Well if you capture them trying to kill you on the battlefield with a chant of Death To America, body clean shaven, with a missle launcher, Kuran and Turban is it difficult to do the math Donkey?

WaterBoarding is ok, irrelevant of anythign else, its not torture by law or definition.

Do I really have to explain why it is extremely stupid to assume that all legal residents ACCUSED of terrorism by someone who also invaded Iraq because he stupidly thought it had WMDs at the time actually ARE terrorists?

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Do you have solid proof that all people who have ever been accused of terrorism or illegal fighting fit that description?

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Well, for one Al-Qaeda isn't saying heads off because they have the ability to broadcast it every night if they wanted.

How does this bill help them NOT do that again??

I for one don't think Bush would do that.
But he can...legally....or anyone coming after him. And that's where the problem is.

__________________
I want to change the world but they won't give me the source code.

I don't understand. You are essentially saying that if one is suspected of "terrorist" activities, then one is automatically guilty of terrorist activities? And not only is that person automatically guilty, but also he or she does not have the right to challenge the charge?

Is that justice?

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

Of course not, they're terrorists they don't deserve justice. Now while I say this in sarcasm, it is a response we can almost expect.

For traveller and sam, I remind you again, most constitutional rights, such as habeas corpus, do not exist for the criminal they exist for the wrongfully accused.

But how can one even start the debate here? When someone so clearly, and so brazenly exclaim their hatred for, and ignorance of american values, while simultaneously claiming to love america, how can you argue for american values? The other side deludes themselves into a fantasy world where terrorists are the worst threat we've ever faced, where the constitution is "just a piece of paper", yet simultaneously where they can expect to considered "real americans" because they thump their chest and talk big about how they want to destroy the constitution out of fear of an enemy which was considered not more then a nuisance for the past 100 years.

Traveler, the fact that so many with such a wide variety of political philosophies oppose this should tell you something. It is a bad bill.

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

Wow alot of democrats also voted for this i was suprised at some the liberal names like rockefeller . salazar too ...

Guess they want to sound tough on terrorism and not principle

__________________
Hardcore Conservative !

I said Conservative not necessarly Republican or Democrat. Liberals are in both of those parties.

The bill is called S. 3930; the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Here is the link to the text from the Library of Congress. These are the three versions; obviously, the best one to consult is the one passed by both House and Senate. The link may time out eventually, but you have the info to search for it anyway.

[http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.3930:].

According to one site (Irregular Times), the bill will do the following [http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/...-3930-summary/]:

I haven't had the time yet to compare these charges to the actual text of the bill, though I think that this guy is exaggerating (and certainly his tone is not as objective as it could be, and he does not link or quote the bill itself). If he isn't exaggerating... fuck.

All in the name of security. I hope that this act is heavily amended by federal court (or at least struck down).

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

Here is what I do not understand - if we were able to allow rights of due process to the Nazis after WW2 for example, easily as repugnant a group of people as any Al Queda member in my view, then why can't we continue that tradition? I heard this report on NPR this morning which expressed my thoughts better than I can:

"Sixty years ago, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg handed down its first verdict against Nazi war criminals. The Nuremberg trials were structured as a blueprint for something new in international law law... "crimes against humanity" and "crimes against peace".

The evidence presented was the first account to the world of the Nazis' atrocities and mass murders. Commentator Clancy Sigal was a sergeant in the American army of occupation in Germany:

I was the only Jew in my unit. I told no one when I put my .45 automatic in my holster and sneaked away to the International War Crimes trial at Nuremberg.

I wanted to look Herman Goering in the eye and shoot him dead.

Next to Adolf Hitler, Goering was the most powerful man in the Nazi Third Reich. He created the first concentration camps and he was the driving force behind the decrees which stripped Jews of their civil rights.

In the foyer of the court building, Furtherstrasse 22, military police made me check my weapon. At first I was angry. I'd stored up a lot of hatred for the top Nazis like Goering who'd operated the "Final Solution" to kill Jews.

But inside the courtroom I felt something like relief. Suddenly, it was unthinkable to add one more act of violence to the solemn, businesslike presentation of evidence. Evidence which included the shrunken heads of tortured prisoners and lampshades made of human skin. It moved me beyond tears to a sort of numbness.

The U.S. War Department was determined that Goering and the other Nazis leaders would receive a fair trial. At Nuremberg, there would be no secret evidence or closed proceedings. The Allies believed that would betray their ideal of restoring democracy in Germany.

For three days, I couldn't take my eyes off Goering, who lounged in the dock like a bored Roman emperor. Minus his sashes and medals, he looked slightly naked in a white uniform jacket, even emaciated down from his former huge bulk.

As concentration camp survivors testified, I sometimes caught Goering's cold, unblinking stare, which was full of contempt for the Tribunal and the witnesses.

When the prosecution showed films of piled-up corpses at Auschwitz, Goering kept turning his head away, sometimes in my direction. I'm ashamed to say he stared me down, because I'd never before felt myself in the presence of such unmitigated evil.

I returned to my unit and didn't see Goering testify on cross-examination. Newspaper and radio correspondents like Walter Cronkite told us of his brazen lack of repentance in the witness box.

On Oct. 1, 1946, the Allied judges handed down their sentences. Most of the accused were found guilty and sentenced to death. Goering swallowed a cyanide pill just hours before he was to mount the gallows.

Today, in the midst of a national debate on how to treat captured terror suspects, my mind flashes back to Room 600 at Furtherstrasse 22. We gave Goering and the other war criminals a chance not only to defend themselves but in some cases, preach hate and violence.

In a ruined Germany, where so many corpses still lay buried in the rubble, and life seemed so very fragile, we found it in ourselves to give the worst of men due process."

__________________

Don't startle him, Joe - it's almost full!

You sound surprised. I'd say this board is about 90% liberals; how do you expect them to respond to something they think might hurt the president? This is W you know. They make outright lies that we're going to be detaining people indiscriminantly; the furthest thing from the truth or even reality. They make general associations to the 'animal farm' but anyone who's read a book or two can find numerous examples of out of control socialism where the govn literally steals the life of it's citizens; i.e. social security. I mean we have numbers that identify who were are and where we live and where we come from (SSN) which incidentally goes against everything christians believe. You know that whole mark of the beast thing.

This is nothing more than political gesturing by opponents of the govn that have yet to aid the US in it's fight against these islamo terrorists.

Varus

I am scarcely a "liberal", but I have serious reservations about the dissolution of habeas corpus.

Bring these folks before a tribunal, examine the evidence, and charge them accordingly.

But to detain indefinitely without trial is antithetical to our system of governance.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Agreeing w/Matt, what is wrong with trying them? Give 'em their day in court.

__________________

Don't startle him, Joe - it's almost full!

Because we're at war!!! This isn't a legal procedure these are attempts to keep another 911 from happening.

Varus