MotherJones.com | MoJoBlog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: The Fine Print in the Military Tribunals Bill

« Hurricane W | Blog Index | Al Qaeda in Iraq: Calling all Weapons Experts »

The Fine Print in the Military Tribunals Bill

The House passed the Bush administration's military tribunals legislation yesterday, which clarifies the rules for how terrorism suspects can be interrogated and tried, and the Senate is expected to vote on the bill today. The bill, which was rushed through Congress as the legislative session comes to a close, includes a host of troubling provisions. Among them, the bill, for the first time, defines the meaning of “illegal enemy combatant” and it does so in a very broad way. As The New York Times notes in an editorial: “...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.”

As The Baltimore Sun reports, this under-the-radar provision would also “for the first time legally endorse the fight against terrorism as equivalent to war,” which would “give the fight against terrorism the legal status of an armed conflict.” “Does it allow the president to basically define the war on terrorism as broadly or as narrowly as he wants?” Rep. Adam B. Schiff, the California Democrat, told the Sun. “The answer is yes.”

Another provision, dealing with the rights (or, in this case, lack of them) of detainees to challenge their imprisonment in federal court, would effectively “strip green-card holders and other legal residents of the right to challenge their detention in court if they are accused of being 'enemy combatants,’” according to the Boston Globe.

The part of the bill that worries advocates for immigrants most is the one stating that “no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.”...
In the original bill, the section banning "habeas corpus" petitions applied only to detainees being held "outside the United States," referring to the roughly 450 prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. But in recent days, the phrase "outside the United States" was removed.

Yet another provision makes "coerced evidence" admissible in court proceedings "if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant," according to the Times. Further, "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."

And that's just for starters.

Comments

It's amazing how a small group from a different culture can help the government remove basic rights from our citizens. The GOP is too lazy to follow procedure so American rights and principles can be disregarded? That's showing 'em, congress! We pretend this problem is a war when it's actually another way to make us believe the huge U.S. expenditure on defense (40% of the world total) is necessary. Of course, the defense contractors agree. If there's anything bomb makers hate, it's dialog and diplomacy.

Posted by: Harry Kitt on 09/29/06 at 5:15 AM

Well, when will the people wake up? This totally eliminates ALL protections of the "Old Constitution"! This "soap opera" government (in washington,dc} is a sick joke. They have sold us out for a few bucks and an easy life. I wonder if they will wake up to the error of their ways when they end up in one of the detention centers that are being constructed? They won't be needing them much longer,they have got unlimited power legally handed to them by these "representatives?" of the people. Maybe next week they will start building the gas chambers!

Posted by: Ranselar VanDerpoel on 09/29/06 at 6:27 AM

I wonder where all of this will end up. Have you realized (Yes, I am talking to you, enlightened American public) that you are getting only what you deserved? After all, you chose him not once, but twice! Your Comstitution is about to go down the path the Constitutions in Latin America have trodded. The question is, What are you going to do? First, let me share, if at all possible, your concern and even your sadness for all the dead, although the suffering of others -the Iraqis for example is also something that overwhelms. When I was a child, I remember my mother telling us about the generous, honest and easy-going nature of the American people and how Kennedy, already dead but very close to Latin American hearts, embodied the spirit of that great nation. I, a child, thus learned to admire a country which was located so far away. Later, as a college student, I got to know a few other things -not all of them nice- about the U.S. However, despite this, I always thought that the world had never seen a more enlightened power than this. The war of invasion against Iraq has, nevertheless, changed my view 180 degrees, and not only because of what the American armed forces pushed by a bunch of totally out of control right-wing politicians are doing but above all by the lamentable behavior of the American public. Those of us who thought that all of these wrongs would be redressed back in November 2005 witnessed in shock how the impudence, the lies and the stupidity prevailed. America is not America anymore, if it ever was. It seems to have developed a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde syndrome. I would like to finish this with Lincoln´s words about the right of people to rise and demote an unjust and corrupt government.

Posted by: Jaime Galarza on 09/30/06 at 6:55 AM

Will our country become another 1960 Russia, A current China. If we do not agree or have an opinion, we could be charged as terrorist. Shame on us AMERICANS for allowing this to happen. We need to stand up for our rights now. This is AMERICA and GOD BLESS AMERICA.

Posted by: cinda hoover on 09/30/06 at 7:12 AM

Honestly, if someone told Bin Laden that 9/11 would lead to America behaving the way it has against its own citizens do you think he could have been any happier?

Consider this too: Bush has accused democrats of siding with the terrorists because they disagree with some of his policies. What kind of a president would insult half the country the way he has?

His actions betray him. At face value his actions indicate disrepect for the law and complete contempt for the American people.

Al Qaeda could not have found a better ally had they recruited Bush themselves.

The 12 democrats who voted for this amendment make me sick. joe Lieberman is truly Judas incarnate. They all deserve to be spit on.

As the bumper sticker says: Lee Harvey Oswald, where are you?

Posted by: kackermann on 10/01/06 at 7:22 AM