I am speechless. To think that this administration and it’s Republican party patsies would be willing to wipe away three centuries of progress by tossing habeas corpus out the window in order to save their pathetic little political lives is effin’ nauseating.

From today’s NY Times:

Enemy Combatants:
A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill
could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign
citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and
indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give
the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.

The Geneva Conventions:
The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by
allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation
methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret —
there’s no requirement that this list be published.

Habeas Corpus:
Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to
challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor
coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance
to prove their innocence.

Judicial Review:
The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system,
except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and
bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or
indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is
to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.

Coerced Evidence:
Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable
— already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined
in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005
Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.

Secret Evidence:
American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is
kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate
executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney
seems to weaken protections against such evidence.

The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of
the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape
and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only
forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex.
The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook