What exactly does it take to restore our freedoms? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

shakran · 08-02-2006, 07:18 PM

http://www.civilrights.org/issues/cj...s.cfm?id=45974

Quote:

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.

This is a summary of the Washington Post article which I did not paste in here because it's quite long.

The full text is available here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080101334.html

and I'll quote it at the end of what I have to say, if anyone's interested in reading it.

This pretty much sums up the Bush Administration. I've said before that they use Orwell's "1984" as an instruction manual, and this is the solid proof.

Under this plan the Secretery of Defense can add ANY crime to the list of crimes that are covered by military tribunal. Not that this matters since those brought before the tribunal would not have the right to confront their accusers, be present at their own trial, or have a speedy trial.

This means the government could accuse any one of us of any crime on the tribunally-covered list, and we could rot in jail for decades before even being tried. Basically it's a way for the government to jail people without the inconvenience of having to have any evidence of wrongdoing.

Clearly this proposal is the polar opposite of the freedoms the Constitution specifies and guarantees, and I do have faith that, even if Congress is stupid enough to OK it, the courts will toss it out the first chance they get.

However, this is a real clue as to the mentality of those who are leading us right now. They're not interested in personal freedoms, human rights, or democracy. They're interested in total, concentrated power that does not require the consent of those whom they govern. We as a country should have known that long ago - frankly when the Vice President tries to get Congress to let him torture people, that's a very clear sign that the people in the administration are bad news.

Over 200 years ago we fought a war with England because that country violated our rights. Now we have an administration who wants to return to, and perhaps go beyond, the philosophies of King George III.

But the real question is, where is the outrage? Why are people not taking to the streets in droves to protest the very idea that an administration like this would be in office? Why are people not furious over the clear fact that this administration wants to oppress people at will?

At any rate, here's the full text of the WaPo article. Read on if you're interested.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Washington Post

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

Detainees would also not be guaranteed the right to be present at their own trials, if their absence is deemed necessary to protect national security or individuals.

An early draft of the new measure prepared by civilian political appointees and leaked to the media last week has been modified in response to criticism from uniformed military lawyers. But the provisions allowing a future expansion of the courts to cover new crimes and more prisoners were retained, according to government officials familiar with the deliberations.

The military lawyers received the draft after the rest of the government had agreed on it. They have argued in recent days for retaining some routine protections for defendants that the political appointees sought to jettison, an administration official said.

They objected in particular to the provision allowing defendants to be tried in absentia, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to describe the deliberations. Another source in contact with top military lawyers said, "Their initial impression is that the draft was unacceptable and sloppy." The source added that "it did not have enough due-process rights" and could further tarnish America's image.

The military lawyers nonetheless supported extending the jurisdiction of the commissions to cover those accused of joining or associating with terrorist groups engaged in anti-U.S. hostilities, and of committing or aiding hostile acts by such groups, whether or not they are part of al-Qaeda, two U.S. officials said.

That language gives the commissions broader reach than anticipated in a November 2001 executive order from President Bush that focused only on members of al-Qaeda, those who commit international terrorist acts and those who harbor such individuals.

Some independent experts say the new procedures diverge inappropriately from existing criminal procedures and provide no more protections than the ones struck down by the Supreme Court as inadequate. John D. 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, 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.

But Kris Kobach, a senior Justice Department lawyer in Bush's first term who now teaches at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, said he believes that the draft strikes an appropriate balance between "a fundamentally fair trial" and "the ability to protect the effectiveness of U.S. military and intelligence assets."

Administration officials have said that the exceptional trial procedures are warranted because the fight against terrorism requires heavy reliance on classified information or on evidence obtained from a defendant's collaborators, which cannot be shared with the accused. The draft legislation cites the goal of ensuring fair treatment without unduly diverting military personnel from wartime assignments to present evidence in trials.

The provisions are closely modeled on earlier plans for military commissions, which the Supreme Court ruled illegal two months ago in a case brought by Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni imprisoned in the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. "It is not evident why the danger posed by international terrorism, considerable though it is, should require, in the case of Hamdan, any variance from the courts-martial rules," the court's majority decision held.

No one at Guantanamo has been tried to date, though some prisoners have been there since early 2002.

John Yoo, a former Justice Department lawyer who helped draft the earlier plan, said Bush administration officials essentially "took DOD regulations" for the trials "and turned them into a statute for Congress to pass." He said the drafters were obviously "trying to return the law to where it was before Hamdan " by writing language into the draft that challenges key aspects of the court's decision.

"Basically, this is trying to overrule the Hamdan case," said Neal K. Katyal, a Georgetown University law professor who was Hamdan's lead attorney.

