S 3930

[The Doctor]

I just crawled out from under my rock today, and noticed this. For those of you who don't know, this is a bill being considered by the Senate which will:

 

• Revoke Habeas Corpus
  
• Create a secret committee appointed by Bush and Rumsfeld that has the power to declare any person - even a US citizen - to be an enemy, instantly depriving them of their legal rights. There will be no appeal allowed.
  
• Allow police to search through your home without a search warrant
  
• End protection of prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions
  
• Give George W. Bush amnesty for any war crimes he has committed
  
• Allow for people to be put on trial in front of a kangaroo court military tribunal, even if they aren’t in any military, and have not engaged in military attacks against the USA
  
• Allow the government to convict people of crimes on the basis of secret evidence that the accused never sees
  
• Make it legal for the government to use testimony extracted through torture
  
• End the legal right to be protected from forced self-incrimination
  
• Allow the government to imprison people without telling them what crimes they are being charged with
  
• Remove the right to cross-examine witnesses
  
• Allow for the records of trials to be kept secret from the American public
  
• Enable trials to begin even before a thorough investigation of the alleged crime has taken place
  
• Take away the right to a speedy trial, allowing people to fester behind bars without being charged of any crime

 

Please, tell me I'm missing something, or that I'm being fed false information. Please.

[Mace MacLeod]

Hmm.

 

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/10/01/18317064.php

 

^^There's the bill as passed by congress. There's some of what you posted, but not others. Most of the bill is amendments to the Military Justice act, and yes it does somewhat relax requirements for people Bush or Rumsfeld think have done something to piss them off. I really didn't go through it that thoroughly, but one thing that did catch my interest is that (in my understanding at least), Bush or the Secretary of Defence can simply decide that you're a terrorist and ship you off to wherever they want.

 

The bill isn't as scary as your list Doctor, but it's still scary. Damn good reason for the US to vote Democrat in 2008.

[TSR]

This does not look fun.

[Negative Sun]

To Mace MacLeod:

 

There was a damn good reason back in '04 as well...

[Bimmerman]

And in 2000...

 

Screw Democrat and Republican, Vote Libertarian

 

As for the revoking the right against self incrimination, it is a constitutional amendment(Am. V), so that can't happen unless the bill revokes the constitution...which would itself be unconstitutional

[HerbieZ]

Yessss, Britain rules. I seriously doubt they would make all of them changes, specially at the same time. It would lead to a much darker future. Also, i would have heared about it on Sky News as UK news swoops on American politics like flies to dung.

[igyman]

If this is true, it only proves once and for all what Bush is all about.

[JediMaster12]

That what you posted Doc if it were to happen would be a violation of the US constitution and the very principles upon which this nation was founded. I saw from a mile away that Bush was not the guy for the job. What you show us issomething that would put the US under martial law. The Patriot Act is one of those things passed after Sept 11. It brings to mind my favorite political satire and the phrase, "Big Brother is watching you." Yes that is from George ORwell's 1984. I suggest you folks read it. We are not that far off at the rate we are going.

I swear we are going down the tubes if this is allowed to pass. They want to do this and spend 1.5 billion dollars on a 12 mile fenceline between us an Mexico. A stupid chainlink more likely.

The revoking of Habeas Corpus is making a serious dent in our personal freedoms and our judicial system as flawed as it can be. In this countr one is innocent until proven guilty not the other way around. If this happens then we'd be on the equivalent of a Communist state. I will stop now because I am rambling.

[swphreak]

I'm somewhat confident that the Supreme Court would shoot that proposal down if it actually passed, and I'm sure various organizations would get in a frenzy over it as well.

 

 

Everyone praise the 22nd amendment. \o/

[Mace MacLeod]

There was a damn good reason back in '04 as well...

Very true. Sadly, Peace, Prosperity and Plenty still aren't values the US voting public seems to want.

@JM12: The link I posted is the bill as passed.

 

Good time to be Canadian. The US just has that Germany-in-1938 feel to it these days...

[Davinq]

Create a secret committee appointed by Bush and Rumsfeld that has the power to declare any person - even a US citizen - to be an enemy, instantly depriving them of their legal rights. There will be no appeal allowed.

Gah! bs.

Allow police to search through your home without a search warrant

More amendment infraction. bs...

End protection of prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions

Please be BS.

Give George W. Bush amnesty for any war crimes he has committed

Double BS.

 

Skip a few...

 

Allow the government to imprison people without telling them what crimes they are being charged with

I'll probably be put on trial for posting this. BS

Allow for the records of trials to be kept secret from the American public

What, they don't trust us to keep a secret?

Enable trials to begin even before a thorough investigation of the alleged crime has taken place

Biggest load of SH*T EVER.

Please, tell me I'm missing something, or that I'm being fed false information. Please.

Likewise. I would really like to move back to New Zealand right about now...

[Q]

Great. When they catch someone smoking a joint they can do more than just say that the pothead is supporting terrorism by buying the pot (which they started doing shortly after 9/11). Now they can label the pothead as an "unlawful enemy combatant" by using the same logic.

[Jae Onasi]

Folks, the Constitution has precedence over a lot of things. The only way you can void an amendment is with another amendment. There are some big hoops to jump through to do that, and Congress, even the Republicans in both houses, wouldn't go for it unless it was something extremely important, and nuking a lot of rights isn't one of those important things.

The text of S 3930 is from the Library of Congress site so that you can read the sections yourselves and make your own decisions, rather than pull it off of some other websites that want to slant it pro/con and spoonfeed people some agenda.

 

Here's one section:

`

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 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.

 

`© Statements Obtained Before Enactment of Detainee Treatment Act of 2005- A statement obtained before December 30, 2005 (the date of the enactment of the Defense Treatment Act of 2005) in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the military judge finds that--

 

`(1) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value; and

 

`(2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.

 

`(d) Statements Obtained After Enactment of Detainee Treatment Act of 2005- A statement obtained on or after December 30, 2005 (the date of the enactment of the Defense Treatment Act of 2005) in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the military judge finds that--

 

`(1) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value;

 

`(2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence; and

 

`(3) the interrogation methods used to obtain the statement do not amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment prohibited by section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.

 

It specifically says self-incrimination is prohibited and statements made under torture are inadmissible.

 

The definition section gives the descriptions of unlawful enemy combatants, co-belligerants, lawful enemy combatants, aliens, classified information, and Geneva conventions.

The people subject to these military commissions are alien unlawful enemy combatants. If you're an American or legal alien, you're not subject to the military commission. If you're a _lawful_ enemy combatant, you're not subject to this. If you're an unlawful enemy combatant but you're American, you'll get tried in a different court, not this.

 

Just a little bit of debunking before I try to go get some sleep.

[Sabretooth]

 

I feel so lucky I'm not American! This is obviously some sort of a joke. No freaking democracy, especially America will allow such a bill.

[Cygnus Q'ol]

Great. When they catch someone smoking a joint they can do more than just say that the pothead is supporting terrorism by buying the pot (which they started doing shortly after 9/11). Now they can label the pothead as an "unlawful enemy combatant" by using the same logic.

 

...and then shoot him.

 

 

Obviously, I'm kidding. I'm just glad that Jae was still awake to spread some logical light on this ridiculousness.

[stingerhs]

i'm with Jae: next time you want to post something dealing with politics, make sure its actually something legitimate and not something some random idiot tried to interpret with their own personal agenda. because this thread no longer has any real purpose....