Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

If This Bill Passes IT'S OVER

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Jcrowley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 07:43 PM
Original message
If This Bill Passes IT'S OVER
This proposal is being unveiled NOW in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Bush is After Our Rights
by Marie Cocco
 
To turn our eyes momentarily from the terrifying war in the Middle East is to discover an ever-more ominous turn in the Bush administration's war on terror.

Having been barred by the Supreme Court from treating foreign terrorism suspects as if they had few — or no — legal rights, the president's initial response is not to comply with the high court's finding that detainees must be treated under accepted standards of international law. In fact, the White House pushes to extend the ill treatment to American citizens.

That is, effectively, what the administration's draft of new rules for the military detention and trial of terrorism suspects would do. News and human rights organizations that have obtained the document, marked "deliberative draft — close hold," have criticized the way in which it would obliterate the Supreme Court's ruling. It seeks to have Congress write into law essentially the same procedures for military trials that the high court just said were illegal. That is, terrorism suspects still could be excluded from the courtroom, evidence could be withheld from the defense, and the Geneva Conventions — which the Supreme Court explicitly said must apply, would be circumvented.

More chilling is that the draft makes clear that the president wishes to impose these conditions upon any American citizen he calls an "enemy combatant."

A copy of the draft made public by The Washington Post shows that, while an initial version anticipated military trials only for "alien" enemy combatants, the word "alien" is subsequently crossed out. Instead, the document refers time and again to "persons" who are detainees. A "person," under this draft, could be an American seized at a shopping mall, or in a suburban backyard.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0802-28.htm

We're All Enemy Combatants Now

Today in the Senate Judiciary Committee the Bush administration will unveil  proposed new legislation to respond to the Supreme Court’s June ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. A final version of this legislation remained concealed right up to the day before the Senate hearing. Such secrecy disarms the public—and more importantly for today’s hearing, congressional staffers who need to brief their bosses—from analyzing and understanding the draft. This secrecy, aside from some leaked drafts of the bill, should sound alarm bells about what the administration is about to propose.

It appears the legislation moves two steps back for every step forward it takes in responding to problems identified by the Supreme Court. More dangerously, the administration’s proposed legislation likely will seek to assail vital checks and balances in subtle, invidious ways that might escape Congress’ attention.

Strictly speaking, the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan concerned only the president’s deeply flawed and procedurally irregular military commissions at Guantánamo. Yet any legislative response is likely to sweep further than the relatively narrow matter of how persons detained in battle can be tried for violations of the law of war. Administration testimony before Senate and House committees reveals the White House’s concern with issues of larger dimension: They are quietly looking for Congress’ seal of approval on a system of expansive military detention for both citizens and non-citizens.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/08/02/were_all_enemy_combatants_now.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Ninja Jordan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 07:47 PM
Response to Original message
1. Need to forward this to Alex Jones.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
23. Wtf does a rw nut have to do with it? n/t
Edited on Sun Sep-17-06 08:25 PM by Breeze54
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
file83 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #23
44. Is that an honest question? n/t
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #23
70. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
FoxOnTheRun Donating Member (829 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
34. Martial Law coming to a town near you?
tips@infowars.com, or so I think


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
82. I agree. I like Alex Jones!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
2. the bright side is....
when they lock all of us up - we won't need to communicate by computer anymore.

Good post BTW
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Heck, three squares a day and health care
plus some good company and I wouldn't have to work for a living any more, how bad could it be? :sarcasm:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anarch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #4
14. that's right...didn't Frist say just recently that some of our "detainees"
get better health care than many American citizens?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #14
37. Whadda you know, the gop does have a health care plan after all
:argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #14
59. And those gourmet meals!
I heard Rush talking about how great the food is. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MessiahRp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #59
76. Rush is a fat pig.
Any food is good food to him.

Rp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #14
66. He's seen the Abu Ghraib videos, then, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #14
79. He must be talking about that Belgian-led investigative team
that concluded that we were medically mistreating the political prisoners at Gitmo.

Many of us are worse off than that? Dr. Catkiller would know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #4
15. Can we have whatever books we want?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #4
20. You saw the MENU at Gtimo?


