LAT: Military Defense Lawyers Assail Legislation on Detainees

[DeepModem Mom]

Defense Lawyers Assail Legislation on Detainees
The bill faces scrutiny for stripping habeas corpus. Rights groups worry over vagueness.
By Richard Simon and Julian E. Barnes, Times Staff Writers
September 23, 2006

WASHINGTON — Military defense lawyers assailed compromise legislation for interrogating and prosecuting terrorism suspects, contending Friday that proposed rules would prevent them from learning whether evidence used against their clients was obtained through coercion or torture.

At the same time, rights groups that initially endorsed the compromise between the Bush administration and key Senate Republicans expressed reservations, saying it appeared on closer reading to be vague and could give President Bush and future presidents too much latitude.

"It is worse than the system that was in place before," said Marine Maj. Michael Mori, a military defense lawyer. "It is not going to ensure there is a fair trial."

Congressional Republican leaders, nonetheless, plan to move the compromise military tribunal bill to a vote next week. They may tie the bill, which has support among a number of Democrats, to a more controversial measure authorizing Bush's once-secret warrantless surveillance program.

Legislation introduced by the Senate GOP leadership Friday would make it clear that the president, in some cases, has the authority under the Constitution to unilaterally order surveillance without a judge's approval....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-tribunal23sep23,0,4114161.story?coll=la-home-nation

[katsy]

1. "They may tie the bill, which has support among a number of Democrats,"

I really cannot accept this. How? How can any Democrat support torture and warrentless wiretaps? WTF is going on?

I'm beginning to think that the line between Democrats and the gop has been muddied because of borderline insanity brought on by generations of inbreeding among the elite.

Or is it that the Constitution has, for all intents and purposes, already been dismantled sufficiently by these corporate fascists and we are just catching up to the fact.

[Catrina]

2. I couldn't agree with you more!

They took an oath, an oath to 'defend and protect the Constitution'. Article 6 of the Constitution is clear. It is the supreme law of the land that the US honor the treaties it signed. Legal scholars have already stated that this bill is 'unconstitutional' since it violates the Geneva Conventions.

I would like to know which Democrats are willing to violate their oath of office, the Constitution and basic human rights. I hope we get a list soon.

[katsy]

3. Agreed.

"Legal scholars have already stated that this bill is 'unconstitutional' since it violates the Geneva Conventions."

But they don't care!

This is insane. These people are putting themselves above all laws. I don't believe they care if it's unconstitutional.

Like you, I'm on the lookout for a list of supporters when this travesty goes to a vote.

[DeepModem Mom]

6. See post #4. nt

[DeepModem Mom]

5. See post #4. nt

[DeepModem Mom]

4. I posted a separate post about tying the two bills in GD...

if you'd like to contribute to that discussion:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2207053

[Rose Siding]

7. It's just so hard to believe. Congress is preparing to

hand bush a crown, willingly legalizing totalitarian behavior. What a thing.

Legislation introduced by the Senate GOP leadership Friday would make it clear that the president, in some cases, has the authority under the Constitution to unilaterally order surveillance without a judge's approval

What a horrible horrible thing.

[teryang]

8. how do you "compromise" with tyranny?

drip, drip, drip, totalitarian rule on the way.