Bush Signs Terror Detainee Bill

Bill Authorizes Tough Interrogations, Clears Way For Military Tribunals

(CBS/AP)  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. Mr. 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.

The swift implementation of the law is a rare bit of good news for Mr. Bush as casualties mount in Iraq in daily violence. Lawmakers are increasingly calling for a change of strategy and political anxieties are jeopardizing Republican's chances of hanging onto control of Congress.

Mr. Bush needed the legislation because the Supreme Court in June said the administration's plan for trying detainees in military tribunals violated U.S. and international law.

The legislation, which sets the rules for court proceedings, applies to those selected by the military for prosecution and leaves mostly unaffected the majority of the 14,000 prisoners in U.S. custody, most of whom are in Iraq.

The Pentagon had previously selected 10 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay prison to be tried. Mr. Bush is expected also to try some or all the 14 suspects held by the CIA in secret prisons and recently transferred to military custody at Guantanamo.

The bill also eliminates some rights common in military and civilian courts. For example, the commission would be allowed to consider hearsay evidence so long as a judge determined it was reliable. Hearsay is barred from civilian courts.

The legislation also says the president can "interpret the meaning and application" of international standards for prisoner treatment, a provision intended to allow him to authorize aggressive interrogation methods that might otherwise be seen as illegal by international courts. White House press secretary Tony Snow said Mr. Bush would probably eventually issue an executive order that would describe his interpretation, but those documents are not usually made public and Snow did not reveal when it might be issued.

[pakaal]

It certainly shows how happy the Bush administration is that this has been signed - the DOJ is already calling for dozens of lawsuits to be dismissed because of this new law.

So what happens next is we're now going to see these appealed, the Supreme Court will have to step in again, they'll call this unconstitutional, strike the law, the lawsuits will continue....

A tremendous waste of effort. But after 6 years of it, we really should be used to tremendous wastes of effort by now.

[frankly6]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=igycXBseoAg

[radiob-2009]

There are three problems with this piece of legitlasture regardless of what president sign it or what congress.
(1)the right of habeas corpus
(2)Hearsay being admitted as evidence
(3)extreme interrorgations
There have throughout American history people who have been unjustly convicted for the failure of these safeguards not being properly implemented.
This is not a question of nor should it be of political affilation as so many posters here have used.It is a question of justice in regards to what I see as universal rights. It is being naive to beleive that some individual will not be wrongly convicted.Will they have any redress or their families?

[pakaal]

There were posts yesterday questioning whether this bill's passage could affect American citizens, and stating that in any case all defendents would have the right to actually go to trial (military tribunal, to be technical). The actual bill can be found here:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.txt.pdf

The discussion of whether or not American citizens can be tried under this bill continues (and thanks to the comments yesterday for giving me the impetus to look further). The relevent section is here: Section 3(a)(1)(1). If anyone (American or not) can be defined as an "unlawful enemy combatant" is the question, but legal debate goes on - and that's not comforting.

2. The federal government has no obligation to ever bring someone to trial under these circumstances. This probably doesn't apply to US citizens, but it does for anyone else. And although I'm sure a whole bunch of people will argue that since it's not Americans, who cares, but for my part I say this sentiment demeans American values and morals.

[frankly6]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=igycXBseoAg

[frankly6]

"All the things you think Bush does in secret are handled by countless other people who each serve as a small part of a vast checks and balances system that includes a whole lot more than just habeas corpus."

Not "countless other people" but people that the President apoints. These poeple do not act independently because they are apointed and serve at the whim of the President. What checks and balances do you speak of that are not effectively eliminated by this bill? Please describe them. What checks and balances have we seen on the Presidents power so far? I'm sure it will make me sleep better.

"All the things you think Bush does in secret are handled by countless other people who each serve as a small part of a vast checks and balances system that includes a whole lot more than just habeas corpus."

I agree. The checks and balances were set up to prevent things like that from happening, but the theoretically the "people" are a big part of it's implementation. The president is only in for two more years, but I wouldn't feel any different if it were a democratic or libertarian president..I can honestly say that. That suspension is simply unconstitutional and should never been done lightly and only as a last resort. It is a very big deal, which is why it's illegal outside of extraordinary situations. Maybe there is also an uproar because of the state that partisanship has become: Corruption to the highest degree. This is NOT an attack on the GOP, either. There should be Senate/HOR term limits as well and a separation of corporate money from campaigning. Point is, the situations we are seeing manifest each and every day were once hypotheticals. Protecting the constitution and implementing well thought out laws are the only ways to "ensure" the outcomes we want to see.

[frankly6]

Check out this video below. It really lays it all out on this subject.

[frankly6]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=igycXBseoAg

[frankly6]

"I said trust is irrelevant because the practical ability of any president to carry out what you're suggesting does not exist."

Again there are no checks on these powers if the law releases him from checks. This can all be done in secret. Anything that is done in secret is legal.

