I don't want to argue. I just think you might rein in the rhetoric a little.
It isn't "The Torture Bill". It's the "Military Commissions Act of 2006"

For those that don't like to read, I'll summarize at the end.

This Act doesn't have a Section 940j. It starts at section 947.
Maybe you're thinking of 950j. It doesn't make it illegal for "ANY" judge to question the legality of the bill. It is talking about the judgment of a military commission. Even then it proclude questioning.

It says "except as otherwise provided in this chapter and notwithstanding any other provision of law (including section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision)".

It does define "Enemy Combatants" quite clearly in section 948a.

948b states that this Act is for alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States.

`Sec. 948q.`(b) Notice to Accused- Upon the swearing of the charges and specifications in accordance with subsection (a), the accused shall be informed of the charges against him as soon as practicable.

`Sec. 948r (b) Exclusion of Statements Obtained by Torture- A statement obtained by use of torture shall not be admissible in a military commission under this chapter, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.

SUMMARY:SUMMARY:SUMMARY:SUMMARY:SUMMARY:SUMMARY:SUMMARY:

This Act applies to alien enemy combatants, not U.S. Citizens.
(citizens are covered under treason and sedition) The case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld re-confirmed the right of US citizens to habeas corpus even when declared an enemy combatant.

Combatants aren't tried without their knowlege.
Records of the trial will be available(with classified material removed).

If you think I'm mistaken in any of the above statements, please provide sources.

Again, I'm not arguing your opinion, just your interpretation of facts. I know your opinion of this President and of conservatives in general.
I think it's great to have a dissenting voice, but when you exagerate your claims, you weaken your argument.

If anyone wants to research it themselves, here is a link
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:3:./temp/~c109SmUYLD::

"by the by", I think voting machines should have a paper trail.

Firstly, it’s hard to know what much of the bill means as it uses nebulous terms and fails to meaningfully define them. There is much wording about “ability to interpret.”
It is clear in the language that the bill applies to “enemy combatants” (an incredibly vague term and, as the LA Times points out the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" includes those who "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" (by say, writing a check to a Middle East charity) and may extend to US citizens.) See this article. “Military Tribunals (also vague) applies to “Aliens” (not defined), however other provisions of the bill can be applied to anyone (see sec. 948a-c).
In fact, many legal scholars believe that the bill as written does apply to citizens:

“Law Professors Marty Lederman and Bruce Ackerman each point out, many of the extraordinary powers vested in the President by this bill also apply to U.S. citizens, on U.S. soil.

As Ackerman put it: "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." Similarly, Lederman explains: "this [subsection (ii) of the definition of 'unlawful enemy combatant'] means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to 'hostilities' at all."” Here

Further, the Cato Institute ( a decided NOT left wing organization) has concluded that under this bill a U.S. Citizen could, in fact be detained. http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/10/02/does-the-military-commission-act-apply-to-us-citizens/

Another problem, as pointed out in debate on the floor of the house is that once a person is labeled an "alien enemy combatant" there is no method allowed to them to prove that they are in fact a citizen and therefore not subject.

Oh well.


There are other problems with the bill:
The bill also does away with sections of the uniform code of military justice,m including right to a speedy trial trial [10 U.S.C. sec. 948b(d)(1)(A)], compulsory self-incrimination [10 U.S.C. sec. 948b(d)(1)(B)], and pre-trial investigation [10 U.S.C. sec. 948b(d)(1)(C)].

It limits the right to an attorney [10 U.S.C. sec. 949c(b)(3)(D)].

It allows hearsay [10 U.S.C. sec. 949a(b)(2)(E)(i)], evidence obtained without a warrant [10 U.S.C. sec. 949a(b)(2)(B)], evidence obtained when the degree of coercion is disputed [10 U.S.C. sec. 948r(d)], or classified evidence not made available to the defense [10 U.S.C. sec. 949d(f)(2)(B)].

