Help me educate my sister

[Plaid Adder]

I had an argument with my sister last night about whether US citizens can be detained/tortured/etc. by military tribunals under our fabulous new law. I said yes, she said no. Can anyone point me to a reputable source which would resolve this debate?

Thanks in advance,

The Plaid Adder

[babylonsister]

1. Will a Yale legal professor work?

I know, the mention of Yale leaves a bad taste in my mouth since you-know-who went there, but they all can't be bad...


http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061004/OPINION/610040326/1166

Terror bill targets Americans
By Bruce Ackerman
Special to the Los Angeles Times


IN OUR PRINT EDITION TODAY

Other columns of opinion to be found today on The Clarion-Ledger's op-ed page in the print edition include:

# Molly Ivins, "Bush's latest bill on torture even worse"

# Leonard Pitts, "Giving in to Islamic tantrums makes us all hostages"

Buried in the complex Senate compromise on detainee treatment is a real shocker, reaching far beyond the legal struggles about foreign terrorism suspects in the Guantanamo Bay fortress. The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights.

more...

[Rose Siding]

4. That and Lederman are good ones-

He's also a law prof

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/09/imagine-giving-donald-rumsfeld.html

[mike_c]

2. here....

Just a quick link from the WaPo:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092501514.html

As a result, human rights experts expressed concern yesterday that the language in the new provision would be a precedent-setting congressional endorsement for the indefinite detention of anyone who, as the bill states, "has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" or its military allies.

The definition applies to foreigners living inside or outside the United States and does not rule out the possibility of designating a U.S. citizen as an unlawful combatant. It is broader than that in last week's version of the bill, which resulted from lengthy, closed-door negotiations between senior administration officials and dissident Republican senators. That version incorporated a definition backed by the Senate dissidents: those "engaged in hostilities against the United States."

The new provision, which would cover captives held by the CIA, is more expansive than the one incorporated by the Defense Department on Sept. 5 in new rules that govern the treatment of detainees in military custody. The military's definition of unlawful combatants covers only "those who engage in acts against the United States or its coalition partners in violation of the laws of war and customs of war during an armed conflict."

Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said that by including those who "supported hostilities" -- rather than those who "engage in acts" against the United States -- the government intends the legislation to sanction its seizure and indefinite detention of people far from the battlefield.

[China_cat]

3. I'm sure somebody will hook you up with a link

but the wording of the new law leaves out the word 'alien' from the 'enemy combatant' designation.

Found a link
http://www.discourse.net/archives/2005/04/pentagon_issues_broad_definition_of_enemy_combatant.html

And the very last category of 'enemy combatant':(e) Security Detainee. A civilian interned during a conflict or occupation for his or her own protection.

His or her own protection...yeah, right.

[SheilaT]

5. And something else to

talk with her about. Even if she were right, why is it okay to torture non-citizens? Our Constitution does NOT distinguish between citizens and non-citizens in terms of rights (other than voting) and privileges. Why should that change?

[Plaid Adder]

7. Well, I've been through it with her about that.

She works for the government, and she is convinced that torturing prisoners generates usable intelligence. I think she's nuts, but since she is credentialed in this area and I am not, I am not in a good position to argue with her about it. I also think that even if she's right, torturing people is still unacceptable in all times and places, but again, not going to win on that one. This at least is a factual point.

Thanks,

The Plaid Adder

[Giant Robot]

8. Any security expert I have seen

Outside of the US government has said that torture or whatever name you want to call it does NOT generate usable information. It gets people to say whatever is necessary to make the pain end. I'll try to find some links for you, but am at work so I may not have the time.

[Plaid Adder]

6. Thanks everybody!

I really appreciate it.

The Plaid Adder