Quote :

"Detainee bill lifts Bush's power to new heights President now has legal authority even courts can't challenge (09-30) 04:00 PDT Washington -- With the final passage through Congress of the detainee treatment bill, President Bush achieved a signal victory Friday, shoring up with legislation his determined campaign against terrorism in the face of challenges from critics and the courts. Rather than reining in the formidable presidential powers that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have asserted since Sept. 11, 2001, the law gives some of those powers a solid statutory foundation. In effect it allows the president to identify enemies, imprison them indefinitely and interrogate them -- albeit with a ban on the harshest treatment -- beyond the reach of the full court reviews traditionally afforded criminal defendants and ordinary prisoners. Taken as a whole, the law will give the president more power over terrorism suspects than he had before the Supreme Court decision this summer in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld that undercut more than four years of White House policy. It does, however, grant detainees brought before military commissions limited protections initially opposed by the White House. The bill, which cleared a final procedural hurdle in the House on Friday and is likely to be signed into law next week by Bush, does more than allow the president to determine the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions; it strips the courts of jurisdiction to hear challenges to his interpretation. And it broadens the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" to include not only those who fight the United States, but also those who have "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States." The latter group could include those accused of providing financial or other indirect support to terrorists, human rights groups say. The designation can be made by any "competent tribunal" created by the president or secretary of defense. In very specific ways, the bill is a rejoinder to the Supreme Court's Hamdan ruling, in which several justices said the absence of congressional authorization was a central flaw in the administration's approach. The new bill solves that problem, legal experts said. "I think he can reasonably be confident that this statute answers the Supreme Court and puts him back in a position to prevent another attack, which is the goal of interrogation," said Douglas Kmiec, a conservative legal scholar at the Pepperdine University School of Law. But lawsuits challenging the bill are inevitable, and critics say substantial parts of it may well be rejected by the Supreme Court. Overall, the legislation reallocates power among the three branches of government, taking authority away from the judiciary and handing it to the president. Bruce Ackerman, a critic of the administration and a professor of law and political science at Yale University, sharply criticized the bill but agreed that it strengthened the White House position. "The president walked away with a lot more than most people thought," Ackerman said. He said the bill "further entrenches presidential power" and allows the administration to declare even a U.S. citizen an unlawful combatant subject to indefinite detention. "And it's not only about these prisoners," Ackerman said. "If Congress can strip courts of jurisdiction over cases because it fears their outcome, judicial independence is threatened." Even if the Supreme Court decides it has the power to hear challenges to the new law, the Bush administration has gained a crucial advantage. In adding a congressional imprimatur to a comprehensive set of procedures and tactics, lawmakers explicitly endorsed measures of the sort that in some other eras had been achieved by executive fiat. Earlier Supreme Court decisions have suggested that the president and Congress acting together in the national security arena can be an all but unstoppable force. The debate over the limits of torture and the rules for military commissions dominated discussion of the bill until this week. Only in the last few days has broad attention turned to its redefinition of "unlawful enemy combatant" and its ban on habeas corpus petitions that suspects have traditionally used to challenge their incarceration. Law professors will stay busy for months debating the implications. The most outspoken critics have compared the law's sweeping provisions to dark chapters in history, comparable to the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts in the fragile years after the nation's founding and the internment of Japanese Americans in the midst of World War II. Conservative legal experts, by contrast, said critics can no longer maintain that the Bush administration is guilty of unilateral executive overreaching. Congressional approval can cure many ills, Justice Robert Jackson wrote in his seminal concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube vs Sawyer, the 1952 case that struck down President Harry Truman's unilateral seizure of the nation's steel mills during the Korean War. Supporters of the law, in fact, say that its critics will never be satisfied. "For years they've been saying that we don't like Bush doing things unilaterally, that we don't like Bush doing things piecemeal," said David Rivkin, a former Justice Department official in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and the elder George Bush. How the measure will look decades hence may depend not just on how it is used but on how the terrorist threat evolves. If major terrorist plots in the United States are uncovered -- and surely if one succeeds -- it may vindicate the congressional decision to give the government more leeway to seize and question those who might know about the next attack. But if the attacks of 2001 recede as a devastating but unique tragedy, the decision to create a new legal framework may seem like overkill. "

ok i don't give a fuck if you're republican, democrat, libertarian, whatever. this is absolutely the wrong thing to do. you do NOT give power like this to one individual. now yes, it is highly unlikely that he will truly abuse this, ie imprisoning political dissenters and people of that nature. but ideaologically, you cannot do this. we are NOT immune to the breakdowns of nations in the past. there is no reason to believe that we will always be the beacon of the world. there is nothing to say that we won't end up with some corrupt politician or someone with the desire to be a dictator elected into power. we've elected shitty people into political positions before, as is completely evident with the recent foley thing.

10/3/2006 2:27:49 PM

ehh...i dont care who you are...this is absolutely the right thing to do. most americans feel that way and thank god that the majority of the our elected officials are more in touch with what americans think than are most liberals such as ^

10/3/2006 2:29:57 PM

Quote :

"And it's not only about these prisoners," Ackerman said. "If Congress can strip courts of jurisdiction over cases because it fears their outcome, judicial independence is threatened." "

is my main point

10/3/2006 2:31:17 PM

Hail Caesar!

10/3/2006 2:31:37 PM

Quote :

"But lawsuits challenging the bill are inevitable, and critics say substantial parts of it may well be rejected by the Supreme Court. Overall, the legislation reallocates power among the three branches of government, taking authority away from the judiciary and handing it to the president. "

Hopefully our 3-party system works the way it's suppose to, and this comes to pass.

What happened to Conservatives wanting smaller gov.? The President can do now anything that he needs to do to stop terrorism. All this bill does inch those powers ahead more, giving the next presidents power to inch it up even further, which is completely unnecessary.

[Edited on October 3, 2006 at 2:34 PM. Reason : ]

10/3/2006 2:32:20 PM

Quote :

"What happened to Conservatives wanting smaller gov.? "

i agree with what i think you're trying to say, but in actuality this would be an example of smaller govt, completely removing the judicial branch out of the loop


i am astounded by the lack of even a BASIC intelligence of the people who support this administration

[Edited on October 3, 2006 at 2:42 PM. Reason : jank]

10/3/2006 2:42:19 PM

sometimes i wish the us was communist

10/3/2006 2:43:04 PM

I didn't read the whole article, but I didn't see it mention even once that this new law does not apply to either U.S. Citizens or to individuals that have set foot on U.S. soil.

Therefore, the only people that are having their right to trial revoked by this law are non-U.S. citizens captured abroad that have been publicly named by the President of the United States.

10/3/2006 3:11:36 PM

Quote :

"Therefore, the only people that are having their right to trial revoked by this law are non-U.S. citizens captured abroad that have been publicly named by the President of the United States."

violate other countries sovereignty. W00t. does this mean the US will finally become member to the ICC and ICJ?

10/3/2006 3:13:06 PM

Quote :

" now yes, it is highly unlikely that he will has already truly abused this"

Fixed.

[Edited on October 3, 2006 at 3:13 PM. Reason : /]

10/3/2006 3:13:30 PM

^^ I didn't mean to imply it was good, I am personally offended by the mear suggestion that we are kidnapping people from the countries of allies, such as Britain or Canada. Doing so is morally wrong and unnecessary, just call the police and have them investigate the individuals in question.

All I was saying was that we are not a police state quite yet. He cannot have political opponents arrested and you don't yet have to worry about going to the store and vanishing into some jail in Eastern Europe.

10/3/2006 3:25:38 PM

^unless you're an immigrant from the axis of evil. . .

10/3/2006 3:36:37 PM

Quote :

"Therefore, the only people that are having their right to trial revoked by this law are non-U.S. citizens captured abroad that have been publicly named by the President of the United States."

This is not true ... American citizens on U.S. soil can be arrested for "helping" terrorists and sent before a tribunal ... this is truly scary ... and I don't understand why it doesn't scare "conservatives" ....

10/3/2006 3:39:15 PM

Jose Padilla

10/3/2006 3:51:47 PM

Fucked up. I hope the courts overthrow this.

Quote :

"ehh...i dont care who you are...this is absolutely the right thing to do. most americans feel that way and thank god that the majority of the our elected officials are more in touch with what americans think than are most liberals such as"

What's liberal about separation of powers? This law is unconstitutional.

10/3/2006 4:01:35 PM

10/3/2006 4:05:34 PM

I do not care at all about terrorists' rights. As far as I'm concerned they have no rights at all. And since courts are there to enforce rights, it naturally follows that terrorists should not have access to courts.

The law is not unconstitutional - the Congress may divest the courts of jurisdiction over anything and everything if it wants to. And the Supreme Court's whole problem in Hamdi was not the substance of what Bush was doing, the Supreme Court had a problem with the fact that Congress had not authorized it. Now Congress has authorized it. What's the further controversy?

10/3/2006 4:06:01 PM

Quote :

"This is not true ... American citizens on U.S. soil can be arrested for "helping" terrorists and sent before a tribunal ... this is truly scary ... and I don't understand why it doesn't scare "conservatives" ...."

No, that is not true. A U.S. Citizen can petition a Federal Judge to expedite his case if he has been charged but is being held in detention. If he has not been charged after a certain amount of time a Federal Judge can order him released. All your constitutional protections are still in place and have not been altered.

It is just that more stuff is illegal now so we are more likely to end up where we have been able to end up for the past 70 years but didn't know it. For example, throughout the cold war Soviet spies with U.S. Citizenship were tried in similar tribunals (and sometimes later executed) in order to maintain secrecy on matters of national security. We just all forgot that those laws were on the books in the 90s because they were never used.

This country hasn't been free for 90 years, so don't suddenly panic when you realize where we are in relation to the fantasy America in your mind.

Quote :

"What's liberal about separation of powers? This law is unconstitutional."

The U.S. Constitution does not address foreign nationals captured outside U.S. territories.

[Edited on October 3, 2006 at 4:21 PM. Reason : .,.]

10/3/2006 4:20:33 PM

Delegating judicial authority to the president... seems like something that should need a full-blown constitutional ammendment.

10/3/2006 4:22:57 PM

Quote :

"No, that is not true. A U.S. Citizen can petition a Federal Judge to expedite his case if he has been charged but is being held in detention. If he has not been charged after a certain amount of time a Federal Judge can order him released. All your constitutional protections are still in place and have not been altered."

Jose Padilla

Quote :

"I do not care at all about terrorists' rights. As far as I'm concerned they have no rights at all. And since courts are there to enforce rights, it naturally follows that terrorists should not have access to courts."

That is where you are wrong. All people no matter their beliefs or actions have rights.

[Edited on October 3, 2006 at 4:24 PM. Reason : .]

10/3/2006 4:23:47 PM

nutsmackr what rights would you give to Usama bin Ladin?

10/3/2006 4:27:23 PM

As for me, I give Osama Bin Laden the right to remain silent while he gets his ass shot full of bullets.

10/3/2006 4:33:07 PM

People acused of really, really bad crimes are always guilty. It's a fact. Therefore, these people deserve no rights.

Also, what has habeas corpus ever done for me?

[Edited on October 3, 2006 at 4:34 PM. Reason : .]

10/3/2006 4:34:16 PM

^what rights would YOU give Usama?

10/3/2006 4:35:00 PM

The same rights of the accused we afford all people.

Because we're a nation of laws

Do you really think affording him these rights would delay him getting gassed that much?

10/3/2006 4:37:23 PM

I mean, thats all well and good if he was a citizen


but I'd say he's more of a combatant than a citizen

hell even he calls himself a combatant

10/3/2006 4:43:24 PM

Quote :

"I mean, thats all well and good if he was a citizen but I'd say he's more of a combatant than a citizen hell even he calls himself a combatant"

that doesn't mean he isn't a human.

Shit, we gave the Nazis trials.

10/3/2006 4:44:29 PM

^^Yet terrorists don't fall under the protection of the Geneva Convention?

oh wait! You want it both ways. Try them in civil courts? No way man, they're combatants! Try them according to the Geneva Convention? No way man, they're not combatants!

So you choose option C, which is to hold people accused of a crime in a cage for years without habeas corpus or a trial, which is offensive to the ideals we're supposedly fighting for in the War on Terror.

[Edited on October 3, 2006 at 4:48 PM. Reason : ^^]

10/3/2006 4:48:45 PM

Since when did due process seperation of powers become fringe left ideas?

10/3/2006 4:49:35 PM

since republicans got all the power

10/3/2006 4:53:04 PM

Wolfpack2K:

Quote :

"I do not care at all about terrorist's rights ... What's the further controversy?"

Typical ... frame every loss of legal rights as "being soft on terrorism".

This is not about terrorist's rights. This is about the fact that the executive branch can now pick up anyone (U.S. citizen or not), claim they are "helping terrorists", put them before a "tribunal", without judicial review, without habias corpus, and try them without them without ever giving them a chance to face their accusers.

I don't understand why this doesn't scare the hell out of everyone, conservative or liberal. That's the controversy.

This doesn't just apply to terrorists, it applies to every U.S. citizen.

[Edited on October 3, 2006 at 5:09 PM. Reason : *~<]Bo]

10/3/2006 5:06:31 PM

Quote :

"This is not about terrorist's rights. This is about the fact that the executive branch can now pick up anyone "

precisely! people who say "they won't abuse it" are placing far too much trust in a position that is filled 90% of the time by a rich, white, ego-driven person who loves power.

i'm not saying i'm some conspiracy person who thinks they are trying to control the country. but you extreme right fuckers talk so much about how we have to stop the terrorists before they do something and not after, then why don't we sit back and try to stop the erosion of our constitution before it happens and not try to put it back together after

[Edited on October 3, 2006 at 5:12 PM. Reason : jank]

10/3/2006 5:08:45 PM

i think we could all learn a lesson from starwars episode II haha

10/3/2006 5:15:30 PM

how is this NOT destroying checks and balances?

10/3/2006 5:17:09 PM

It is checks and balances in action. Congress has checked and balanced the power of the courts by stripping them of their jurisdiction in certain types of cases. Which Congress has the absolute right to do.

10/3/2006 7:05:50 PM

You got to love the irony that the only lawyer in this thread is the one who is anti-court.

10/3/2006 7:10:52 PM

In recent news, Congress voted to take away the President's veto power. They had the absolute right to do it.

Checks and Balances only works via the powers given to each branch in the Constitution. Making up crap to empower a branch you like over a branch you don't is not a check.

10/3/2006 7:18:16 PM

So the real question is when the next party gets their president will he push to have the law repealed? Anyone want to take bets?

10/3/2006 7:19:16 PM

Where in the Constitution does Congress have the power to eliminate the President's veto power?

I can point to exactly where in the Constitution Congress is given the power to eliminate the jurisdiction of the courts.

So those two things are not similar at all, are they?

Quote :

"Checks and Balances only works via the powers given to each branch in the Constitution"

Exactly. And in the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make exceptions to the jurisdiction of the Courts.

[Edited on October 3, 2006 at 7:22 PM. Reason : add]

10/3/2006 7:22:04 PM

The Congress sets up the SC = the Congress can ban the SC from ruling on certain issues when it fears the outcome?

10/3/2006 7:30:14 PM

Quote :

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. "

Congress may make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

[Edited on October 3, 2006 at 7:55 PM. Reason : add]

10/3/2006 7:55:18 PM

Let's not delute the subject ... they can do it, if they do it ... and they have.

Quote :

"the executive branch can now pick up anyone (U.S. citizen or not), claim they are "helping terrorists", put them before a "tribunal", without judicial review, without habeas corpus, and try them without them without ever giving them a chance to face their accusers"

The president and the congress have just deprived you of your rights, as outlined in the constitution. They get to define you and your legal status. They have just defined away your rights as a U.S. citizen. I mean, Habeas Corpus is basic, and they can say you don't deserve it ... This creates, quite simply, a police state.

Let's hope the Supreme Court sees this for what it is. That's unlikely though, now that they've been stacked. It's a sad day for the constitution.

[Edited on October 3, 2006 at 8:06 PM. Reason : *~<]Bo]

10/3/2006 8:05:00 PM

Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus. And he didn't even have Congressional approval (nor did he need it); he did it on his own.

10/3/2006 8:11:43 PM

Wolfpack2K,
Are you suggesting that suspending Habeas Corpus is a good thing? ... (doesn't that scare the hell out of you) ... you act like it's a normal state of affairs ... because one president did it 150 years ago ... didn't he also declare martial law? ... would you suggest that also, to fight terrorism?... Thank you for showing how serious, and scary, this is.

[Edited on October 3, 2006 at 8:49 PM. Reason : *~<]Bo]

10/3/2006 8:37:19 PM

Quote :

"Are you suggesting that suspending Habeas Corpus is a good thing?"

it was a great thing

10/3/2006 8:40:03 PM

Wow, that shows how informed you are about the subject.

It was Seward's weapon of choice against political enemies. The threat from within was completely exaggerated.

Hell, if you doubt it I suggest Justice William Rehnquist's book on the matter.


P.S., let's round up all Muslims into concentration camps. There's Presidential precedence for that, too.

[Edited on October 3, 2006 at 8:49 PM. Reason : political expediency > principles]

10/3/2006 8:45:47 PM

During the Civil War? .... There's a precident to strive for ... everyone should be worried ...

10/3/2006 8:47:13 PM

im tired of shit like this happening

10/3/2006 8:57:37 PM

What scares the hell out of me is not that some terrorist might not be able to cloak himself in the Constitution. What scares the hell out of me is a terrorist flying an airplane into a building.

I do not care about terrorists rights. They all need to be rounded up and executed.

10/3/2006 9:03:19 PM

chickenshit

furthermore, I'm infinitely thankful that our founding fathers weren't so spineless.

[Edited on October 3, 2006 at 9:05 PM. Reason : .]

10/3/2006 9:04:41 PM