The plan calls for commissions of five military officers appointed by the defense secretary to try defendants for any of 25 listed crimes. It gives the secretary the unilateral right to "specify other violations of the laws of war that may be tried by military commission." The secretary would be empowered to prescribe detailed procedures for carrying out the trials, including "modes of proof" and the use of hearsay evidence.

Unlike the international war crimes tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, the commissions could rely on hearsay as the basis for a conviction. Unlike routine military courts-martial, in which prosecutors must overcome several hurdles to use such evidence, the draft legislation would put the burden on the defense team to block its use.

The admission of hearsay is a serious problem, said Tom Malinowski, director of the Washington office of Human Rights Watch, because defendants might not know if it was gained through torture and would have difficulty challenging it on that basis. Nothing in the draft law prohibits using evidence obtained through cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment that falls short of torture, Malinowski said.

The U.S. official countered that a military judge "would look hard" at the origins of such evidence and that defendants would have to count on "the trustworthiness of the system."

To secure a death penalty under the draft legislation, at least five jurors must agree, two fewer than under the administration's earlier plan. Courts-martial and federal civilian trials require that 12 jurors agree.

Willravel · 08-02-2006, 07:24 PM

Remember that 49% (well, probably closer to 51%) showed their outrage in 2004. The level of outrage is what's important. I'm pissed about a lot of stuff, but am I pissed enough to attack military bases and corporiate buildings? Not unless I'm Tyler Durden. People are meek. It takes a shit load to get people to act. What would it take? Have you seen V for Vendetta? Yeah, not enough. Have you seen Star Wars Episode 4? Yeah, still not enough. 1984? Pfft, yeah right.

I don't see anything changing, save for a cataclysmic and sudden loss of a majorty of the lives in the country. People are too stagnent and lethargic to act anymore (possibly myself included). Edit: Oh, I forgot stubborn. Some people are damned stubborn.

Ustwo · 08-02-2006, 07:50 PM

#1 - Does this apply to U.S. citizens or not? If not, then I don't care. 'Our' freedoms are just fine.

#2 - You act as if this is the worst thing to ever happen in terms of 'lost freedoms' in this country, which is hardely the case. Look up the Civil war and WWII for starters. We did just fine.

ubertuber · 08-02-2006, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

#1 - Does this apply to U.S. citizens or not? If not, then I don't care. 'Our' freedoms are just fine.

I've felt for some time now that, as a matter of practicality, we ought to be extending what we see as basic rights to non-citizens and even enemies far more scrupulously. I'm not talking about services or things like that, but rather legal protections, etc... In a black-and-white sort of way I see where you are coming from Ustwo (I think), but I think going down that path is digging the hole faster than we're filling it in. In my mind, public opinion in other countries (whether justified or not) is a problem that we should be concerned about. Being "right" is no help when people are still getting angry enough to do us harm.

Obviously you don't agree with that line of thinking. Do you feel that we can simply catch bad guys quickly enough to disrupt threats, or is there some other cause/effect relationship that I'm not seeing?

Elphaba · 08-02-2006, 08:12 PM

Shakran, our government has never worked well when a single party held the executive and legislative branches. Less well, if the judiciary takes one more tip to the right.

The voters have a history of splitting the branches so that no one party is unchecked, and it is possible that will occur in November. Some may view that balance between Dems and Reps as a "do nothing" congress, but it seems we have that now, anyway. My experience has been that a balanced representation among the powers of government does "nothing" unless there is bipartisan agreement. I can't think of anything better at this time.

I know I appear to be off topic, but I believe that the concerns you expressed may not have a solution in the current imbalance of our government. I would love to be wrong and see moderates from both parties start taking some responsibility and challenge the executive branch, but it is an election year. I don't trust either side at the moment to be working for the good of the country.

The best start for getting us back on track, imo, is for the House to go Democratic in it's majority and the Senate remains Republican. We are only just beginning to see the court challenges addressing the "universal" presidency, and there will be more to come. It is anyone's guess how these decisions will affect 2008.

The worst thing that can happen under this presidency is to have another Supreme Court opening. Roberts and Alito have already shown that they were not forthcoming during their Senate approval process. Why should they be, under the current "rules?"

I am as impatient as a person can be at times, but political changes are measured in years and sometimes decades usually. Once in awhile, the is a public sea change. Perhaps the tide is shifting this year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

#1 - Does this apply to U.S. citizens or not? If not, then I don't care. 'Our' freedoms are just fine.

#2 - You act as if this is the worst thing to ever happen in terms of 'lost freedoms' in this country, which is hardely the case. Look up the Civil war and WWII for starters. We did just fine.

