|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 1:02 am Post subject: The Military Commissions Act |
 |
|
Fact Sheet: MCA
| Quote: |
Fact Sheet on The Military Commissions Act of 2006
From The World Can't Wait - Drive Out the Bush Regime!
Here�s what some experts have said about the Military Commissions Act:
Jonathan Turley, Professor of Law at George Washington University Law School: �The president can now, with the approval of Congress, indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions.�
Senator Patrick Leahy, Vermont: �What they�re saying is that if you�re an alien, even if you�re in the United States legally, a legal alien, may have been here ten years, fifteen years, twenty years legally, if a determination is made by anybody in the executive that you may be a threat, they can hold you indefinitely, they could put you in Guantanamo, not bring any charges, not allow you to have a lawyer, not allow you to ever question what they�ve done, even in cases, as they now acknowledge, where they have large numbers of people in Guantanamo who are there by mistake�� [emphasis added]
Center for Constitutional Rights: �Once in U.S. custody, the law allows detainees to be subjected to stress positions, temperature extremes, sleep deprivation, and possibly waterboarding. It also defines sexual violence crimes so narrowly that some of the outrages of Abu Ghraib, such as forced nudity, would not be punishable, and defines rape and sexual abuse in a manner that is inconsistent with international law, turning back the clock on the hard-fought victories of survivors of sexual violence.�
Why is the MCA being characterized this way? Let�s look at what the law says:
*
Creates a new legal category of prisoner; �unlawful enemy combatant�; defines the term unlawful enemy combatant as �a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States� OR a person whom a combatant status review tribunal established by the president or Secretary of Defense has decided is an unlawful enemy combatant. [Section 3, Military Commissions; Subchapter I, General Provisions; 948a, Definitions]
As Bill Goodman of the Center for Constitutional Rights points out, the terms �hostilities� and �material support� are so vague that the President could easily apply the label of enemy combatant to U.S. citizens as well as non-citizens. For instance, Goodman says, a peaceful group that challenges Bush�s wars, or someone who donates to a charity in Afghanistan, unaware that charity has been determined by the U.S. government to have connections to terrorists, could find themselves declared enemy combatants.
Once someone has been defined as an unlawful enemy combatant, what happens next?
*
That person can be detained indefinitely without charge, and without the right to challenge their detention. Habeas corpus�the right to challenge one�s imprisonment�has its origins in the Magna Carta of 1215. But the Military Commissions Act clearly eliminates these 800-year-old rights: �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.� [SECTION 7 �Habeas Corpus Matters,� e (1)]
*
That person is explicitly not protected by Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which outlaws violence, cruelty, and torture as well as humiliating and degrading treatment. �No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights.� [Section 3, �Military Commissions�; Subchapter I, 948b]
*
Evidence obtained through coercion can be used against that person [Section 3, Military Commissions; Subchapter III, Pretrial Procedures, 948r]
�A statement of the accused that is otherwise admissible shall not be excluded from trial by military commission on grounds of alleged coercion or compulsory self-incrimination so long as the evidence complies with the provisions of section 948r of this title.� [Section 3, Subchapter III, 949a.]
*
Hearsay evidence�second-hand statements made by those not present during legal proceedings�can be used against that person. [Section 3, Military Commissions, Subchapter III, 949a]
*
That person can be denied opportunity to confront key evidence against him if a military judge deems that evidence to be classified: �The military judge, upon motion of trial counsel, shall authorize trial counsel, in the course of complying with discovery obligations under this section, to protect from disclosure the sources, methods, or activities by which the United States acquired evidence if the military judge finds that the sources, methods, or activities by which the United States acquired such evidence are classified.� [Section 3, Subchapter IV, 949d.]
*
President George W. Bush is granted the power to interpret the Geneva Conventions, and what forms of treatment constitute grave breaches of these conventions.
�As provided by the Constitution and by this section, the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and to promulgate higher standards and administrative regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.� [Section 6, Article 3A]
Keep in mind, this is the same George W. Bush who is responsible for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and U.S. deaths in a war he lied his way into.
To see for yourself, click here to read a PDF of the entire text of the Military Commissions Act.
�That which you do not resist�or mobilize to stop�you will learn, or be forced to accept.� |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 1:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
This was passed Oct 2006, was it not?
I don't think it'll be touched by Congress until after Bush has left office. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm thinking it will. The snowball is starting to roll. Murtha used the I-word this weekend.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Who in heck is Murtha, and more importantly, who cares?
That entire article cited by EFL is full of coulda, shoulda, woulda junk.
Bush will not be impeached, get over it.
Cheney will not be impeached, get over it.
Clinton was impeached, deservedly so.
The Republicans will win the next presidential election, because
1. The electoral college
2. about 35% of the US will vote conservative. Many of the others will not vote for a black or a woman. As much as Barak Hussein Obama or Hillary (lard butt) Clinton maydeserve to win they cannot. because of a substantial core that will not accept them.
3. I sort of hope the Democrats do win. The US economy is due for a recession and they will get the blame - and they know it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Please excuse me as i'm rather unschooled in such matters, however, doesn't this perhaps have something to do with the POSSE COMMITATUS (sic) ?
Either way, its all clearly pretty important stuff.
Get up, stand up! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
double
Last edited by EFLtrainer on Sun Apr 29, 2007 9:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| contrarian wrote: |
| Uh... what does "on-topic" mean? Drivel driveldrivel... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The present Executive Administration still has less than half the authority of the FDR Administration or the Lincoln administration.
The present Executive Administration still has less than half the abuses of the Grant administration.
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 1:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
The present Executive Administration still has less than half the authority of the FDR Administration or the Lincoln administration.
The present Executive Administration still has less than half the abuses of the Grant administration.
cbc |
No cites = bullshit.
And tell me, sir, outside of marshal law, which president had his party give him the right to incarcerate anyone, at any time? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spliff
Joined: 19 Jan 2004
Location: Khon Kaen, Thailand
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hilery = lard butt = funny. When's the impeachment gonna happen there ole EFLnobrainer....  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 3:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
POSSE COMMITATUS ACT
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. � 1385) passed on June 16, 1878 after the end of Reconstruction.
The Act was intended to prohibit Federal troops from supervising elections in former Confederate states. It generally prohibits Federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under Federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act substantially limit the powers of the Federal government to use the military for law enforcement 
The original act referred only to the United States Army. The Air Force was added in 1956, and the Navy and the Marine Corps have been included by a regulation of the Department of Defense. This law is often mentioned when it appears that the Department of Defense is interfering in domestic disturbances.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