No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories. [Act sec. 5(a)]

The president is given sole authority to interpret the Geneva Convention . [Act sec. 6(a)(3)(A)].

It also "Narrow the scope of the War Crimes Act by not expressly criminalizing acts that constitute "outrages upon personal dignity, particularly humiliating and degrading treatment" banned under Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions. Amnesty International believes that the USA has routinely failed to respect the human dignity of detainees in the "war on terror"." http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR511542006

Even Arlen Specter (Big R on that) thinks that this bill in unconstitutional. He wanted the Habeas provision removed : http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/09/senate-passes-military-commissions.php

So yeah, I think you are mistaken.


Oh and by the by, saying "I don't want to argue" at the outset of your argument is pretty silly.

.

It wasn't silly.
I DON'T want to argue, and I won't. After this post, blather all you want about my intentions.
I wasn't arguing your points, just how you tried to make them.
Your posts are full of your interpretations stated as legeslative intent. I was just reminding anyone reading to search the source for the actual facts. Not the opinions of secondary sources.

You think I'm wrong. About what? I made no statement of my own opinion.
What I did was cite the specific spots in the bill which you claim don't exist.

Once again, you point to secondary sources of what may happen. I was just stating what the bill provided for.

Did I misquote the bill?

If I didn't, there is nothing for you to disagree with, other than the content of the bill.

It's just like watching Crossfire, except the other way around.

I agree with Nate's principles AND with Archimago's reasoning. That last sentence isn't reversible.

Nate's posts remind of the "what ifs" that get trotted out when conservatives argue against gay marriage, illegal immigration and other issues. While I mostly agree with your views, your exaggerated claims of a future dystopia are what will drive away any converts. In the game of politics, calm, cool reasoning wins the day.

40 - Love, Archi.

actually, I simply quoted what legal scholars and human rights groups see as the inevitable effect of this legislation. They really aren't 'what ifs?'. They are what those in the know insist the bill really is.

This bill, Which Arlen Specter (R) calls "flagrantly un-constitutional" is highly problematic, and insidious. Not pointing this out would be unpatriotic.

As I pointed out- the only portion of the bill designed to apply only to "aliens" is the use of military tribunals. The rest of the bill can be applied to anyone. And even the military tribunal section could be applied to a citizen, as there is no function for review of citizenship status. Once a person is labeled as an alien enemy combatant they are given no way to fight that status.

See, the point that keeps getting ignored is: legislation of this sort is always extreme (written in such a way as to expand gov't power and curtail individual liberty as much as possible); such bills are normally interpreted by courts of law so as to be brought more in line with constitutional values and societal mores. In this case that isn't possible. The bill is designed to curtail any judicial review of its tenents. That is frightening.

Even if you are not bothered by that, can you fail be be worried that the bill:

does away with sections of the uniform code of military justice,m including right to a speedy trial trial [10 U.S.C. sec. 948b(d)(1)(A)], compulsory self-incrimination [10 U.S.C. sec. 948b(d)(1)(B)], and pre-trial investigation [10 U.S.C. sec. 948b(d)(1)(C)].

It limits the right to an attorney [10 U.S.C. sec. 949c(b)(3)(D)].

It allows hearsay [10 U.S.C. sec. 949a(b)(2)(E)(i)], evidence obtained without a warrant [10 U.S.C. sec. 949a(b)(2)(B)], evidence obtained when the degree of coercion is disputed [10 U.S.C. sec. 948r(d)], or classified evidence not made available to the defense [10 U.S.C. sec. 949d(f)(2)(B)].

No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories. [Act sec. 5(a)]

The president is given sole authority to interpret the Geneva Convention . [Act sec. 6(a)(3)(A)].

