Question:
WASHINGTON, Oct. 17 — President Bush signed legislation today that created new rules for prosecuting and interrogating terror suspects, a move that Mr. Bush said would enable the Central Intelligence Agency to resume a once-secret program to question the most dangerous terrorists.
Skip to next paragraph
Doug Mills/The New York Times
“It is a rare occasion when a president can sign a bill he knows will save American lives,” Mr. Bush said during a formal ceremony in the East Room of the White House. He called the bill “a way to deliver justice to the terrorists we have captured.”
But the C.I.A. program is unlikely to resume immediately.
First, Mr. Bush must issue an executive order clarifying the rules for questioning high-level detainees. Many experts believe the harsh techniques the C.I.A. has used in the past, including extended sleep deprivation and water-boarding, which induces a feeling of drowning, will not be allowed under the new bill.
The new law strips the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear petitions from detainees for writs of habeas corpus, meaning that terror suspects cannot go to court to challenge the constitutionality of their confinement. As such, it has already spawned one legal challenge and both supporters and critics say it is likely to result in others.
“Congress had no justification for suspending the writ of habeas corpus — a core value in American law — in order to avoid judicial review that prevents government abuse,” said one leading critic, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is his party’s senior member on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He called it “a sad day when the rubberstamp Congress undercuts our freedoms.”
The president was surrounded at the bill signing by senior members of his administration, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the C.I.A. director. Senior Republican lawmakers, among them Senators John W. Warner of Virginia and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who balked at the initial White House version of the bill and forced a much-publicized compromise, were also on hand.
But the third leader of that much-publicized Republican rebellion, Senator John McCain of Arizona, was noticeably absent. Mr. McCain, a likely presidential contender in 2008, skipped the ceremony to go to Wisconsin to campaign for a Republican House member, John Gard, and was later headed to Sioux Falls, S.D., to address the Chamber of Commerce there. A spokeswoman said the senator’s absence was “purely an issue of scheduling.”
With the November midterm elections just three weeks away, Mr. Bush was hoping to use the bill signing to turn the political debate back to the war on terror — a strong issue for Republicans — and away from scandals like the Mark Foley case, which have dominated the news in recent weeks. Moments before he sat down to sign the measure, the president said he was doing so “in memory of the victims of September the 11th.”
Outside the White House, protesters, some dressed in orange jumpsuits of the sort worn by detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, gathered around a makeshift black coffin painted with the words “The Corpse of Habeas Corpus.” Police arrested several of the protesters when they refused to move away from the White House gates.
The bill Mr. Bush signed today came in response to a Supreme Court ruling, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, that invalidated the system of military commissions that Mr. Bush had set up for trying terror suspects, saying they required Congressional authorization. The court also said terror suspects had to be treated in accordance with a provision of the Geneva Conventions, Common Article Three, that prohibits cruel and inhumane treatment, including “outrages upon personal dignity.”
Last month, Mr. Bush acknowledged the existence of the secret C.I.A. program and said he was sending its remaining 14 terror operatives — including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the reputed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks — to the detention center at Guantánamo Bay. He called on Congress to pass a bill setting up military commissions and establishing new standards for interrogation so that the C.I.A. program could go forward.
“This program has been one of the most successful intelligence efforts in American history,” Mr. Bush said today. “It has helped prevent attacks on our country. And the bill I sign today will ensure that we can continue using this vital tool to protect the American people for years to come.”
Critics of the measure, including civil liberties and human rights groups, were skeptical of that assertion.
“What the president didn’t say is that the abusive interrogation techniques that were the basis for the program are now criminalized,” said Jennifer Daskal, the advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, a human rights group.
“So while in theory he can continue to hold people in secret, he is clearly prohibited from engaging in the types of abuse that seem to be the entire basis and motivation for the program,” she said in an interview.
Source: NYT
Answer:
While completely unacceptable, this isn't the first time the habaes corpus has been suspended. During the civil war, President Lincoln suspended the Habases Corpus to all american citizens, using it to jail dissenters, newspaper editors and writers, and other activists who spoke out against him. The difference between then and now is that President Lincoln actively targeted american citizens, while now Pres. Bush is mostly targeting non-americans, while still including americans under suspicion.
The only way the Supreme court will be able to vote on the constitutionality of this law is if someone can show it has adversely affected or injured them or their rights. The problem with this law is that, it prevents you from going to a higher court. So consiquently, you can't prove to a higher court that you've been harmed or injustice has been taken against you.
This is such a bad law.
Answer:
Very true about Lincoln and again, that this is very, very bad news. Certain Am. History professor from UC Berkeley has been, for years, receiving threats from the FBI to stop teaching the truth about our country's history as well as the truth behind the lies of our government. And guess what? Immediately after the signing of this bill, he received yet another phone call from the FBI and they threatened him that if he doesn't stop, this time, they could actually do something about it.
