regularly employed. Even the International Criminal Court allows hearsay. In fact, earlier calls by some (uniformed judge advocates who should have known better) that a military commission should include the same due process standards that American soldiers enjoy at a military courts martial under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice were wisely disregarded by Congress. Obviously, these ?relaxed? provisions in the MCA are necessary due to the exigencies of war ? witnesses and victims may be dead, investigators are not able to get to the crime scene, etc.
As various legal challenges to portions of the MCA make their way through the lower courts, e.g., the MCA revokes all U.S. court?s jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions by alien enemy combatants in U.S. custody, it is highly doubtful that the Supreme Court will strike down very much of the MCA as unconstitutional. Indeed, in time of war the Court has traditionally been most reluctant to intervene in matters of national security, particularly when the executive and legislative branches have joined together in such a seamless fashion.
In summary, Congress has sat on the sidelines in the War on Terror for far too long. While rational people understand that the unique threat of al-Qa?eda-styled terrorism can only be addressed by employing the laws established for armed conflict, it is equally true that said laws of war need to be updated to encompass the new paradigm. For over five years, Congress has simply watched as the executive branch, with occasional mandates from the judicial branch, crafted and implemented an emerging rule of law. It is extremely supportive of the rule of law and vital to the issue of legitimacy that the legislative branch of our government has finally joined the process."
Behold the checks and balances at work.
Executive branch ventures a little too far in the grey area. Judicial steps up and checks it. Legislative provides limits, and further defines the extent of the reach of the Executive.
Rinse and repeat.
All I see is the system doing what it should. No dysfunction here.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Behold the checks and balances at work.
Executive branch ventures a little too far in the grey area. Judicial steps up and checks it. Legislative provides limits, and further defines the extent of the reach of the Executive.
Rinse and repeat.
All I see is the system doing what it should. No dysfunction here.[/quote]
Bingo! Bush’s biggest blunder was not working with the congress to set this up. Which is precisely why he got shot down by the Supreme Court. Finally, the Executive and Congress come together and properly enact this.
If you wanna know what happens next with all this read “1984.” This nation is doing a full chapter by chapter reinactment of that book. Big Brother is watching…bitch.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The US only has the nads to back this up with countries that have people whose skin tone is darker than ours.
There I said it…
[/quote]
Last I saw the US has black people. Are you one of those liberals that does not really consider them regular Americans?
Sloth owns this thread.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
America is dieing.
Do you mean DIETING? It’s about time, right?
[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
America is dieing.
Do you mean DIETING? It’s about time, right?[/quote]
Okay, Hack, I gotta admit. That was pretty funny.