YUM!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #4
62. Totalitarian regimes do not treat political prisoners well.
From where did that strange notion come?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #62
80. I forgot to add
the :sarcasm: smilie I suppose?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Gauger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Heh
Gallows humor. That's nice. When we're on the inside, I say we have a prisoners' revolt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Plus they can't collect taxes from us
They might have to look at the rich to pay their fair share.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
razors edge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #2
25. they have a bigger problem
they will privatize the concentration camps, and no minimum wage quackenhut prick is gonna stand up against a well prepared confrontation to the facility.

dick chenny didn't for his convictions why will they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Virginian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Outsourced
They will bring in "minimum wage" people from outside the country to take the guard jobs that Americans don't want to do. That way, they can do away with the minuimun wage and pay the imports next to nothing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
razors edge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. yeah
and a few liberated camps will make for one hell of a problem for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #25
64. yeah, just be alert when they hand you a bar of soap
and towel, and tell you it's time to take a shower...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Gauger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
3. If that's not scary, I don't know what is.
They main tain that they can take away anyone's rights. This is really a frightening turn i nAmerican history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. The Busholini Regime is in an all War mode on America.
The pressure to pass something like this is heavy now. There is great urgency to get this passed before the Dems gain control of the House &/or the Sentate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 07:50 PM
Response to Original message
7. It'll never pass muster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MnFats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 07:50 PM
Response to Original message
8. ignorance is strength....war is peace....no constitutional rights equals..
...safety for all who agree with us. If you raise questions, you must be against us.

as i've heard so goddamn many times: "If you don't have anything to hide...."

you're right... we're sliding toward a police state and one-party rule.....we may already be there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. The fucker is the beast, and we've been on the slide for some time
Where have you been? My pants are about worn out!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jcrowley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #10
22. This combined with that and what have we here?
NSA Bill Performs a Patriot Act

By Ryan Singel| Also by this reporter
15:30 PM Sep, 13, 2006

A bill radically redefining and expanding the government's ability to eavesdrop and search the houses of U.S. citizens without court approval passed a key Senate committee Wednesday, and may be voted on by the full Senate as early as next week.

By a 10-8 vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved SB2453, the National Security Surveillance Act (.pdf), which was co-written by committee's chairman Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) in concert with the White House.

The committee also passed two other surveillance measures, including one from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), one of the few senators to be briefed on the National Security Agency program. Feinstein's bill, which Specter co-sponsored before submitting another bill, rebuffs the administration's legal arguments and all but declares the warrantless wiretapping illegal.

In contrast, Specter's bill concedes the government's right to wiretap Americans without warrants, and allows the U.S. Attorney General to authorize, on his own, dragnet surveillance of Americans so long as the stated purpose of the surveillance is to monitor suspected terrorists or spies.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,71778-0.html?tw=wn_story_page_prev2

Interesting confluence eh?

Thanks for the laugh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jcrowley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #22
73. I believe you are correct
Edited on Mon Sep-18-06 01:40 PM by Jcrowley
``(23) Terrorism.--Any person subject to this chapter who
intentionally kills or inflicts great bodily harm on one or
more persons, or intentionally engages in an act that evinces
a wanton disregard for human life, in a manner calculated to
influence or affect the conduct of government or civilian
population by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate
against government conduct, shall be guilty of the offense of
terrorism and shall be subject to whatever punishment the
commission may direct, including, if death results to one or
more of the victims, penalty of death.
``(24) Providing Material Support for Terrorism.--Any
person who provides material support or resources, knowing or
intending that they are to be used in preparation for, or in
carrying out, an act of terrorism (as defined in subsection
(b)(23) of this section), or who intentionally provides
material support or resources to an international terrorist
organization engage in hostilities against the United States,
knowing that such organization has engaged or engages in
terrorism as defined in subsection (b)(23) of this section),
shall be guilty of the offense of providing material support
for terrorism and shall be subject to whatever punishment the
commission may direct. The term `material support or
resources' has the meaning provided in 18 U.S.C. 2339A(b).
``(25) Wrongfully aiding the enemy.--Any person who, in
breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States,
knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United
States or one its cobelligerents shall be guilty of the
offense of wrongfully aiding the enemy and shall be subject
to whatever phmthe commission may direct.


http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_cr/s3861.html

Though I'd say not much in the way of opposition. The pattern seems to be introduce something in committee that is way over the top take out a few morsels and call it a compromise bill. That goes through Congress with little opposition, any naysayers are "unwilling to compromise", and the few civil liberties remaining are eroded even further. Rinse and repeat. I'm afraid it's up to the people but are we up to it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravenseye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #8
35. Yeah plenty of people will support it
"I haven't done anything wrong."

