Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] what waterboarding looks like [Politics]

["Diana Hargus" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Mike Miller wrote:



> On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Hargus, Diana wrote:
>
> > `(b) Authority for Military Commissions Under This Chapter- The President 
> > is authorized to establish military commissions under this chapter for 
> > offenses triable by military commission as provided in this chapter. 
> > (from HR 6166 at http://thomas.loc.gov ; the links are dynamic and don't 
> > stay pointed to where they are supposed to point)
>
> So there'd be no oversight -- it's the President fully in control of the 
> whole thing.  Extreme case:  Bush says that John Kerry is an enemy 
> combatant, Bush has Kerry imprisoned, Kerry is brought before a "Military 
> Commission" hand picked by Bush, Kerry is not allowed to hear the evidence 
> against him, the Commission finds Kerry guilty, and Kerry has no further 
> recourse.  So what in the *law* would prevent Bush from doing this?  We 
> don't want to pass a series of laws that basically say "a military coup is 
> now legal in the US at the discretion of the President."

''§ 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

   Well, Kerry would have qualified under this one (with his actions in 
France), as well as Jane Fonda with her antics during the Vietnam Conflict 
(Police Action? War? )...

''(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.

   Again, they covered themselves pretty good here; referring to past 
offenses by anyone...

''(B) CO-BELLIGERENT.-In this paragraph, the term 'cobelligerent',
with respect to the United States, means any State
or armed force joining and directly engaged with the United
States in hostilities or directly supporting hostilities against
a common enemy.
''(2) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.-The term 'lawful enemy
combatant' means a person who is-
''(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party
engaged in hostilities against the United States;
''(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized
resistance movement belonging to a State party
engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible
command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at
a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the
law of war; or

   They were part of the organized movement againt the Vietnam Conflict. 
It is looking pretty bad for the home team here.

''(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes
allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities,
but not recognized by the United States.
''(3) ALIEN.-The term 'alien' means a person who is not
a citizen of the United States.

   Luckily, they are citizens, and we know that Bush would never weasel 
past that one.  :P

''(4) CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.-The term 'classified
information' means the following:
''(A) Any information or material that has been determined
by the United States Government pursuant to
statute, Executive order, or regulation to require protection
against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national
security.

   If they classified it today, would it be retroactive?  Nah, they 
wouldn't do that!

''(B) Any restricted data, as that term is defined in
section 11 y. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2014(y)).

> Of course, no President would pick out a single Senator and do as I just 
> stated.  He would do it to all of the senators at once (the ones who 
> weren't in on it anyway).  Same for the Supreme Court.  If this sounds 
> crazy and far-fetched to you, fine, but think about other nations -- it's 
> common there.  You just have to brainwash the military and you're all set. 
> Once you've eliminated most of the opposition in the House, Senate and 
> Supreme Court and declared martial law, you rewrite the constitution, 
> control the media, and you're golden.

  Don't go givimg them ideas now...


> > While searching for the full text of the bill, I came across this gem 
> > they were trying to get through:
> >
> > Universal National Service Act of 2006 (Introduced in House)
>
> If everyone was required to serve in the military, how many wars do you 
> think we'd have?  I'm sure that's what Rangel is up to, or he's trying to 
> make a point -- the rich make the poor serve for them, the rich don't 
> serve.

As many wars as we have soldiers, I am sure.

Just to let you know, I am on your side here, ok?  This is a very slippery 
slope we are on now, and our only hope is that the courts take this 
legislation and shoves it up the Congress' backside...

> Mike

Diana

Information in this post was obtained here:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.txt.pdf

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 84328 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!


_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion