Detainee bill lifts Bush’s power to new heights / President now has legal authority even courts can’t challenge — Welcome to Rome, folks. You may be witnessing history although nobody is actually telling you about it. And this is just the beginning as long as our Congress is nothing more than yes-massa stooges.
This has nothing to do with terrorism, otherwise they would find Bin Laden. It’s about power. And hey, where are all those “liberal” newspapers and activist judges when this sort of thing happens? Another myth.
With the final passage through Congress of the detainee treatment bill, President Bush achieved a signal victory Friday, shoring up with legislation his determined campaign against terrorism in the face of challenges from critics and the courts.
Rather than reining in the formidable presidential powers that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have asserted since Sept. 11, 2001, the law gives some of those powers a solid statutory foundation. In effect it allows the president to identify enemies, imprison them indefinitely and interrogate them — albeit with a ban on the harshest treatment — beyond the reach of the full court reviews traditionally afforded criminal defendants and ordinary prisoners.
Taken as a whole, the law will give the president more power over terrorism suspects than he had before the Supreme Court decision this summer in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld that undercut more than four years of White House policy. It does, however, grant detainees brought before military commissions limited protections initially opposed by the White House. The bill, which cleared a final procedural hurdle in the House on Friday and is likely to be signed into law next week by Bush, does more than allow the president to determine the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions; it strips the courts of jurisdiction to hear challenges to his interpretation.
I don’t know which is more frightening; Bush turning this nation into shit, or the nodding sheeple who are letting him do it with impunity.
They might as well take the Constuitution out of the national archives and slice it up into toilet paper for all the attention our administration pays to it.
Since Congress is collusional with the president in violating the Geneva Convention obligations we signed, can we appeal to International Court of Justice in the Hague?
I feel it is my patriotic duty to fight this and if that means going outside our borders, so be it.
Bravo #22.
What Blackmail does Bush jr/sr have that can control the Senate and house??
There must be some REAL bad news out there, if they have this much control.
Perhaps W’s handlers will soon have him declared ‘President for Life’…all ‘legal’ of course…then the transformation to Banana Republic will be complete.
>Geneva Convention obligations we signed, can we appeal to >International Court of Justice in the Hague?
Try reading the Geneva COnventions first.
#39 – The betrayal of traditional Constitutional law by Congresss isn’t about blackmail (not that Rove et al. are above such tactics). It’s about greed, for both money and power. It’s about the sellout to the corporations, their lobbyists and their corrupt executives. There’s a reason these Republican-dominated Congresses have been called the most corrupt in history – they represent corporations run by bean-counters for “legal” thieves. Not you, not the voters, not the rule of law, not responsible leadership. Just the corporations and the orcs that run them.
Is this a dream or Hilter is back again?
There was a reason why the Congress was only granted a set of enumerated powers with the rest belonging to the states.
The Constitution is known as a living document – that is is re-interpreted over time is of no surprise to me. That said, there is something inherently evil about covering up your legal transgressions by bullying Congress into passing laws that forgive you. And yet we remain, near the lip of the slippery slope.
What’s next? A new push to rewrite the Constitution, and get Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger elected in 2012? Stay tuned!
As a kid growing up in Canada I remember a time when we would drive to the United States on a whim, visiting friends and seeing attractions. Since these wars have started few people I know have been back. When I finally set foot on US soil again in early 2006 there was an errie feeling to it. Had we not been going to visit friends I would have hopped a flight overseas. What happened?!
A bunch of guys who also visited the United States destroyed four passenger jets, three sky\scrapers in New York and murdered nearly 3,000 people… and then didn’t even go home afterwards.
RBG
Freedom isn’t lost in some apocalyptic battle. Nor by some fanatic terrorist blowing up the next big thing. It is given away buy a congress that only cares about reelection, a media only concerned about the bottom line and a public only concerned about who will get voted off the island. The American dream of freedom under just laws gets slowly picked away buy those only interested in their own power and prestige. I’ve not felt this bad about our government since Watergate and the waning days of the Viet Nam war. I will again vote in November and I hope to awaken from this bad dream.
What the hell is next?? a third president term on the next bill?? assholes..
[edited: pls read comments guide]
Joe #50, unlike you, most of us have values and concerns beyond our own little selfish interests.
Sure, Bush has not done any harm to me personally, but he has done harm to the United States of America and the values it stands for, values like the rule of law. Values expressed in the Constitution of the United States of America.
Do you think it is OK for Bush to do to anyone what was done to Canadian citizen Mahar Arar and other innocent people? Is imprisonment without trial an American value? Is presumption of guilt an American value? Is torture an American value? Are those your values?
#51, Spencer, As long as the neocons and people scared poopless by their own shadows think they are safer, then our freedoms, and theirs, are gone.
I wonder how many Republicans want Hillary to have such unfettered power come 2009?
AB CD #41 > Try reading the Geneva COnventions first.
Since when do alleged criminals get to decide jurisdiction? It matters to me, none at all, that Bush and his collaborators don’t respect international treaties and jurisdiction. We should drag their smug gobs before the dock.
Slobodan Milosevic didn’t recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Tribunal., either, and they still put him on trial.
By the way, those defending Bush’s disappearance and torture plan should take your advice and read the GC.
Bush’s secret prisons?
Representatives of the protecting powers shall have permission to visit all places where prisoners of war may be, particularly to places of internment, imprisonment and labor. They must be able to interview the prisoners without witnesses, either personally or through an interpreter. ( Convention III, Art. 126)
The current bill granting themselves amnesty?
No party to the Geneva Conventions can absolve itself, or another party, of liability for grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. ( Convention I, Art. 51; Convention II, Art. 52; Convention III, Art. 131; Convention IV, Art. 148)
Waterboarding?
Prisoners of war may not be tortured mentally or physically, and no other form of coercion may be used during interrogation. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer must not be punished in any way. (Convention III, Art. 17)
20 inch by 4 foot by 4 foot cells at Guantanamo?
Prisoners of war may not be held in close confinement except for reasons of health, and then only as long as medically necessary. (Convention III, Art. 21)
The Bush spin is that Geneva is highly ambiguous so we need our own laws to clarify them! How stupid does he think Americans are? (OK, his “base” can be pretty stupid but the rest of us have no excuse if we fall for this.)
#28…SN….not sure who the actual *idiot* would be in your post. Judge Ginsburg is consistantly scored as the Most or second most Liberal on the Court. She was head litigator for Womans issues with the ACLU for many years, and was called by Clinton the Thurgood Marshall of Womans rights. She is the Chief arguer for the use of foriegn court rulings in this country(a Liberal view). All you have to do is read her bio SN and you would know.
And as far being offered to Clinton by Orrin Hatch….Hatch himself says that he didn’t nominate her…he suggested to Clinton that she would probably be much easier than others to get through to the court.
As to this detainee bill….I think it puts our own people in the military or intel agencies outside the U.S. in deep shit, if they are ever kidnapped or taken prisinor by our *enemies*. Having said that….for all you chicken littles above me…..this bill only pertains to *alien* personal who have been properly designated (by the D.C. Federal Court), *enemy combatants*. This bill does not allow for any of it’s provisions to apply to citizens or even naturalized citizens. Try actually reading the bill, or law now.
Refering to people who like the bill as sheeple, Nascar blood and guts types(I know a whole lot of Liberal and Liberal lefties who like NASCAR), fascists, neo-fascists, and all those other great terms used above, isn’t really conducive to advancing your arguement. Most people in this country aren’t even engaged in this or anyother arguement. The ones who do care enough to know whats going on have opinions that range from far left to far right and all have their own very valid reasons for how they see this issue.
Greg Allen, try reading the definition of POW. I’m not aware of any Al Qaeda uniform or decent treatment of their own prisoners, or refraining from attacking civilians, or that they are a rebel faction in America.
Where do the Geneva Conventions give a right of action in the US court system?
>I think it puts our own people in the military or intel agencies outside the >U.S. in deep shit, if they are ever kidnapped or taken prisinor by our >*enemies*.
Could you please identify a war where our prisoners were treated under Geneva Convention rules?
The US has followed these rules for 50+ years, and how did this help the US soldiers?
53. There is nothing “conventional” about this war.
RBG
“Is this a dream or Hilter is back again?”
This is just not a fair comparison. Hitler actually fought and saw combat.
Bush was snorting blow and date-raping woman in Houston & when sober was cowering in his momma’s arms. So you can see why its unfair to compare him to Hitler.
He was also a failure in every business he ever started.
Is the fact that he never served in the military like most neocons I’ve meet the reason that this board’s neocons like him? They can then feel something they’re not – which is brave?
I’m just curious.
#54 Judge Ginsburg is consistantly scored as the Most or second most Liberal on the Court.
And thank goodness that someone actually scores liberal…
“Is the fact that he never served in the military like most neocons I’ve meet the reason that this board’s neocons like him? They can then feel something they’re not – which is brave?”
Is this supposed to make any kind of sense? Besides, Bush flew jets.
RBG
#59.
Bush flew jets in Texas, not Nam. If you go out of your way to avoid service – isn’t that cutting and running?
As my question, I’m simply asking if neo-cowards like to stick together because it gives them the illusion of bravery. How about serving if they believe in this war so much – maybe pony up a son or daughter?
Make enough sense yet? Or are you going to “cut and run”?
How about we just let the people who are serving and have served decide war policy then? Everyone else just be quiet, and the veterans votes stick? Is that what you want?
61. – Good question.
Its been suggested by others – Robert A Heinlien for one – that society would be better off if those who vote perform an act of “faith” that would minimally qualify them for participation in the Republic. It would not have to be the Military – it could be valuable social service of any sort that requires service and sacrifice.
Let me suggest that only those who are going to die in a proposed war be the ones who can approve it.
What I don’t like about the neo-cowards is that they only believe in the war because they’re not the ones dying in it, but of course they make lots of money or get lots of power from it. I’m talking about the Ann Coultiers, the Bushs, the Cheneys, guys like Wolfiwitz and Bremmer and Santorum. putzes like DeLay and Ney. NONE of them have a dog in the fight yet they all yack “about cutting and running” blah blah blah. What happened to putting your money where your mouth is? Its easy to acuse others of running when you yourself have already secured your place in the rear.
60. Oh, you’re only asking. I thought you were telling. The answer then is no: they stick together because that is what wins elections. And I suspect more than a few of those voters have given up their own lives as well as their children’s. You should get out more if you need to meet more conservatives.
So only those who serve in war zones serve in the miltary in your world? So there is no military until there’s a war? The military options are open to all who can do the job as far as I know. I believe 40% of the military in Iraq and Afghanistan are Air or Army National Guard or other reserves.
RBG
62. I take it you’re writing this from the front. I think I know why you’d like the Ann Coulters, etc. over there.
RBG
#59 Is this supposed to make any kind of sense? Besides, Bush flew jets.
RBG
Comment by RBG — 10/2/2006 @ 11:51 am
Saying that Bush flew jets is like saying Paris Hilton was in the hotel industry.
He served, kinda… But he really lacks any real military credibility. Gore and Kerry – the hippy dippy liberal bleeding hearts he beat – have real military credentials. Dole had them. McCain has them. That crazy guy in the park who yells at clouds probably has them.
Bush doesn’t.
Niether did Clinton, and he was the best president this country had since Eisenhower, so I’m not saying Bush needs to have a military background. But if he and his supporters want to claim military experience, it would help if he really had some.