"They'd never abuse that power and imprison innocent americans."

"It won't affect me."

Ah...Despotism...What a revolting smell...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Jefferson_24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 07:51 PM
Response to Original message
9. Well entrenched, criminal...
...fascist regimes, have and will never be displaced by an opposition party working within the system. They're displaced internally via revolution or not at all. Sorry, but that's the reality of the situation, folks. Absent the required revolution (our most likely scenario), what we'll see in coming years is the theatrical illusion of free and fair elections maintained for a few more election cycles. Then at some point, after domestic dissent has been thoroughly crushed and the remaining populace is sufficiently numb and docile, elections will be done away with altogether, considered an expensive, unnecessary charade by the new fascist State. Welcome to AmeriKa.

It is said that history repeats itself. That's because it does:

http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/germany-1933.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #9
26. They are entrenched, but not all that well entrenched
They still have to win this election, or rather, steal it.

I don't see this bill being passed, but if I am wrong then yes, it is just about over.

Its sad to think that any majority anywhere in the US would allow such a screwing of individual's rights. Well, the phones will be ringing in DC tomorrow, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Jefferson_24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #26
31. I think to lose these midterms will be...
...our no return point. A continued rubber stamping of everything Chimpy wants will means WWIII with nukes and all. America will become a police State over night.

If the international community deems it necessary, they can and will jerk the rug out from under our economy. I don't know if BushCo has figured this into their planning or not. They seem to overlook the obvious with some regularity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #31
36. That's about right
Either America wakes up and shakes the fleas off this time or it's all down hill. 'Twill be interesting to see what congress does now: will they legalize torture, or will they finally say enough?

Methinks they say enough. But the votes in the election will be counted by bushco. So that's gonna be interesting, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lvx35 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #9
87. a note...
Edited on Mon Sep-18-06 06:23 PM by lvx35
..fascist regimes, have and will never be displaced by an opposition party working within the system

From a historical perspective, "within the system" is the key part of this phrase. Its parties that have been behind a great deal of government overthrowing...Take idea of the communist "vanguard party" for instance...

The problem is most of the parties that work outside the system are themselves the fascist ones!!! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 07:54 PM
Response to Original message
12. k and r
keep this thread kicked....for Monday AM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tk2kewl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 07:57 PM
Response to Original message
13. Seems to me an Amendment, not simply a law, is needed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 08:03 PM
Response to Original message
16. Don't Worry, The Brave Congressional Democrats Have Got Your Back!
They'll use every tool at their disposal to ensure that Americans retain their basic civil liberties, and that America will live up to its obligations of providing basic human rights to combatants.

Just think of all the progress they've made on getting rid of Rumsfeld - you can sleep well tonight...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. Manny, you kill me. You're still a bastard, but you're a funny bastard.
Don't ever change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeHereNow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #16
86. Oh yes, for certain! GO dems!!!
Edited on Mon Sep-18-06 05:53 PM by BeHereNow
Keep collecting those corporate payola checks while
we, the people sink in the cesspool that has become
what used to be a democracy of the people, by the people,
for the people.

Oh wait, only the global elite are considered "people."
To hell with the rest of us.

Yes, Manny, you are correct- I have no doubt
that our democratic reps have our backs-
to a knife as they herd us to the edge of the cliff.
GO dems!
BHN
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 08:10 PM
Response to Original message
17. K&R!
The time has passed when we could fight this threat politically. And we all know it....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #17
61. Thank you.
We do indeed all know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 08:13 PM
Response to Original message
18. It won't be "over", not ever. It'll never be over as long as we fight it
Fuck that apocalyptic shit. It just means we have to fight harder. I'm ready to fight harder. I'll never be ready to quit. Crappy laws can be repealed, crooked pols can be exposed. It may not be easy, but it will never be hopeless.

Quitters suck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
21. I've been in the American Gulag for over 20 years
at least i'll get 3 hots and a cot. Gee, you mean I can have a lawyer now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
In Truth We Trust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 08:25 PM
Response to Original message
24. Had enough? Start the revolution; demand Hand Counted Paper ballots NOW!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
minnesota_liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 08:55 PM
Response to Original message
28. How do I graduate from 'terrorist sympathizer' to 'enemy combatant'?
Do I have to go beyond bumper stickers and letters to the editor?

Seriously, though, this proposal is an attempt to not only keep Bush's sorry ass out of prison but also to increase his executive powers at the expense of our civil rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sakabatou Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 08:57 PM
Response to Original message
29. What is the actual name of this bill?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jcrowley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. Warner-Graham Bill on Military Commissions?
White House Proposal Would Expand Authority of Military Courts

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 2, 2006; Page A04

A draft Bush administration plan for special military courts seeks to expand the reach and authority of such "commissions" to include trials, for the first time, of people who are not members of al-Qaeda or the Taliban and are not directly involved in acts of international terrorism, according to officials familiar with the proposal.

The plan, which would replace a military trial system ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in June, would also allow the secretary of defense to add crimes at will to those under the military court's jurisdiction. The two provisions would be likely to put more individuals than previously expected before military juries, officials and independent experts said.

The draft proposed legislation, set to be discussed at two Senate hearings today, is controversial inside and outside the administration because defendants would be denied many protections guaranteed by the civilian and traditional military criminal justice systems.

Under the proposed procedures, defendants would lack rights to confront accusers, exclude hearsay accusations, or bar evidence obtained through rough or 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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101334.html

Third Draft of Warner-Graham Bill on Military Commissions

The third version of the Warner-Graham bill is here. Sad to say, this bill is not getting better than the previous draft, and in some ways it is getting worse. It prevents judicial suits for damages for violations of the Geneva Conventions, eliminates habeas relief for aliens held outside the United States, thus effectively reversing the Rasul decision, and narrows the War Crimes Act, substituting language about "grave breaches" for the general prohibition on violating Common Article 3. The new version would remove some (but not all) of the CIA interrogation techniques from prosecution under the War Crimes Act; I am not sure whether the ban on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment as defined would cover waterboarding-- I certainly hope it would, but you never know.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/09/third-draft-of-warner-graham-bill-on.html

You can see an 84 page version of latest by clicking on above link and accessing pdf file.

To follow this more closely go here:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/#115403527252892470

Stll ironing out the details.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sakabatou Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. So it doesn't have a formal R or S name...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #32
63. Isn't that the opposition bill?
I thought that Warner, Graham, etc. refused to vote for Bush's bill on detainees & created their own bill instead. Is that right? I think the White House's bill is called the "Bringing Terrorists to Justice Act of 2006''. :eyes: Text:
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_cr/s3861.html

The bill is beyond ridiculous. Basically it just says, "we hereby legalize everything the Supreme Court said was illegal."

"The Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct.
2749 (2006), held that the military commissions established
by the Department of Defense under the President's Military
Order of November 13, 2001, were not consistent with certain
aspects of United States domestic law. The Congress may by
law, and does by enactment of this statute, eliminate any
deficiency of statutory authority to facilitate bringing
terrorists with whom the United States is engaged in armed
conflict to justice for violations of the law of war and
other offenses triable by military commissions. The
prosecution of such individuals by military commissions
established and conducted consistent with this Act fully
complies with the Constitution, the laws of the United
States, treaties to which the United States is a party, and
the law of war."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jcrowley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #63
81. I believe so
Though I'd say not much in the way of opposition. The pattern seems to be introduce something in committee that is way over the top take out a few morsels and call it a compromise bill. That goes through Congress with little opposition, any naysayers are "unwilling to compromise", and the few civil liberties remaining are eroded even further. Rinse and repeat. I'm afraid it's up to the people but are we up to it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #29
41. IMO, Democrats ought to call it the "MISSING Act" of 2007
Because if it passes, even larger numbers of US residents--including for the first time numerous US citizens, not just a handful--will be "disappeared", as under the Pinochet regime in Chile. Director Costa-Gavras made an unforgettable film with this title in 1982--see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084335/ .