???????????

as for Archie's reasoning: he merely quoted the party line (directly from gov't web sites). He says that "enemy combatant" is clearly defined. I would quibble with his use of the term "clearly." For the record, the vague, broad (and open to interpretation) definition is:

Sec. 948a. Definitions

`In this chapter:

`(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--

`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or

`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

You may notice that one way to be labeled an enemy combatant is simply to have been labeled an enemy combatant. If we say you are, you are.

Archie says that it excludes evidence obtained by torture, but [10 U.S.C. sec. 948r(d)] clearly contradicts that. Under this section testimony and evidence gathered with use of torture is admissable as long as the torture has not been clearly proven (and there is no function to allow for claims of torture or other coercion to be investigated, meaning that it cannot be proven).

Archie says that defendants can't be tried without their knowledge. That's an arguable point. There's no clear provision that I can find that settles the matter. However,it does clearly allow:

hearsay [10 U.S.C. sec. 949a(b)(2)(E)(i)], evidence obtained without a warrant [10 U.S.C. sec. 949a(b)(2)(B)], evidence obtained when the degree of coercion is disputed [10 U.S.C. sec. 948r(d)], or classified evidence not made available to the defense [10 U.S.C. sec. 949d(f)(2)(B)].

That means that you can be tried with secret evidence (that you are not allowed to see or answer)which was obtained illegally , secret witnesses (which you are not allowed to cross examine) using hearsay and evidence obtained under torture. And [10 U.S.C. sec. 949c(b)(3)(D)] means that you may not have the right to an attorney.

Does Archie misquote the bill? No. Does he misrepresent it? Yes.



I'm not sure why you think that this is rhetoric, or hyperbole. I'm simply summarizing the actual letter of this law and offering commentary from experts in the field.

Oh, by the by, it has already started: the administration has formally notified the U.S. District Court here that it no longer has jurisdiction to consider hundreds of habeas corpus petitions filed by inmates at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.

It seems that this law is retroactive.

OK, now I will argue.

You say "quoted the party line (directly from gov't web sites)." FALSE
I read the bill and made my own mind up. I don't follow "party lines".
The only Government site I quoted from is the actual bill under discussion. You on the other hand love secondary sources and opinions.

You mock my use of the word 'clearly", but you can use it when you say "[10 U.S.C. sec. 948r(d)] clearly contradicts that."
You then paraphrase what YOU think it says

"Under this section testimony and evidence gathered with use of torture is admissable as long as the torture has not been clearly proven (and there is no function to allow for claims of torture or other coercion to be investigated, meaning that it cannot be proven)."

Here is what it actually says

Sec. 948r. Compulsory self-incrimination prohibited; treatment of statements obtained by torture and other statements

`(a) In General- No person shall be required to testify against himself at a proceeding of a military commission under this chapter.
`(b) Exclusion of Statements Obtained by Torture- A statement obtained by use of torture, whether or not under color of law, shall not be admissible against the accused in a military commission under this chapter, except against a person accused of torture as evidence the statement was made.
`(c) Other Statements- An otherwise admissible statement, including a statement allegedly obtained by coercion, shall not be admitted in evidence in a military commission under this chapter if the military judge finds that the circumstances under which the statement was made render the statement unreliable or lacking in probative value.
`(d) Torture- In this section, the term `torture' has the meaning given that term in section 2340 of title 18.

You say I misrepresented the bill. How, by quoting it?
I made no statement of opinion.
I just illuminated the shadows left by your "summary".

I will be going home now. I plan on going for a bike ride. Then I'll watch "Doctor Who", and go to bed.
Tomorrow I'll be at the library all day. The entire weekend will consist of homework. class is Tuesday-night.
Feel free to say anything you want. I won't be checking until Wednesday. Maybe not even then... but probably. Yeah.

I just spoke with old friends on the phone. Now I am drinking wine. I'll probably fall asleep soon (it's been a long day) and then wake up at 1am and play World of Warcraft.

I'll probably checking off and on everytime I'm near my computer. I'm a compulsive blog checker, as I'm sure Brandon can tell when he checks his visitor reports.