Again, Bush tries to remove YET MORE Constitutional freedoms

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

What a surprise... Bush taking steps to deny EVEN MORE Americans of their Constitutional rights. Un-f*cking-believeable

Bush seeks expanded military tribunal role

The White House is seeking legislation that would allow people not affiliated with terrorism to be prosecuted in military commissions -- with far fewer rights than afforded civilians.

Washington Post Service

WASHINGTON - A draft Bush administration plan for special military courts seeks to expand the reach and authority of such ''commissions'' to include trials, for the first time, of people who are not al Qaeda members or the Taliban and are not directly involved in acts of international terrorism, according to officials familiar with the proposal plan.

The plan, which would replace a military trial system ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in June, also allows the secretary of defense to add crimes at will to those under the military court's jurisdiction. The two provisions would be likely to put more individuals than previously expected before military juries, officials and independent experts said.

The draft proposed legislation, set to be discussed at two Senate hearings today, is controversial inside and outside the administration because defendants would be denied many protections guaranteed by the civilian and traditional military criminal justice systems.

Under the proposed procedures, defendants would lack rights to confront accusers, exclude hearsay accusations, or bar evidence obtained through rough or coercive interrogations. They would not be guaranteed a public or speedy trial and would lack the right to choose their military counsel, who in turn would not be guaranteed equal access to evidence held by prosecutors.

Detainees also would not be guaranteed the right to be present at their own trials, if their absence is deemed necessary to protect national security or individuals.

An early draft of the new law prepared by civilian political appointees and leaked to the media last week has been modified in response to criticism from uniformed military lawyers. But the provisions allowing a future expansion of the courts to cover new crimes and more prisoners were retained, according to government officials who are familiar with the deliberations.

Link to article

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 648 • Replies: 5

No top replies

May I ask which section of the Constitution deals with military tribunals of prisoners captured during wars (which have, of course, taken place for centuries)? Since you say that he is removing Constitutional freedoms, it would be helpful to see citations to the section or sections of the Constitution you are referring to.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

May I ask which section of the Constitution deals with military tribunals of prisoners captured during wars (which have, of course, taken place for centuries)? Since you say that he is removing Constitutional freedoms, it would be helpful to see citations to the section or sections of the Constitution you are referring to.

I'm not going to split hairs with you, Brandon. Lord knows enough people have wasted time doing that. How about this... I officially change the title to "Again, Bush tries to remove YET MORE rights of the American populace".

Will that get you to focus on the main point of the article? I'll keep my fingers crossed, but I won't put money on it.

Just because it's so utterly absurd what Bush is trying to pull here, I'll repeat the most disturbing part of the article:

Quote:

Under the proposed procedures, defendants would lack rights to confront accusers, exclude hearsay accusations, or bar evidence obtained through rough or coercive interrogations. They would not be guaranteed a public or speedy trial and would lack the right to choose their military counsel, who in turn would not be guaranteed equal access to evidence held by prosecutors.

0 Replies

JustanObserver wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
May I ask which section of the Constitution deals with military tribunals of prisoners captured during wars (which have, of course, taken place for centuries)? Since you say that he is removing Constitutional freedoms, it would be helpful to see citations to the section or sections of the Constitution you are referring to.

I'm not going to split hairs with you, Brandon. Lord knows enough people have wasted time doing that. How about this... I officially change the title to "Again, Bush tries to remove YET MORE rights of the American populace".

Will that get you to focus on the main point of the article? I'll keep my fingers crossed, but I won't put money on it.

Just because it's so utterly absurd what Bush is trying to pull here, I'll repeat the most disturbing part of the article:

Quote:
Under the proposed procedures, defendants would lack rights to confront accusers, exclude hearsay accusations, or bar evidence obtained through rough or coercive interrogations. They would not be guaranteed a public or speedy trial and would lack the right to choose their military counsel, who in turn would not be guaranteed equal access to evidence held by prosecutors.

Do you know what body of law applies to military tribunals, or what has been done in the past in the US? You seem to be implying that he's violating the law or precedent, so I'm asking if you know what either is for such tribunals.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Do you know what body of law applies to military tribunals, or what has been done in the past in the US? You seem to be implying that he's violating the law or precedent, so I'm asking if you know what either is for such tribunals.

Way to bury your head in the sand.

From the article:
WASHINGTON - A draft Bush administration plan for special military courts seeks to expand the reach and authority of such ''commissions'' to include trials, for the first time, of people who are not al Qaeda members or the Taliban and are not directly involved in acts of international terrorism, according to officials familiar with the proposal plan.

If you want to imply that this is fine by some measure, or have something relevant to contribute, then do it. Otherwise, stop wasting my time.

0 Replies

As far as american citizens who are civlians, I don't think this takes away from thier constitutional rights at all. They cannot be tried by military courts.

Keep in mind the constitution only protects american citizens. No one else is technically entitled to those rights we enjoy.

however, I think that under certain situations special military courts and tribunes can be called to try U.S. soldiers (who are usually citizens) so in a situation like that a citizens constitutional rights could be in danger.

I think it is very unlikely though that this new provision applies to soldiers, esp. since the president seems to usually try to protect the rightness of our soldiers even when they do highly questionable things.

I don't think this violates any americans rights, however it still concerns me greatly.

The law and Rights that people enjoy in the United States are based of off noble ideas. just because someone who is foriegn isn't technically allowed these rights doesn't mean they shouldn't be entitled to at least some of them.

Our Nation has a responsibilty to treat people fairly and justly. It's one of the main ideals the United States it supposed to stand for.

Quote:

Quote:
Under the proposed procedures, defendants would lack rights to confront accusers, exclude hearsay accusations, or bar evidence obtained through rough or coercive interrogations. They would not be guaranteed a public or speedy trial and would lack the right to choose their military counsel, who in turn would not be guaranteed equal access to evidence held by prosecutors.

Many of the protections Bush intends to take away with this are basic not only to the U.S. but to much of the rest of the world.

I find it VERY disturbing that a confession taken under DURESS AND INTEROGATION could be used.

The defense might not be able to see the evidence against them? What the hell is that about? I mean really how can you defend against facts or Heresay you don't know exists.

This proposal by Bush is very unfiar and wrong on a very basic level. It is inherently anti-American due to it's unjustness. We are talking about real people here who could be accused unjustly.

They may not have constitutional rights, but they should still have basic human rights.

Such unjustness will only create the possibility for witch hunts that will probably end up ruining the lives of innocent people.

0 Replies

Again, Bush tries to remove YET MORE Constitutional freedoms

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know