| retmil46 |
10-18-2006 12:17 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
(Post 1306205)
There is so much posturing about the new law that frankly, I don't know what the truth of it is.
Congress & president have been wrangling over treatment of prisoners and trial of suspected terrorists almost since the invasion of Afghanistan. The administration asserted that as CiC, the president, in time of war as enacted by Congress, could define who is an enemy combatant and how those persons could be treated. Nobody griped too much about it until a couple of American citizens were caught in the anti-terrorism net.
The question before the courts was this: is a presidential decree of combatant status sufficient to abrogate the natural rights of citizenship? It took several years to find its way up through the appeals system and the Supremes essentially said that a citizen retains his rights.
Concomitantly, non-citizens captured overseas and domestically were jailed and interrogated without either the full protection afforded legal aliens or citizens or legal combatants (according to the Geneva Conventions). These people were held without trial as enemy combatants but not given recognition as POW's through the Geneva Conventions (for a variety of reasons including not fighting in a uniform or under a banner, not carrying weapons openly, making war against noncombatants, concealing themselves in areas proscribed by the Conventions, and others). Bowing to international and domestic pressure, the administration, acting as CinC, established tribunals to administer military proceedings against some of the combatants. This process also was open to appeal, which was granted.
The appeals went to the Supremes who said that the process was flawed because it was enacted without going through the legal process required by law: passage through both houses of Congress.
So, this law was Congress' attempt to address both issues that the Supreme Court required.
I have not read the law and I have yet to read what I would consider an unbiased, objective analysis of the law. The one thing that I have heard that I think is extremely dangerous, if true, is that this law allows for attenuation of certain constitutional guarantees even to citizens. In all honesty, I don't give a damn what happens to some murderous bastard collected on the field of battle who is not a citizen. Waterboard the mofo, I don't care.
But I do not think that the CinC should have the power to declare a citizen unworthy of the rights of citizenship.
My opinion. Based on lots of opinion from lots of partisan jerks and no facts.
B
|
Agreed.
I've read in the paper that Sen Graham (R-SC) got what could be considered by many "payback" for his opposition to parts of the bill. Up until now, he had also been a military appeals judge in the Air Force Reserve. Rather strange timing, that just on the heels of his vocal opposition, it's been decided that it's illegal for him to be both a U.S. Senator and a military appeals judge, and was summarily removed from the bench.
IMHO, and I do mean opinion, after 20 years of watching firsthand some of the political BS that went on in the military, this WAS payback.
What impressed me was watching the three-stars that were head of their respective services' JAG corps, standing on their hind legs in front of a Senate committee and consistently saying "NO!" when it came to rewriting the Geneva Convention definition of torture. Sadly, I have the feeling that once the hoorah over this has died down, these three gents will get the infamous "congrats on your recent retirement" letter from Rumsfeld.
In my opinion one part of the bill is highly hypocritical. Giving CIA personnel legal immunity from prosecution for whatever methods of interrogation they use, when said methods could very well go above and beyond what was done at Abu Ghraib, and for which several enlisted military personnel are going to prison. |
