New Rules for Tribunals would expose American Citizens

[station agent]

Bush's new plan:

From Human Rights Watch:

(Washington, D.C.) – The Bush administration has proposed draft legislation that largely recreates the deeply flawed military commissions that the Supreme Court struck down last month in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Human Rights Watch said today.

Worse, the administration’s proposed legislation asks Congress to authorize its discredited policy of holding people indefinitely without charge. The draft legislation would authorize detaining people picked up anywhere in the world, including U.S. citizens, and holding them indefinitely without charge if the administration unilaterally deems them to be “associated with” or “part of” al-Qaeda or the Taliban.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0607/S00516.htm

More from me:

http://icestationtango.blogspot.com/2006/08/new-rules-would-make-us-citizens.html

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. It really was...

Just a matter of time before they proposed something that would codify the complete trashing of The Bill of Rights, wasn't it?

I, for one, am hardly surprised.

[bullimiami]

2. the problem is no LAW can override the Constitution and

Amendments. Only another Amendment.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

3. You really don't expect...

The maladministration or the repuke imbeciles in congress to grok that fact, do you?

Apparently, putting on their toupees seems to be the only thing they are capable of getting half right.

[bullimiami]

8. do they?

[mongo]

4. K & R

Can we get this to the greatest page, fellow DU'ers?

[mom cat]

6. done!

and :kick:

[seafan]

5. Bruce Fein: "....danger of evidence contrived by personal enemies."

And we have to read this in an Australian newspaper.

One 60 Minutes program on a Sunday evening is desperately needed. These rogues occupying our government are a criminal enterprise and will stop at nothing to maintain their death grip on power.



Fears as US special courts plan widened

Jeffrey Smith, Washington
August 3, 2006

A DRAFT Bush Administration plan for special military courts seeks to expand the authority of such commissions to people who are not members of al-Qaeda or the Taliban and are not directly involved in acts of international terrorism.
The plan, which would replace a military trial system ruled illegal by the US Supreme Court in June, allows the defence secretary to add crimes at will to those under the military courts' jurisdiction.

The proposed legislation, being discussed at Senate hearings this week, is controversial because defendants would be denied many protections guaranteed by the civilian and military criminal justice systems.
Defendants would lack rights to confront accusers, exclude hearsay accusations or bar evidence obtained through coercive interrogations. They would not be guaranteed a public or speedy trial and would lack the right to choose their military counsel, who in turn would not be guaranteed equal access to evidence held by prosecutors.

An early draft of the bill leaked to the media last week has been modified in response to criticism from military lawyers. But the provisions allowing an expansion of the courts were retained.

snip

John Hutson, the navy's top uniformed lawyer from 1997 to 2000, said the rules would evidently allow the government to tell a prisoner: "We know you're guilty. We can't tell you why, but there's a guy, we can't tell you who, who told us something. We can't tell you what, but you're guilty."

Bruce Fein, an associate deputy attorney-general during the Reagan administration, said after reviewing the leaked draft that "the theme of the Government seems to be: 'They are guilty anyway, and therefore due process can be slighted.' "
With these procedures, Mr Fein said, "there is a real danger of getting a wrong verdict" that would let a lower-echelon detainee "rot for 30 years" at Guantanamo Bay because of evidence contrived by personal enemies.

snip

So, when the Supreme Court recently ruled that *'s military tribunals are unconstitutional,... why,... the * Administration simply *replaces and renames* the illegal activity with a clone of it. And the new language goes much further, exposing all Americans, including those that have no relationship to terrorist activity, just because * says so.

The * Administration didn't like the FISA wiretapping law?? Legislate around it! Arlen Specter is busily working on it.


These people know that they must never risk losing absolute power over every individual, for when they do, it will be hell to pay. Buckle up, everybody. It's going to be an interesting run-up to the election in November.

[Jim Lane]

7. Even some of the Freepers are uneasy about this one

A few of them are able to see through the "War on Terrorism" rhetoric and take the larger view:

"But even if you think you can trust a Republican Administration to wield military justice against civilians without abusing the rights of the innocent -- what about the next administration? What if it's a Democrat administration? What if it's another CLINTON administration? These expansions of executive power scare me because they can be used by Democrat presidents just as readily as by Republican presidents." (from: )

I don't favor Hillary for the 2008 nomination (or for the 2006 nomination, for that matter). Still, the possibility of her running and winning seems to have a good effect on some conservatives when it comes to proposed expansions of presidential power.