"We" being who exactly, Ustwo? Would that be inclusive of white men only? I don't believe our citizens of Japanese ancestry during WWII would find your above comment to demonstrate anything other than arrogance and ignorance.

Do you ever feel any shame for some of the things that come out of your mouth?

shakran · 08-02-2006, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

#1 - Does this apply to U.S. citizens or not? If not, then I don't care. 'Our' freedoms are just fine.

Yes. The military tribunals go after "suspected terrorists" no matter what their nationality. If you were accused of being (or helping) a terrorist (by breaking any of the laws listed by the SecDef) you would find yourself in jail, very possibly without representaiton, trial, or the right to defend yourself.

Quote:

#2 - You act as if this is the worst thing to ever happen in terms of 'lost freedoms' in this country, which is hardely the case. Look up the Civil war and WWII for starters. We did just fine.

That doesn't make any sense Ustwo. That's kinda like saying "Gee, my dad got eaten alive by a tiger, so the fact that I have terminal brain cancer really isn't so bad is it?"

I don't really care whether past human rights violations were worse than the ones we're dealing with now - that doesn't make the current violations any better or any more acceptible.

dksuddeth · 08-03-2006, 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Shakran, our government has never worked well when a single party held the executive and legislative branches. Less well, if the judiciary takes one more tip to the right.

and a leftist court doesn't tip the agenda when the left has power?

ratbastid · 08-03-2006, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

#2 - You act as if this is the worst thing to ever happen in terms of 'lost freedoms' in this country, which is hardely the case. Look up the Civil war and WWII for starters. We did just fine.

... said the frog in the boiling pot of water.

Ustwo · 08-03-2006, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

... said the frog in the boiling pot of water.

How do you know I'm not one of the chefs?

Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum.

dksuddeth · 08-03-2006, 06:37 AM

I find it humorous that people are shocked by this. This is what happens when you pick and choose which rights are important and which ones are not. By saying that THIS one particular right is something to be defended at all costs while THAT particular right is something that we won't worry about the government whittling away a bit is exactly what lets them do it to all of them.

ObieX · 08-03-2006, 06:37 AM

I think a lot of the problem is that the majority of the citizens simply to not know this type of stuff is going on. These types of things are not really ever run on the nightly news or covered in things that the average person tends to consume in their day. The part of the population that *does* see this stuff either flat out doesn't care because they think (sometimes rightly) that it does not and will never effect their lives. The other part thinks, even if they do disagree, that there is nothing that they can do as an individual that can change it (these people are also largely correct).

Until the storm troopers are breaking into the citizens own house, shooting their dog and raping everyone inside while making them watch they don't and will not give a shit. And then their neighbors still wont care until the same is happening to them. This is the state of our country right now and it will not change any time soon.

shakran · 08-03-2006, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum.

If you want to call me an agent of the enemies of those who hold office in our government, that's fine. I AM an enemy of anyone who would strip us of our basic rights. I AM an enemy of anyone who views human rights and dignity as trifling inconveniences, to be dispatched with at will. I AM an enemy of those who would kill the United States by destroying its core beliefs one by one.

Aren't you?

JumpinJesus · 08-03-2006, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I find it humorous that people are shocked by this. This is what happens when you pick and choose which rights are important and which ones are not. By saying that THIS one particular right is something to be defended at all costs while THAT particular right is something that we won't worry about the government whittling away a bit is exactly what lets them do it to all of them.

Absolutely. The framers of the constitution didn't include the Bill of Rights in order of importance. They're all equally important.

stevo · 08-03-2006, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

If you want to call me an agent of the enemies of those who hold office in our government, that's fine. I AM an enemy of anyone who would strip us of our basic rights. I AM an enemy of anyone who views human rights and dignity as trifling inconveniences, to be dispatched with at will. I AM an enemy of those who would kill the United States by destroying its core beliefs one by one.

Aren't you?

you missed the point. check his sig.

Willravel · 08-03-2006, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

If you want to call me an agent of the enemies of those who hold office in our government, that's fine. I AM an enemy of anyone who would strip us of our basic rights. I AM an enemy of anyone who views human rights and dignity as trifling inconveniences, to be dispatched with at will. I AM an enemy of those who would kill the United States by destroying its core beliefs one by one.

Aren't you?

Host once sort of accoused Ustwo of being in league in some way with the less honorable powers that be. Ustwo took this as being funny and decided to make it his signature. Ustwo's last post was basically designed to serve a dual purpous: 1) to sarcasticly suggest that he is one of the bad guys, in actuality suggesting that some of us are nuts, and 2) to make fun of Host. It didn't really lend to the discussion, but the frog's legs look delicious.

Ustwo · 08-03-2006, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Yes. The military tribunals go after "suspected terrorists" no matter what their nationality. If you were accused of being (or helping) a terrorist (by breaking any of the laws listed by the SecDef) you would find yourself in jail, very possibly without representaiton, trial, or the right to defend yourself.

The draft legislation cites the goal of ensuring fair treatment without unduly diverting military personnel from wartime assignments to present evidence in trials.

That doesn't 'jive' if this applies to domestic cases. I want more proof of who this applies to then 'civilians'. If it does apply to US citizens then it will be struck down.

dksuddeth · 08-03-2006, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

The draft legislation cites the goal of ensuring fair treatment without unduly diverting military personnel from wartime assignments to present evidence in trials.

That doesn't 'jive' if this applies to domestic cases. I want more proof of who this applies to then 'civilians'. If it does apply to US citizens then it will be struck down.

This particular statement should give anyone pause,
The U.S. official countered that a military judge "would look hard" at the origins of such evidence and that defendants would have to count on "the trustworthiness of the system."
I could be mistaken, but isn't this what jury trials were supposed to correct before our little revolution?

Ustwo · 08-03-2006, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

This particular statement should give anyone pause,
The U.S. official countered that a military judge "would look hard" at the origins of such evidence and that defendants would have to count on "the trustworthiness of the system."
I could be mistaken, but isn't this what jury trials were supposed to correct before our little revolution?

Again, if its non-US citizens, I don't care, they are not part of our little revolution.

dksuddeth · 08-03-2006, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Again, if its non-US citizens, I don't care, they are not part of our little revolution.

then please show me where, in the constitution, that it authorizes the executive to create an entirely new justice system for non US citizens.

Paq · 08-03-2006, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

This particular statement should give anyone pause,
The U.S. official countered that a military judge "would look hard" at the origins of such evidence and that defendants would have to count on "the trustworthiness of the system."
I could be mistaken, but isn't this what jury trials were supposed to correct before our little revolution?

definitely, and this is the main reason why i detest the patriot act and this current piece and about all of the legislation passed in the last 5 yrs. everyone saying, "well, it's been in effect for ___ years and nothing bad has happened." yet.

i don't trust people, period. I trust governments even less, so when it is explicitly stated that an entire piece would count on the 'trustworthiness of the system,' I start running the other way.

08-02-2006, 07:24 PM	#2 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Remember that 49% (well, probably closer to 51%) showed their outrage in 2004. The level of outrage is what's important. I'm pissed about a lot of stuff, but am I pissed enough to attack military bases and corporiate buildings? Not unless I'm Tyler Durden. People are meek. It takes a shit load to get people to act. What would it take? Have you seen V for Vendetta? Yeah, not enough. Have you seen Star Wars Episode 4? Yeah, still not enough. 1984? Pfft, yeah right. I don't see anything changing, save for a cataclysmic and sudden loss of a majorty of the lives in the country. People are too stagnent and lethargic to act anymore (possibly myself included). Edit: Oh, I forgot stubborn. Some people are damned stubborn. Last edited by Willravel; 08-03-2006 at 06:26 AM..

08-02-2006, 07:50 PM	#3 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	#1 - Does this apply to U.S. citizens or not? If not, then I don't care. 'Our' freedoms are just fine. #2 - You act as if this is the worst thing to ever happen in terms of 'lost freedoms' in this country, which is hardely the case. Look up the Civil war and WWII for starters. We did just fine. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

08-03-2006, 06:37 AM	#10 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	I find it humorous that people are shocked by this. This is what happens when you pick and choose which rights are important and which ones are not. By saying that THIS one particular right is something to be defended at all costs while THAT particular right is something that we won't worry about the government whittling away a bit is exactly what lets them do it to all of them. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

08-03-2006, 06:37 AM	#11 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	I think a lot of the problem is that the majority of the citizens simply to not know this type of stuff is going on. These types of things are not really ever run on the nightly news or covered in things that the average person tends to consume in their day. The part of the population that does see this stuff either flat out doesn't care because they think (sometimes rightly) that it does not and will never effect their lives. The other part thinks, even if they do disagree, that there is nothing that they can do as an individual that can change it (these people are also largely correct). Until the storm troopers are breaking into the citizens own house, shooting their dog and raping everyone inside while making them watch they don't and will not give a shit. And then their neighbors still wont care until the same is happening to them. This is the state of our country right now and it will not change any time soon. __________________ We Must Dissent.