You just watch, they're going to start taking down all our good Professors, Lawyers and Journalists (as well as any Muslim/Iranians suspected of terrorism).
Answer:
In theory, one would hope that the new president would remove this law or make it void. It's so horrible.
I mean, granted you now have free, uninterrupted power to remove those who are possibly terrorists, but at what cost? It opens up the pathway that would criminalize dissent.
War-time presidents are notoriously bad. In every single war America has been in, rights have been both taken for granted or suspended. I understand the need for security, but this is too far.
You know what's worse, I doubt that even 70% of soompi knows what the Habaes Corpus is, how it affects them, or why it's important. I doubt many even know what it is before googling it or using wikipedia. That's sad.
Answer:
I'm sardonically amused that while this thread receives only three posts, the threads about cooking small animals, bras for children, and internet video websites receive multiple pages worth. Ah, who cares about the country's state of affairs anyways. It's only the United States.
Answer:
This is the worst law I've heard of...What are they going to do about the (many) innocent people they'll arrest? Ridiculous ridiculous ridiculous...
Correct me if I'm wrong...I've never been good with government/politics/etc...
Answer:
America becoming more and more facist?
Answer:
The United States of America, the land of the free, is a total irony. End of story. The Patriot Act and the 'terrorists' are simply giving reason for Bush to slowly take away our most basic freedoms.
Answer:
Even though suspension of habeas corpus is unconstitutional, I honestly think that it should be allowed during the height of a war, invasion, etc. The reason why America lost wars in the past is because of unpopular opinion, hence Vietnam. And right now, the war in Iraq is probably at its climax, which explains why Bush is trying to get a grip on domestic opinion via wire-tapping and suspension of habeas corpus. I'm not really buying the notion that this is a ploy to distract people from the Foley scandal.
Unless we find that Bush is abusing his newly-gained powers, I would say that he is genuinely trying to do what he thinks is best for the United States. The sad truth is that a majority of people who don't even understand politics literally blame him for everything, even things out of his control. Get your facts straight people. Bush isn't trying to become a dictator.
Answer:
In theory, one would hope that the new president would remove this law or make it void. It's so horrible.
I mean, granted you now have free, uninterrupted power to remove those who are possibly terrorists, but at what cost? It opens up the pathway that would criminalize dissent.
War-time presidents are notoriously bad. In every single war America has been in, rights have been both taken for granted or suspended. I understand the need for security, but this is too far.
You know what's worse, I doubt that even 70% of soompi knows what the Habaes Corpus is, how it affects them, or why it's important. I doubt many even know what it is before googling it or using wikipedia. That's sad.
Sadly, I must agree with you. Articles like teens cooking dog and millionaire marrying his own daughter (which really doesn't have anything to do with them) is attracting more persons than this thread. Sad.
I'm sardonically amused that while this thread receives only three posts, the threads about cooking small animals, bras for children, and internet video websites receive multiple pages worth. Ah, who cares about the country's state of affairs anyways. It's only the United States.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif) Right on.
This is the worst law I've heard of...What are they going to do about the (many) innocent people they'll arrest? Ridiculous ridiculous ridiculous...
Correct me if I'm wrong...I've never been good with government/politics/etc...
Habeaus Corpus has really not been very effective (on detainees) because of the Patriot Act. But now, with the suspension of Writ of Habeas Corpus and the wording of the Bill, the government (or the dictator-- I mean, Mr. Bush) has the legal authority to arrest persons* (see bolded) without charge, detain them indefinitely and TORTURE THEM. Click HERE and HERE for some stories you might be interested in.
*Section 948a of title 10 of the United States Code, as added by the Act, defines an unlawful enemy combatant as:
`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.
This means we can be arrested for practicing our rights to free speech, muckraking, donating to charities among many other things which can be considered an act against the government (and therefore be associated with terrorism).
The United States of America, the land of the free, is a total irony. End of story. The Patriot Act and the 'terrorists' are simply giving reason for Bush to slowly take away our most basic freedoms.
He already has. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/fury.gif) And most Americans are so apathetic about it too.
Answer:
*Section 948a of title 10 of the United States Code, as added by the Act, defines an unlawful enemy combatant as:
`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.
See, I agree with chosun.one on this, except for it being allowed.
The habeas corpus is your right to an appeal, to state that you are being unlawfully imprisoned. A law can be found unconstitutional because of Habeas Corpus, seeing the effects it has had on a group of people.
The suspension of this right means that, after you have been sent to prison you cannot appeal, you cannot question why, and no judge or court is allowed to have a say. So the government in theory has the ability to jail who they want. Like I had stated above, Lincoln did in and jailed dissenters, newspaper editors, etc...and this is really the 2nd time in american history where it's been suspended.
Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, 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 Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. §1005(e)(1), 119 Stat. 2742.
this is the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (which applies to aliens(non-americans)):
Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, 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. §1005(e)(1), 119 Stat. 2742.
edit: I was looking into it, and I realize it does include a limited Habeas Corpus(And man I kept incorrectly spelling this word):
The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on any claims with respect to an alien under this paragraph shall be limited to the consideration of whether the status determination ... was consistent with the standards and procedures specified by the Secretary of Defense for Combatant Status Review Tribunals (including the requirement that the conclusion of the Tribunal be supported by a preponderance of the evidence and allowing a rebuttable presumption in favor of the Government's evidence), and to the extent the Constitution and laws of the United States are applicable, whether the use of such standards and procedures to make the determination is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States. §1005(e)(2), 119 Stat. 2742.
Answer:
So I guess that means we better watch our back now? ... Schmuck...
Answer:
If people are suspected of terrorism, they should be dealt as suspects.
A terrorist act has been committed. Investigators gather evidence to suggest that a certain person has committed the act. The suspect is picked up. The suspect is questioned. The suspect has no alibi. The suspect is brought before a judge with and evidence is presented (both supporting the prosecution and for the defense). The judge deems there is enough evidence to proceed. The prosecution and the defense put forward their arguments. A decision is made regarding the suspect's guilt.
The above is the basic legal process that is used in most countries. Most countries have safe-guards at every step of the process, to ensure justice is not perverted.
Traditionally, for people to be suspected of committing a crime, the crime has to have been committed. ie. You cannot be convicted of a crime that has not occurred. With terrorism, people don't even have to have committed a crime to be not only suspected, but also imprisoned.
So what of this? We have a situation here where we have people being suspected and imprisoned indefinately for crimes that may or may not have occured. We have people, who have not been convicted of anything, being tortured in an attempt to get them to reveal information. We have people that do not know what they have been arrested for.
What now separates us from those atrocious people now?
What now protects our young boys and girls at war in Iraq and Afgahnistan when we ourselves have just spit on the Geneva Conventions?
Considering we entered the middle east to spread our democracy and ideals, what message does it send to our enemies when we say it's alright to deprive combatants of their human rights as long as the deprivers have an American Flag on their uniform?
I bet somewhere tucked away in the Bill is a clause that protects Bush & co from being tried for war crimes themselves...The war against Iraq was illegal under the US constitution as well as the UN Charter. The current administration should be facing trial, not to mention the leaders of the other members of the coalition of the willing. Let me ask you what the real difference is between a man who kills thousands of innocent people on purpose and a man who kills hundreds of thousands of innocents 'by accident'
Even if the rules of war do not apply in the case of the war on terror, (considering that war was never legally declared against terrorism) those captured are human, and as such must be treated with respect to their rights as humans. These people should not be brought before a military court. The reason why is that these people are not fighting a war and even if they were, the legal proceeding should take place at the international criminal court or a civilian court, not a military court.
Anyone who insists on defining things as 'us and them' is part of the problem, not the solution. The truth is, it's just 'us'.
Answer:
For one thing, habeas corpus and due process refer to different things. Additionally, this does not restrict the ability of American citizens to petition for a habeas review.
Answer:
I mean, granted you now have free, uninterrupted power to remove those who are possibly terrorists, but at what cost?
This again brings up the question of freedom vs security. Die on your feet or live on your knees. I find it very sad that so many has died protecting our freedoms and here, our government is infringing those freedoms in order to protect us. It's like a step backward to me.
Per the comments about the lack of interest in politics in this forum. I see no concern since 1) this forum's main goal is about K-pop and 2) it's inhabited by teens being teens. If this is posted in a forum whose audience is mostly adults and there's still barely any replies, THEN it's time to worry.
Answer:
America becoming more and more facist?
Yep, another news article was reporting that fascism was on the rise
Answer:
America becoming more and more facist?
Oh, but of course. America's slowly becoming more and more like that of a facist nation, but it's okay...there's less than 2 years with Bush left!
....If we make it without a full-scale war, that is.
Answer:
Bush isn't the main problem, whether he's here or not isn't going to make a huge difference (though it will help our public image quite abit). I really doubt he's capable of pulling all of this off on his own anyways...He's just a puppet
We need to get the one pulling the strings, the ones directly connected with the oil companies helping to back the Bush administration and who stand to profit from Iraq
*cough* Cheney!
Answer:
This is rediculous...
The man can't even stand on t.v. and defend his decisions.....I remember watching him too...I was thinkin...this man has completely LOST IT!...there's no way they're gonna let him do it.
Lo' and behold! THEY LET HIM....
Amazing.
-Luna-
Answer:
We need to get the one pulling the strings, the ones directly connected with the oil companies helping to back the Bush administration and who stand to profit from Iraq
*cough* Cheney!
And get mowed down by a gun (then apoligize for his actions?!)?
Eh, I'll stay over here and point the finger.
