Repeal The Military Commissions Act

[smoogatz]

This is just incredible:

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/11/military-commissions-act-in-action.html

[LilyLibber]

1. Well said.

There is no greater betrayal of the core principles of American political life than to have the federal government sweep people off the streets, throw them into a black hole with no contact with the outside world and no charges asserted of any kind, and simply keep them there for as long as the President desires...

As always, the most extraordinary and jarring aspect of cases like this one is that these principles -- which were once the undebatable, immovable bedrock of our political system -- are now openly debated and actively disputed by our own government. By itself it is astonishing -- and highly revealing about where we are as a country -- that such precepts even need to be defended at all.

Hear, hear! :applause:

I am immensely relieved that Reid is making this a priority.

[Hissyspit]

5. Articulate, concise and the truth. n/t

[grizmaster]

2. Restoring habeus corpus

and taking away amnesty for the war crimes of the bush junta should be the Senate's highest priority

[OneBlueSky]

3. I'll second that . . . should be right near the top of the priorities list . . .

along with election reform and preventing BushCo from starting World War III . . .

[pat_k]

4. Call it what it is "The War Criminals Protection Act of 2006". . .

If they refuse to repeal it, perhaps they'll introduce a resolution to change the name?

In any case, we should always call it what it is: "The War Criminals Protection Act"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2432091

[mmonk]

6. which ironically has led

to the second attempt to charge Rumsfeld with war crimes internationally along with others.

[pat_k]

8. The "Rights Not Judicially" enforceable. . .

. . .provision ought to be front and center in the arguments being made to the German prosecutor. (Congress may have stripped the damning label from the provision in the final version, but they did nothing about the damning content.)

The first time they called on the German prosecutor to act, Germany refrained to give the United States courts, the proper jurisdiction, an opportunity to act.

The "Rights Not Judicially Enforceable" provision of the War Criminals Protection Act is an unequivocal declaration that our Courts have NO jurisdiction when it comes to violations of Geneva.

When the War Criminal Protection Act declared our courts "off limits" they made it crystal clear we wouldn't act and thereby gave the German prosecutor a compelling reason to act.

An interesting phrase was left out of the final version of the War Criminals Protection Act.

The phrase: "RIGHTS NOT JUDICIALLY ENFORCEABLE."

The phrase itself demonstrates a recognition that rights actually existed, and the intent to violate those rights through non-enforcement.

Yes. It is just that simple.

Case Closed on the newly inaugurated War Criminal Nation.

If they are Rights they Cannot be Unenforceable.

• Original
  White House version
  SEC. 6. SATISFACTION OF TREATY OBLIGATIONS.
  (b) RIGHTS NOT JUDICIALLY ENFORCEABLE.
  (1) IN GENERAL.—No person in any habeas action or any other action may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto as a source of rights, whether directly or indirectly, for any purpose in any court of the United States or its States or territories. . .
  
  http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/nkk/documents/MilitaryCommissions.pdf



• Final version
  (Enrolled Bill) as passed by both Houses
  
  SEC. 5. TREATY OBLIGATIONS NOT ESTABLISHING GROUNDS FOR CERTAIN CLAIMS.
  (a) In General- No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories.
  
  To view the bill search at http://thomas.loc.gov (enter "S.3930.ENR" and select the Bill Number radio button. The printer friendly version is easiest to search)

[treestar]

7. Absolutely! Make this the high water mark for the bid for an all-powerful

executive.

The Decider must be put in his place.

[Canuckistanian]

9. Why are they doing this?

I mean, on a "practical" level? Do they expect to get intelligence from him? Now that he's been in for five years, he's already told them all he knows. Probably even made up a few things.

And even if he does say something he's never said before, that information is now five years old.

I'm not sure how Glenn knows that the FBI statements were false, but no evidence has ever been presented to his lawyer.

Is this a total fabrication? Are the charges legit?

We'll never know, now.

[smoogatz]

10. If they let him go, he'll sue them

and go to the press. Can't have that.

[Canuckistanian]

12. Yeah, that's the only reason I could think of.

One man's life for another man's avoidance of discomfort.

Both tragic and pathetic.

[smoogatz]

13. Yep.

They really are a bunch of dirty, low-down sons of bitches.

[pberq]

11. Kick & Nominated