I haven't yet figured out a clever phrase for which "MISSING" -- like "PATRIOT" -- would be the acronym.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
38. "The word 'alien' is subsequently crossed out"--That's the scariest
phrase IMO in by far the SCARIEST post I've ever seen on DU. Thank you for the heads-up!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #38
42. Yep
Edited on Sun Sep-17-06 10:55 PM by mmonk
While discussing her and Dave Lindorff's new book "The Case for Impeachment-The Legal argument for Removing George W. Bush from Office" on Book TV, Barbara Olshansky said this was coming down the pike (striking out foreign or alien).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #38
67. Wow (Long post)
That would make us all potentially subject to these military tribunals.

Here's the actual text of the bill:

Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions

``Alien unlawful enemy combatants, as defined in section
948a of this title, shall be subject to trial by military
commissions as set forth in this chapter.

If you take out "alien", US citizens could be labeled as "enemy combatants" & subject to military tribunals. So how do they decide if someone is an "enemy combatant"?

Sec. 948(a) -
"7) Unlawful enemy combatant.--The term `unlawful enemy
combatant' means an individual determined by or under the
authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense--
``(A) to be part of or affiliated with a force or
organization--including but not limited to al Qaeda, the
Taliban, any international terrorist organization, or
associated forces--engaged in hostilities against the United
States or its co-belligerents; in violation of the law of
war;
``(B) to have committed a hostile act in aid of such a
force or organization so engaged; or
``(C) to have supported hostilities in aid of such a force
or organization so engaged."

So, you're an enemy combatant if Rumsfeld or Bush say you are. That's it, that's the only definition. There's no established legal process for determining if someone is an "enemy combatant," only the decision of the Sec. of Defense or the President. Once someone is labeled an enemy combatant, they can be tried in military tribunals. So, the Uniform Code of Military Justice should determine how these trials are held, right? Wrong.

b) Rule of Construction.-- The procedures for military
commissions set forth in this chapter are modeled after the
procedures established for courts-martial in the Uniform Code
of Military Justice. However, it would be neither desirable
nor practicable to try unlawful enemy combatants by court-
martial procedures.
The trial of such persons by military
commission presents new challenges that require that
interpretations of this Act not be unduly influenced by the
rules and procedures developed for courts-martial. Therefore,
no construction or application of chapter 47 of this title
shall be binding in the construction or application of this
chapter.


The Uniform Code of Military Justice, w/it's quaint rules regarding detainee treatment & the rules of evidence, doesn't apply here. It's a fake court, w/the appearance of a military court-martial, but none of the rules. Instead, any evidence is admissible, including hearsay, as long as the military commission deems it probative to the case.

Who decides who sits on these commisions? The Sec. of Defense, Rumsfeld, has total discretion to appoint the judges for these commissions. (Sec. 948h. Who may convene military commissions - (a) The Secretary may issue orders convening military commissions to try individuals under this chapter.) There's a record of the trial, but defendents aren't entitled to see any "classified" portions of their own trial. ``((c) Provision of Copy to Accused.--A copy of the record
of the proceedings of each military commission shall be given
to the accused as soon as it is authenticated. Where the
record contains classified information, or a classified
annex, the accused shall receive a redacted version of the
record."

So, how can these detainees be treated? They'd have to abide by the Geneva Convention, which prohibits degrading & inhumane treatment of prisoners, right? Wrong. This bill also makes clear that Article 3 of the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to these tribunals, despite the Supreme Court's ruling that it does.

"In early 2002, as memorialized in a memorandum dated
February 7, 2002, the President determined that common
Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions did not apply
with respect to the United States conflict with al Qaeda
because al Qaeda was not a party to those treaties and the
conflict with al Qaeda was an armed conflict of an
international character. That was the interpretation of the
United States prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan
on June 29, 2006. Hamdan's statement to the contrary makes it
appropriate to clarify the standards imposed by common
Article 3. This Act makes clear that the prohibitions against
cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment found in the Detainee
Treatment Act of 2005 fully satisfy the obligations of the
United States... In addition, the Act makes clear that the Geneva
Conventions are not a source of judicially enforceable
individual rights,
thereby reaffirming that enforcement of
the obligations imposed by the Conventions is a matter
between the nations that are parties to them.