[frankly6]

Ronnie

It's not hypothetical. We have given dictatorial powers to one man and removed check on that power by allowing him to exercise it in complete secrecy. We have placed him above and not subjuct to the Constitution and international law. That should NEVER be the case in a Democracy. No matter who that man is and no matter what the threat. Dude you seem reasonable but completely immune to the facts here. It's really remarkable.

[ronniehm]

"Your argument seems to boil down to let's just trust our benevolent leaders and the system that has been rendered impotent here."

Knock it off. I said totally the opposite, and you know it. You're on the edge of just being a jerk for the sake of annoying someone who doesn't agree with you. I said trust is irrelevant because the practical ability of any president to carry out what you're suggesting does not exist.

And since you ignored jjasonham's question, I'll answer it. He's not more than one person; he's less that one person. For the most part he cuts and pastes text from other web sites where he thinks it might be appropriate. The words are only coming out of his own mind about 10% of the time.

I'm sorry, jjasonhram. I'd continue but frankly6 is only interested in debating people he agrees with. Personally, I think it's kind of like synchronized m*sturbating, but he seems to enjoy it. I've got better things to do. Make him clean the ceiling when he's done.

[ronniehm]

I don't know. It all seems so hypothetical. I guess it might sort of make sense if we were a country that elected presidents for life, but we have 4-year terms. How much can you expect to keep a secret when you know someone else will be guarding your secrets in a few short years? And I don't know how many different ways to say it, but George Bush will not be doing anything by himself. He doesn't even make the day-to-day determinations about who we capture and who we interrogate. All the things you think Bush does in secret are handled by countless other people who each serve as a small part of a vast checks and balances system that includes a whole lot more than just habeas corpus.

[frankly6]

Ronnie

The facts are the facts here. What was done is unconstitutional and for good reason. Your argument seems to boil down to let's just trust our benevolent leaders and the system that has been rendered impotent here. They wouldn't do anything unethical or illigal even though were giving them total freedom to do so. That flies in the face of everything we know about human nature, about history, and about how and why this country was founded and what the Constitution is about.

You say that our problem with this is a general hate and mistrust of Bush. It seems to me that the mental gymnastics that you are willing to engage in to defend the indefencible is about your love and absolute trust of Bush. I don't want anyone to grab this much power. I want to preserve that which has always kept us free and has done so independently of who holds office.

"One is the same, though. Public safety requires that we don't reveal classified information. Does that actually serve public safety? You say you don't think so, but to know for sure, you'd have to have access to the classified information. People who do have access to it seem to think it is important to keep it classified...And if all those people are in on the George Bush master plan, we're already screwed, so what difference is this law going to make either way?"

I have no problem with classified information. It is a fact that it is for our safety. That's what tribunals are for. Even though I don't agree with those either...it's all about compromise. I don't see the need for suspending habeas corpus for tribunals. Letting it happen because it's already in the process is not the way I choose to look at this situation. All I know is, I know habeas corpus is not the end all of all civil rights, but it was obviously put into our constitution for a reason. Now you may not think that terrorists deserve to be treated civilly, and I don't really think so either. But to change the laws we govern ourselves by for special cases undermines the very country they were put in place to protect!!

"George Bush could no more get away with scooping innocents off the street than he could get away with choking on a pretzel without anyone knowing about it. We're just not living in a country where anyone would get away with that. Habeas corpus is not the solitary check and balance that keeps the president from doing what you fear."

That's right, we do live in a country where no one could get away with that. That is primarily because of the laws that we have in place to protect against it. I just don't see the logic in potentially putting US citizens in danger in order to allow what this bill allows. Isn't that very potential bad enough? Especially when there's no need to be subjected to it?

[frankly6]

He can absolutely get away with it because the law allows for all this to be secretly done. No paper trail, no oversight, no one has to know. Anything that is secret is legal. Public outcry only happens when the public knows what's going on.

[clestes-2009]

There are always sore losers, Ronnie, but if gw had behaved in a way that was acceptable to the conservatives of his own party and to the moderates of both parties, the GOP would not be in the hot water it is today.

I know you are a staunch Bushie, but face the facts. I live in Missouri and we have a puny Bushie wanna be named Jim Talent who is fighting for his political life. In this state, for that to be true means that there are SERIOUS problems worrying people. And this dispite the fact that the economy is stable!

Read and listen to something other than Rush and FOX.

[frankly6]

Ronnie

What is secret is legal.

[ronniehm]

"Ronnie, you make it sound like people hate gw just because they feel like hating someone today"

I never really gave the reason why some people hate Bush, but whatever it is, it started the moment he took office. Remember? He stole the election. Anyway, the number of people who died under his watch at that time was 0. I'm sure there is a thread for discussing the 600,000 figure, but it should be noted that it breaks down to about 500 deaths per day. That seems, oh, just slightly unrealistic.