July 31st, 2006
Well, holy crap. This is exactly what I’ve been talking about. This is what I’ve said was coming. And don’t give me that crap about “if you’re innocent, you have nothing to fear”. This is the kind of legislation meant to be abused. This legislation is not what America is supposed to be about. This is the kind of thing that leads to people disappearing from their homes in the middle of the night and no one hearing from them again because of something they accidently said on their cell phone or typed in their email.
Holy crap.
WASHINGTON –U.S. citizens suspected of terror ties might be detained indefinitely and barred from access to civilian courts under legislation proposed by the Bush administration, say legal experts reviewing an early version of the bill.
A 32-page draft measure is intended to authorize the Pentagon’s tribunal system, established shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks to detain and prosecute detainees captured in the war on terror. The tribunal system was thrown out last month by the Supreme Court.
Administration officials, who declined to comment on the draft, said the proposal was still under discussion and no final decisions had been made.
Senior officials are expected to discuss a final proposal before the Senate Armed Services Committee next Wednesday.
According to the draft, the military would be allowed to detain all “enemy combatants” until hostilities cease. The bill defines enemy combatants as anyone “engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners who has committed an act that violates the law of war and this statute.”
Legal experts said Friday that such language is dangerously broad and could authorize the military to detain indefinitely U.S. citizens who had only tenuous ties to terror networks like al Qaeda.
“That’s the big question … the definition of who can be detained,” said Martin Lederman, a law professor at Georgetown University who posted a copy of the bill to a Web blog.
Scott L. Silliman, a retired Air Force Judge Advocate, said the broad definition of enemy combatants is alarming because a U.S. citizen loosely suspected of terror ties would lose access to a civilian court — and all the rights that come with it. Administration officials have said they want to establish a secret court to try enemy combatants that factor in realities of the battlefield and would protect classified information.
The administration’s proposal, as considered at one point during discussions, would toss out several legal rights common in civilian and military courts, including barring hearsay evidence, guaranteeing “speedy trials” and granting a defendant access to evidence. The proposal also would allow defendants to be barred from their own trial and likely allow the submission of coerced testimony.
Senior Republican lawmakers have said they were briefed on the general discussions and have some concerns but are awaiting a final proposal before commenting on specifics.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England are expected to discuss the proposal in an open hearing next Wednesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Military lawyers also are scheduled to testify Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The legislation is the administration’s response to a June 29 Supreme Court decision, which concluded the Pentagon could not prosecute military detainees using secret tribunals established soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The court ruled the tribunals were not authorized by law and violated treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions, which established many international laws for warfare.
The landmark court decision countered long-held assertions by the Bush administration that the president did not need permission from Congress to prosecute “enemy combatants” captured in the war on terror and that al Qaeda members were not subject to Geneva Convention protections because of their unconventional status.
“In a time of ongoing armed conflict, it is neither practicable nor appropriate for enemy combatants like al Qaeda terrorists to be tried like American citizens in federal courts or courts-martial,” the proposal states.
The draft proposal contends that an existing law — passed by the Senate last year after exhaustive negotiations between the White House and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. — that bans cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment should “fully satisfy” the nation’s obligations under the Geneva Conventions.
Sen. John W. Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said Friday he expects to take up the detainee legislation in September. [“Bush submits new terror detainee bill”(boston.com)]
So…didn’t like how the Supreme Court ruled so, Bush and his Administration is trying to find a way around it. If they can’t hold non-citizens hostage, they’ll hold American’s hostage. What do you think they’ve been building those detention centers for? This is what you call a move to a Police State.
I mean, they already claim that “if you aren’t for them, you’re against them.” The next step would be to put those who speak out in prison. All you have to do is disagree. Protest the war. You’re gone. Attend a rally an anti-oil rally; you’re gone. Say something about how little testing the government does for Mad Cow or Bird Flu and you’ve disappeared. Vote Democratic and your house is empty. Have an abortion…Come out of the closet…Know the wrong secret…Have the wrong opinion…
Recommended Reading: The Bush Administration Draft Hamdan Response Bill
Tags: detention centers, Police State, politics, George W. Bush, Alberto Gonzales
April 7th, 2006
Is there anyone left in this country who really truly believes that Bush hasn’t already authorized the NSA to spy on Americans using wiretaps on purely domestic calls?
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales left open the possibility yesterday that President Bush could order warrantless wiretaps on telephone calls occurring solely within the United States — a move that would dramatically expand the reach of a controversial National Security Agency surveillance program.
In response to a question from Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) during an appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, Gonzales suggested that the administration could decide it was legal to listen in on a domestic call without supervision if it were related to al-Qaeda.
“I’m not going to rule it out,” Gonzales said.
In the past, Gonzales and other officials refused to say whether they had the legal authority to conduct warrantless eavesdropping on domestic calls, and have stressed that the NSA eavesdropping program is focused only on international communications.
Gonzales previously testified in the Senate that Bush had considered including purely domestic communications in the NSA spying program, but he said the idea was rejected in part because of fears of a public outcry. He also testified at the time that the Justice Department had not fully analyzed the legal issues of such a move. [“Warrantless Wiretaps Possible in U.S.” (Washington Post)]
Generally, by the time this kind of questioning is going on publically, the authorization has apparently already been made if history is any indication with Bush and his administration. Of course, my crazy activist co-worker’s been calling the phone company trying to get them to admit her phone is tapped for months and I’ve assumed since working for the government that mine is so I don’t actually blame Bush for that one. I just thought I’d pass the news on.
Tags: Alberto Gonzales, George W. Bush, Senate, warrantless wiretapping, spying on Americans, Adam Schiff, House Judiciary Committee, NSA
February 10th, 2006
Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. –President Bush, April 20, 2004
Our position is, is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals intelligence. — Attorney General Gonzales, December 19, 2005.
Tags: warrantless wiretapping, George W. Bush, lie, Alberto Gonzales
August 5th, 2005
I’ve seen this in a couple places on the internet the last couple of days. As I haven’t seen it yet printed in any “official” sites, I don’t know how true it is (and these days it’s really hard to tell who’s telling the truth and who’s not…which I think was the GOP’s plan all along.)
Federal Whistle Blower Claims Chicago Grand Jury Indicted Bush And Others For Perjury and Obstruction Of Justice; U.S. Attorney’s Office Says ‘No Comment,’ Refusing To Confirm Or Deny Alleged Indictments
That headline comes from the Artic Beacon, which hails itself as “the last frontier of truth”. As I just stumbled on them, I can’t say one way or another if that’s true.
Although the U.S. Attorney’s office in Chicago is staying silent, it is well known that Fitzgerald is digging deep into an assortment of serious improprieties among many Bush administration figures based, in part, on subpoenaed testimony provided by former Secretary of State Colin Powell.
According to federal whistleblower Tom Heneghen, who recently reported on www.truthradio.com, Powell testified before the citizen grand jury that President Bush had taken the U.S. to war illegally based on lies, which is a capital crime involving treason under the U.S. Code.
“Regarding the Powell testimony, there is no comment,” said Sanborn.
However, sources close to the federal grade jury probe also allegedly told Heneghen a host of administration figures besides Bush were also indicted, including Vice-President Richard Cheney, Chief of Staff Andrew Card, Cheney Chief of Staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, imprisoned New York Times reporter Judith Miller and former Senior Cheney advisor Mary Matalin.
Heneghen, unavailable for comment and first reported by internet reporter Tom Flocco, allegedly also told sources White House Advisor Karl Rove was indicted for perjury in a major document shredding operation cover-up and that Prime Minister Tony Blair was also indicted for obstruction of justice charges.
The article goes on to discuss a whole Watergate-type conspiracy involving bomb scares and attempts to get Fitzgerald, who is “Special Counsel to investigate the CIA- Valerie Plame case,” fired.
As much as I want this to be true, I hate to admit that I need more “reliable’ confirmation. I mean, Kenneth Star’s investigation was daily big news and so far, I haven’t heard a peep, even on NPR, my most trusted source…though lately, I’ve been wondering about them too.
Tags: Patrick Fitzgerald, George W. Bush, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Andrew Card, Scooter Libby, Alberto Gonzales, John Ashcroft, Judy Miller, Karl Rove, PlameGate, Conspiracy Theories
July 25th, 2005
The following comes from democrats.gov’s website where they currently have a clock tallying the number of days, hours, minutes and seconds that the Republican’s have not spent investigating the CI Leak case. (Currently it is over 742 days as of this posting.)
As Earl Pitts, Redneck American, has been known to say, “Wake up, America!“
Number of days after the article outing Ambassador Wilson’s wife appeared that the White House required its staff to turn over evidence relating to the leak: 85
Approximate hours between then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzalez’s advance notification to White House Chief of Staff Andy Card that he would require staff to turn over evidence relating to the case and formal notification to staff of that requirement: 12
Minimum number of times an Administration official leaked classified information about the identity of Ambassador Wilson’s wife: 11
Minimum number of times after the beginning of the Justice Department’s investigation that White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan claimed Karl Rove was not involved: 5
Minimum number of times since evidence linking Karl Rove to the leak was made public that Press Secretary McClellan has refused to comment on the case, citing an ongoing investigation: 7
Minimum number of hearings held by Senate Republicans to investigate accusations against President Clinton involving the “Whitewater” case: 20
Total hearings held by Senate Republicans to investigate the leak of the covert identity of Ambassador Joseph Wilson;s wife: 0
Tags: PlameGate, Democrats, Joe Wilson, Republicans, politics, Conspiracy Theories, Andrew Card, Alberto Gonzales, Scott McClellan, Karl Rove, Bill Clinton, Senate