And finally, the military commission can issue death sentences. However, the defendant will only be executed after the death sentence is personally approved by President Bush. Reassuring.

``(a) Execution of Sentence of Death Only Upon Approval by
the President.--If the sentence of a military commission
under this chapter extends to death, that part of the
sentence providing for death may not be executed until
approved by the President. In such a case, the President may
commute, remit, or suspend the sentence, or any part thereof,
as he sees fit."

I'm just horrified by this bill, & haven't even finished reading the whole thing. It completely obliterates the rules of evidence, the Geneva Convention, and Constitutional rights. This cannot pass.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_cr/s3861.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #67
84. the United States has the nerve to use the phrase...
Edited on Mon Sep-18-06 04:45 PM by mike_c
"...in violation of the laws of war" to define "enemy combatants." The invasion of Iraq was in violation of the laws of war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #84
85. So Bush is an enemy combatant?
Edited on Mon Sep-18-06 05:21 PM by Marie26
Under their own definition: "The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means an individual determined by or under the
authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense--
``(A) to be part of or affiliated with a force or
organization--including but not limited to al Qaeda, the
Taliban, any international terrorist organization, or
associated forces--engaged in hostilities against the United
States or its co-belligerents; in violation of the law of
war;
``(B) to have committed a hostile act in aid of such a
force or organization so engaged."

By invading Iraq, Bush committed a hostile act that aided Al-Qaeda in setting up additional bases of operation in the Middle East. This invasion aided Al-Qaeda recruitment & allowed terrorists to engage in hostilities against American troops, resulting in the deaths of thousands of US soldiers. Under their own definition, Bush could be declared an enemy combatant & thrown into Gitmo for years w/o Constitutional rights or a trial. Seems like a fit punishment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Danger Mouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
39. When the news of this bill...
First came out in July...I wrote this in my blog about it...
I still feel the same way.
"Bush is working on a new tool to combat terrorism. You need no longer fear the terrorists. Instead, you can fear your own government!
That's right, the Bush administration would like to be able to hold all suspected of possible terror ties indefinitely, with no ability to face their accusers, no right to a speedy trial, and no hope of justice. In fact, these folk could be held on hearsay evidence, and coerced testimony can be used against them. Whee!
Of course, keep in mind that 'terror ties,' 'enemy combatant' and the like have broad definitions. But don't worry! No need to fear! As long as you're not a terrorists, you have nothing to fear! Right? After all, if you've done nothing wrong, why should you have a problem with this bill?
Perish the thought that this sort of thing could be misused and abused!
For instance...if hearsay evidence is allowed, what's to stop your neighbor for reporting you as a terrorist because he heard you criticize the president last week? This guy's testimony is good enough, he MUST be a terrorist.
We want to be safe. We don't want the terrorists to harm us. We want to hide from our responsibilities as Americans to first protect what America stands for. Take away as many rights as you want, Mr. President, just get rid of the scary bad guys.
I am aware, of course, that this is just an early draft of a bill...but it's a fucking scary early draft nonetheless.
Just imagine, someday soon, this bill is passed, and it begins. People begin disappearing. Jackboots kick in doors in the dead of the night, and there is no way to contact those who have been taken or know what has happened to them. They themselves will not know what they have done or what they are accused of.
But they must be dirty terrorists. Every single one of them! America never errs! Our president cannot be wrong!
Yet, when they kick down your door, who will speak for you?
'But I support the president! But I'm a god fearing american! But I've done nothing wrong!'
It doesn't matter. Someone had a grudge against you so they reported you to the helpful tiplines that have been set up to help quickly round up suspected terrorists. Someone had something to gain by your disappearance. You used to be friends with someone who has disappeared. You are related to someone who has disappeared.
All this...and more!
Is this the lengths to which people will allow their fear to carry them? Will they just blindly look away as the very essence of America is stripped away and replaced with cold steel?
"American Idol is on television. What are Angelina and Brad up to? I have to hear more about Lindsay Lohan's latest exploits. I can't be bothered...what's this bill called? The Liberty Shield Bill? The Defense of American Freedom Bill? Sounds patriotic. I bet it'll help fight those terrorists...maybe I can stop being...afraid."
"What's the matter? Do these liberals have something to HIDE? Why should this bother them? As long as they have no ties to terror, they have nothing to worry about. Those who've done nothing wrong...have nothing to fear."
Stripping away your rights will not make you safer. Surrendering your liberty will not bring your security. It is foolish to think that loss of your freedom will make you free from fear. You are trading fear of terrorists for a new kind of fear.
You will fear your neighbors, because they might turn you in, just over a minor disagreement.
You will fear what you say, because you never know who is listening.
You will fear who you meet, because you never who they might be working for.
You will fear your own children, because they might 'heroically' turn you in because you wouldn't let them have a new toy.
You will fear your government, because you never know when they will come for you. What will happen to your loved ones? What will happen to those you cared about? Will they be next?
You will never know. You'll never have the chance to. You will be held in an America that has lost its soul, that has forgotten that once made it great, that has been broken and violated and mutilated until it hardly even resembles what it once was.
One thing is for sure, though.
You won't have to be afraid of the terrorists any longer."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. Excellent rant. Dubya feigns complete ignorance of the fundamental
tradeoff in justice and crime prevention policy:

Letting guilty people or people with "ticking-bomb" knowledge off easy would be a mistake.

But so would be executing, punishing, torturing, coercing, or "disappearing" innocent people. And you generally cannot reduce the risk of one kind of mistake without raising the risk of the other kind of mistake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
43. The original post says "We're All Enemy Combatants Now"
Okay, Roger Willco that and in checking my appointment calender it says I have an opening.
It's from now intill doomsday so just "bring em on" :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lisainmilo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 12:44 AM
Response to Original message
45. I only hope some of the GOP have an ikling of morality left..n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 04:18 AM
Response to Original message
46. 100% Agreed! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 05:25 AM
Response to Original message
47. K&R The author is optimistic...
"Does Congress really want to give the executive branch such untrammeled power? Will this power be deployed wisely? Experience to date suggests that the answer is surely no to both questions."

With all due respect, (a) we've got people in virtual detention camps, that's what Greg Palast and Matt Pascarella were filming in Louisiana - Katrina survivors in a camp surrounded by barbed wire, but (b) They filmed in such a way that a "security installation," an Exxon plant was in the background and are now indicted for violation of Homeland Security law.

Congress let these poor people sit in this camp until now and Congress has not lifted even a little finger to stop the madness with this Exxon plant.

The experience to date indicates that Congress will pass laws without reading them and that no power is wisely deployed.

I love the article. I just wanted to spread a little cheer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 05:51 AM
Response to Original message
48. old information, not currently accurate
The story cited by the OP dates back to the beginning of August, before any of the military commissions bills were introduced. If you take a look at the bills actually introduced (and I count at least four), every one of them is specifically limited to "alien" enemy combatants. While vigilance against any changes in the language is, of course, necessary and warranted, the "sky is falling" tone of the quoted articles doesn't reflect the current reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 06:28 AM
Response to Reply #48
49. What's the compromise?
Anyone know what compromise they are talking about concerning what the president wants and the alternative?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jcrowley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 06:50 AM
Response to Reply #48
50. You can go here to see the third draft
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/09/third-draft-of-warner-graham-bill-on.html

Sad to say, this bill is not getting better than the previous draft, and in some ways it is getting worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #48
68. Do you know the name & number
Edited on Mon Sep-18-06 12:51 PM by Marie26
of the current bill that Congress is debating?

The Tom Paine link goes to a preliminary draft of the bill, which was called the "Enemy Combatants Military Commissions Act of 2006." The text of this bill is almost exactly the same as the "Bringing Terrorists to Justice Act of 2006." It looks like they changed the name of the bill in later drafts, is that right? I want to be sure we're talking about the right bill, especially since it seems like they're trying to hide the actual text from the public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #68
69. Try the following
S.3901, the Military Commissions Act, is the bill introduced by Warner
S.3861, the Bring Terrorists to Justice Act and S. 3886, the Terrorist Tracking, Identification and Prosecution Act were both introduced by Frist. Not sure which is the current administration bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 06:52 AM
Response to Original message
51. Americans need to head to Washington in the
millions. EfuggingNOUGH!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 07:16 AM
Response to Reply #51
52. Bingo!
It's time to leave the computers and take to the streets. Enough is enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 07:40 AM
Response to Original message
53. Anyone fathom how this bill may dovetail
Edited on Mon Sep-18-06 07:41 AM by mmonk
with the detention centers here on US soil (mostly unfilled right now except some starting to be staffed and the KBR contracts)?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snappyturtle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 08:23 AM
Response to Original message
54. This is not about handling "detainees" it's about
controlling U.S. citizens...imho. Tin foil hat in place? If so, the administration needs this matter completed before the elections so that when they steal them again and there is a revolution on the city streets of America, the method of handling us will be in place. :hide:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #54
72. Don't forget the microwave beam weapons that the Air Force
want to use on US citizens as a sort of "test population". This is not shaping up well...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AzDar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 09:00 AM
Response to Original message
55. Kick n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 09:23 AM
Response to Original message
56. Dont' forget what happened to protestors in NYC during the RNC
Rounded up in NETS, taken to "Guantanamo on the Hudson" - a former bus station on the pier rented as a temporary jail, kept in jail FOR THE DURATION of the convention without charge. Check the NYCLU website for more info, this was the first mass round-up of dissidents and believe me it was frightening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Theres-a Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #56
57. I remember reading about that
Gave me nightmares.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #56
65. Greg Palast is facing DHS charges for filming the
camps in Louisiana.

We're through the looking glass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MessiahRp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #65
77. Wait... so now it's illegal to film in America?
Hmmm... I wonder why we are blame America first... maybe because the fuckers in charge are making America the criminal.

Rp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #77
78. The wingnuts confuse America with the administration, don't they?
I don't blame America first. I blame the criminals in the White House. :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GusConsultore Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
58. changing war crimes act
Edited on Mon Sep-18-06 11:39 AM by GusConsultore
Britain's attorney general warns Bush against tampering with war crimes act. And he said it during a speech here in the U.S., in Chicago. Why wasn't this covered in the U.S. mainstream media? (only place I saw it even mentioned was miserywatch.com). He got a standing ovation for his comments.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/18/nterrorists18.xml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
60. Last night, in the UK, we saw two instalments of a TV drama
Edited on Mon Sep-18-06 11:51 AM by KCabotDullesMarxIII
called "Spooks". If you get the chance to see it, don't miss it. It's brilliant. Very gripping, and with extraordinary resonances with what Bushco has been doing to your system of government the US. It always tickles me to death to see a young slip of a girl throwing trained killers around like a tennis ball, too.

I have an uncomfortable suspicion I may have seen some references to it here before, probably, in the Lounge - in which case I'm somewhat out of date.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ohtransplant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
71. I'm sticking to the basics - for a start.
I've called my Senators and Reps (reminded them it's an election year), called other members of Congress who "seem" undecided, signed petitions and written the LTTE. I believe we need cover these bases.

What ever happened to American ideals? - to holding ourselves to a higher standard? Will our government - not just the Exec branch mind you - actually sanction torture? The framers must be twirling in their monuments...

Is there any doubt the majority in Congress must change - NOW?

It's outrageous this is even being considered here. I'm going to have to check my birth certificate to see what country I was born in!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
74. Some clever person needs to start producing t-shirts that say
"I'm an ENEMY COMBATANT - HOW ABOUT YOU??"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
75. I know, the R's will sell it this way: Bush's gulag has a health plan !
And will cover ALL US residents, here legally or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stand and Fight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
83. The FEAR has already begun for me.
I watch what I say, how I say it, and to whom I say it. All of this is on account of fear regarding what my government can now do to me in direct violation of the Constitution. We're not heading into fascism -- we're up to our necks in the wretched shit. I don't think most people want to accept that... I won't even go into further thoughts that I have about all of this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jcrowley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
88. Cover For Bush Crimes
SEC. 9. RETROACTIVE APPLICATION.

This Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of
this Act and shall apply retroactively, including to any
aspect of the detention, treatment, or trial of any person
detained at any time since September 11, 2001, and to any
claim or cause of action pending on or after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_cr/s3861.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 12:18 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC