Any reactions to Bill Clinton's little Outburst on Fox?

[Wanderwolf]

It is in our national interest to defeat Islamic Fascism, because we're one of the big kids on the block, and we've taken up the responsibility of protecting the smaller kids. The smaller kids don't have to agree with us when we chase off the "nice doggie" with fleas and rabies.

I beg your pardon, dear heart, but the analogy is inaccurate. For the most part, we almost never involve ourselves in the affairs of the "smaller kids". As a rule, we only get involved if there's something in it for us. Trade guarantees (China vs. Japan in WWII), oil (Kuwait vs. Iraq in GWI), or national pride (Afghanistan after 9/11) are all valid reasons to get involved, according to precedent. But we haven't played "policeman" since the debacles in Somalia and Ethiopia; it doesn't get us anything, and we usually wind up doing a little bit of nothing rather than the Big Something we started out to try. (Such as creating a black market in airdropped American supplies in Ethiopia.)

America doesn't like to bother with other countries since we became the Big Kid; we just like to throw our weight around and maybe play the Bully a little. Since we're also the Rich Kid, we can even buy a few friends now and then with trade negotiations and preferred trade status.

Case in point: A pending piece of legislation which has already passed the House. With George W. Bush's explicit approval, this would suspend all legal rights of persons in the country legally, with regard to suspicion of terrorism. That's people with green cards, scholarships and visas, and even naturalized citizens. (Technically, Arnold Schwarzenegger is still an "alien", though a naturalized citizen.)

The specific wording is that "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".

No lawyer, no release, no "speedy trial", and no appeal, whether from the alien or from a human rights organization. They tortured you, abused you? Sorry, another part of the bill says you can't sue, nyaah.

Oh, and "enemy combatant" gets a new definition: In addition to the previous definitions, it is now "anyone who gives material support to enemies of the United States and its allies". I know, seems reasonable, right? Notice, however, the omission of the word "knowingly". And if you think there aren't at least a few people in the U.S.A. that would jump all over someone who, without realizing it, contributed to the wrong charity... I have to wonder where you live.

No, we're no policeman. We're just the biggest kid with the mostest toys. Not wicked or evil... but awfully self-serving at times.

Yours truly,

The wolfish,

Wanderer

[ChronicMisadventures]

As a rule, we only get involved if there's something in it for us. Trade guarantees (China vs. Japan in WWII

...you seem to neglect the bit about Pearl Harbor as far as why we got involved with China vs Japan in WWII...

[Wanderwolf]

As a rule, we only get involved if there's something in it for us. Trade guarantees (China vs. Japan in WWII

...you seem to neglect the bit about Pearl Harbor as far as why we got involved with China vs Japan in WWII...

No, that was "USA vs. Japan", a slightly different part of the war. Remember, China was under attack by Japan for years before we became officially involved, and the Dragon Lady spent those years lobbying support for arms shipments to China. We just didn't come in officially until 1941.

Yours truly,

The historical,

Wanderer

[BrockthePaine]

As a rule, we only get involved if there's something in it for us. Trade guarantees (China vs. Japan in WWII

...you seem to neglect the bit about Pearl Harbor as far as why we got involved with China vs Japan in WWII...

No, that was "USA vs. Japan", a slightly different part of the war. Remember, China was under attack by Japan for years before we became officially involved, and the Dragon Lady spent those years lobbying support for arms shipments to China. We just didn't come in officially until 1941.

Yours truly,

The historical,

Wanderer

...Which is one of the reasons Japan decided to attack the US in the first place. As I recall, we slapped some pretty tough economic sanctions on them because they couldn't play nice with China - something about the "Nanking Massacre" and such. They needed their materials (such as Sumatra oil) to grow their economy. They decided just to TAKE the territory and attacked the US to make sure we couldn't stop them.

(I'm tired and I might be disremembering certain important facts... but that's the general interpretation.

[ChronicMisadventures]

...Which is one of the reasons Japan decided to attack the US in the first place. As I recall, we slapped some pretty tough economic sanctions on them because they couldn't play nice with China - something about the "Nanking Massacre" and such. They needed their materials (such as Sumatra oil) to grow their economy. They decided just to TAKE the territory and attacked the US to make sure we couldn't stop them.

(I'm tired and I might be disremembering certain important facts... but that's the general interpretation.

Pretty much accurate, as I recall. ...and of course should be noted that Admiral Yamamoto had advised against striking the US (even though he was the one who put together the plan for doing so) as he realized doing so would be an ultimately disasterous long-term decision.

[Calbeck]

As a rule, we only get involved if there's something in it for us...oil (Kuwait vs. Iraq in GWI)

Oh, this old saw again? Oil certainly was the reason to go to war, but not because there was oil "in it for us". We, the UN, and pretty much the entire world wanted to prevent Iraq from annexing its neighbors and thereby seizing the majority of the world's known oil reserves. There was also the potential for Saddam, in seizing Saudi Arabia, to take control of the two Holy Cities and declare himself "The Mantle of the Prophet", essentially Mohammed's representative on earth, who is supposed to come in the guise of a conqueror who will lead Islam to world conquest.

We fought for free markets and a stable Middle East, not out of expectation that we'd get a slice of Kuwait's oil pie --- and we haven't.

Case in point: A pending piece of legislation which has already passed the House. With George W. Bush's explicit approval, this would suspend all legal rights of persons in the country legally, with regard to suspicion of terrorism. That's people with green cards, scholarships and visas, and even naturalized citizens. (Technically, Arnold Schwarzenegger is still an "alien", though a naturalized citizen.)

The specific wording is that "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".

Then your interpretation is wrong on several counts:

1) There's no "suspicion of terrorism" here; they're talking "detained as an enemy combatant". Unless you've just been engaged in combat, or there is a reason to believe you have been, this does not apply to you.

2) "Alien" does not include "citizen", "naturalized" or otherwise.

3) Suspension of habeas corpus does not equate to loss of all legal rights, assuming first off that aliens detained as enemy combatants have that right to begin with...according to the USSC's most recent ruling, it applies only to those who are interned on sovereign US soil. The "big upset" was simply that the Court extended "sovereign" status to Guantanamo despite the treaty the US has with Cuba which renders "ultimate sovereignty" of the base to Cuba despite all manner of legal protections preventing interference.

They tortured you, abused you? Sorry, another part of the bill says you can't sue, nyaah.

I can't sue France, Turkey, Italy or Britain for getting beaten up in custody, either, using the same torture techniques. Apparently the US has decided to become more like Europe. If England suspects me of being an IRA member, I can be held indefinitely, beaten once a week like clockwork with any damage just shy of permanent disfigurement (including anything they can provide medical treatment for), and tortured psychologically all the live-long day until they get what they want or give up.

Oh, and "enemy combatant" gets a new definition: In addition to the previous definitions, it is now "anyone who gives material support to enemies of the United States and its allies". I know, seems reasonable, right? Notice, however, the omission of the word "knowingly".

OMG! PLOT! You're forgetting basic legal precedence: you cannot commit a felony-class crime without intent. Unless the prosecution can show you had a specific intent to further the ends of Al Qaeda when you gave a donation to an Islamic church group that purported to support homeless people in the Middle East, then there's no case --- even if the money you gave was used to buy tents for "homeless" Al Qaeda members fighting in Iraq.

[Wanderwolf]

Oh, this old saw again? Oil certainly was the reason to go to war, but not because there was oil "in it for us". We, the UN, and pretty much the entire world wanted to prevent Iraq from annexing its neighbors and thereby seizing the majority of the world's known oil reserves. There was also the potential for Saddam, in seizing Saudi Arabia, to take control of the two Holy Cities and declare himself "The Mantle of the Prophet", essentially Mohammed's representative on earth, who is supposed to come in the guise of a conqueror who will lead Islam to world conquest.

We fought for free markets and a stable Middle East, not out of expectation that we'd get a slice of Kuwait's oil pie --- and we haven't.

Really? What a nice coincidence, then, that Kuwait's been strengthening their trade ties with us ever since the first Gulf War. Such a nice surprise, and completely without any ulterior motives such as "continued American protection" and "let's sic America on 'em". So kind and good-hearted of them to expand their trade with us for no reason at all... wouldn't you say?

Then your interpretation is wrong on several counts:

1) There's no "suspicion of terrorism" here; they're talking "detained as an enemy combatant". Unless you've just been engaged in combat, or there is a reason to believe you have been, this does not apply to you.

2) "Alien" does not include "citizen", "naturalized" or otherwise.

3) Suspension of habeas corpus does not equate to loss of all legal rights, assuming first off that aliens detained as enemy combatants have that right to begin with...according to the USSC's most recent ruling, it applies only to those who are interned on sovereign US soil. The "big upset" was simply that the Court extended "sovereign" status to Guantanamo despite the treaty the US has with Cuba which renders "ultimate sovereignty" of the base to Cuba despite all manner of legal protections preventing interference.

On point "2", I accept the well-deserved rebuke; it has been so long since my family became American that I neglected the finer points of law in that regard. Therefore, the legislation applies only to aliens, whether with temporary or permanent residency in the United States of America. Schwarzenegger's safe for now... It still applies to those with resident alien status, however.

As for point "1", though, you seem to have overlooked an important vagueness in the text: The detained need only NOT have been determined to NOT be an enemy combatant. Maybe I'm the only one here whose family went through the McCarthy years (though I doubt it), but that's a wide swath for a vagueness. If there's any suspicion that a person has rendered material aid to the enemy (remember, that's the new definition of "enemy combatant" in this bill), then the person may be detained indefinitely. And no court process regarding their guilt or innocence, nor the rightness or wrongness of their imprisonment (that's a "writ of habeas corpus") may be begun in any American court, whether by the detainee or a human rights organization.

As for point "3"? The legislation, as written, applies to all detainees, in any facility, whether on or off American soil. This is why people are getting a little worried.

Let's play pretend here, Calbeck: Let's pretend that you're a resident alien, having lived in America for thirty years while maintaining citizenship in... let's say France for the heck of it. You pay your taxes, you pay FICA, and so on. One day, you rent a room of your house to a nice man. He stays for a week, then leaves. Two days later, men in dark suits come to your door and inform you that the "nice man" is suspected of being a terrorist. You are detained for the duration of the investigation as a possible "enemy combatant". (In the example, renting the room to him *does* count as "material aid".)

You will, under this bill, remain detained until the relevant agencies hash out whether or not you really are an enemy combatant. You have no right to demand a writ of habeas corpus, and not even the ACLU can demand one for you. None of your relatives, none of your friends can do anything about it until the agency decides whether you are or are not an enemy combatant. (And not even then if they decide you *are* one... agencies are made up of human beings.) Even if an error was made, and it was someone else with the same name that rented the room, as long as you're "only" a resident alien, you have no right to protest by means of said writ.

I can't sue France, Turkey, Italy or Britain for getting beaten up in custody, either, using the same torture techniques. Apparently the US has decided to become more like Europe. If England suspects me of being an IRA member, I can be held indefinitely, beaten once a week like clockwork with any damage just shy of permanent disfigurement (including anything they can provide medical treatment for), and tortured psychologically all the live-long day until they get what they want or give up.

Completely aside from the fact that turning our jails into Turkish prisons really doesn't seem like a good thing to me... I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but we seperated from Europe for some reason, right?

Actually, you can sue in Britain for injuries received in jail. Read all about it, Calbeck.

OMG! PLOT! You're forgetting basic legal precedence: you cannot commit a felony-class crime without intent. Unless the prosecution can show you had a specific intent to further the ends of Al Qaeda when you gave a donation to an Islamic church group that purported to support homeless people in the Middle East, then there's no case --- even if the money you gave was used to buy tents for "homeless" Al Qaeda members fighting in Iraq.

Nice use of "leet speak" to send the message, "I don't think this argument is worth spending two brain cells on". (Although if you wanted to look really 1337, you needed to have more exclamation points, with a few replaced by the number '1'.) But sorry, you've ignored the text of the law: All that's required to detain you is a suspicion that you (the hypothetical resident alien) have given material aid to terrorists. That places you under suspicion of being an "enemy combatant", and that suspicion (as set forth in the letter of the legislation) is enough to detain you without counsel for an indefinite period. Intent, in this bill, is irrelevant. After all, you're not being charged... you're being imprisoned.

Rocky: "You can't do that!"

Indian: "Who say?"

Rocky: "The network say! It says so right here: No cannibalism on TV!"

Indian: "Oh, we not eat you... we just roast you!"

Rocky: "Oh... well, that's different."

Material aid, in case it somehow slipped through the cracks in that wide-ranging and comprehensive education you clearly received, is physical or monetary aid, as distinguished from spiritual or emotional aid. So yes, the example applies as given: Resident aliens who contribute to the wrong charities are, under the strictures of this bill, "enemy combatants".

Forgive me for not being overly trusting of the government sometimes, Calbeck. I just don't like giving it unsupervised power to detain resident aliens on suspicion, without due process of law, and without legal recourse.

Yours truly,

The wolfish,

Wanderer

[Sciguy]

Okay, I have to agree with him on the last point. With people like the Clintons in the goverment, you can't completely trust it.

As for the rest, I'm only up to date enough to argue one point.

Oh, this old saw again? Oil certainly was the reason to go to war, but not because there was oil "in it for us". We, the UN, and pretty much the entire world wanted to prevent Iraq from annexing its neighbors and thereby seizing the majority of the world's known oil reserves. There was also the potential for Saddam, in seizing Saudi Arabia, to take control of the two Holy Cities and declare himself "The Mantle of the Prophet", essentially Mohammed's representative on earth, who is supposed to come in the guise of a conqueror who will lead Islam to world conquest.

We fought for free markets and a stable Middle East, not out of expectation that we'd get a slice of Kuwait's oil pie --- and we haven't.

Really? What a nice coincidence, then, that Kuwait's been strengthening their trade ties with us ever since the first Gulf War. Such a nice surprise, and completely without any ulterior motives such as "continued American protection" and "let's sic America on 'em". So kind and good-hearted of them to expand their trade with us for no reason at all... wouldn't you say?

We saved their asses....

OF COURSE THEY'RE GOING TO BE OUR FRIENDS!

Stronger bonds formed between England and America after the help with WWII. Infact the same thing happened with a lot of countries.

Of course, the only diffrence with England and Kuwait and the other countries is they didn't start dealing with our foes behind our backs.

[Wanderwolf]

Okay, I have to agree with him on the last point. With people like the Clintons in the goverment, you can't completely trust it.

As for the rest, I'm only up to date enough to argue one point.

Much Kuwaiting snipped...

We saved their asses....

OF COURSE THEY'RE GOING TO BE OUR FRIENDS!

Stronger bonds formed between England and America after the help with WWII. Infact the same thing happened with a lot of countries.

Of course, the only diffrence with England and Kuwait and the other countries is they didn't start dealing with our foes behind our backs.

Well, to start with, Kuwait deals with everyone, by definition. Heck, they're an oil-producing nation run by traditional Muslim values. (Just ask the soldiers who weren't allowed to openly wear crucifixes or openly practice Christianity during their stay in Kuwait. "You can save us, just don't be Christian while doing it." Yes, Christmas was a quiet affair that year...) Dealing with everyone is a way of life.

In addition, they've shown a distressing tendency to consider us their "big brother". (No capitals, no Orwellism intended.) One of their attempts even had the daughter of their Prime Minister lying to the nations of the world in an attempt to draw us in on their side. (She claimed, in that particular instance, to be an oppressed woman from Afghanistan.) It's enough to make you wonder how Superman could stand Lois Lane all those years...

As for "doing business with our enemies", most countries do. Saddam Hussein got his Baghdad bunker and all those "it might be a giant cannon" pipes from Germany, for instance. Britain just doesn't happen to produce goods of strategic importance, so we don't really care who they sell to.

Yours truly,

The wolfish,

Wanderer

[Calbeck]

Really? What a nice coincidence, then, that Kuwait's been strengthening their trade ties with us ever since the first Gulf War.

Strengthened trade ties between two nations, one of which liberated the other from armed annexation? Say it ain't so! So you're saying that the natural and proper progression of events would have no improvement in trade, or even a lessening of same?

and completely without any ulterior motives such as "continued American protection"

If you want to promote the idea of a "protection racket", please present evidence to support it. Not to mention that the toppling of Iraq, Kuwait's only regional enemy, in favor of a democratic form of government, kind of removes any "need" for any such protection. Who is the US going to stop, Iran with its nonexistent amphibious landing capability, Saudi Arabia with its long-standing record of NOT beating up on its neighbors?

"let's sic America on 'em". So kind and good-hearted of them to expand their trade with us for no reason at all... wouldn't you say?

If by "no reason at all" you mean "a nation we once generally detested, who came to our aid despite that fact when we were brutally invaded and overrun, who spoke up for us in the United Nations, who pressed our claims against Iraq when we were unable to do so, who kept pressure on Iraq to abide by the thirty-two ceasefire terms, which included repatriation of our kidnapped people, compensation for damages to our country"...yeah, no reason at all, except maybe simple gratitude.

As for point "1", though, you seem to have overlooked an important vagueness in the text: The detained need only NOT have been determined to NOT be an enemy combatant.

In point of fact, your own quote states that a person must have been determined to be an "enemy combatant or awaiting such determination". Your interpretation extends beyond that, and would include persons NOT awaiting such determination.

In other words, to be held as a detainee without habeas corpus, the United States must declare that the person being so held is suspected of being an enemy combatant. Further, this disallows permanent (as opposed to merely indefinite) incarceration without charges, because a process of determination of guilt or innocence has been specified.

If there's any suspicion that a person has rendered material aid to the enemy (remember, that's the new definition of "enemy combatant" in this bill), then the person may be detained indefinitely.

Only if they did so knowingly. The new definition doesn't magically remove the prosecutorial requirements of motive, opportunity, and intent.

And no court process regarding their guilt or innocence, nor the rightness or wrongness of their imprisonment (that's a "writ of habeas corpus") may be begun in any American court, whether by the detainee or a human rights organization.

The process of guilt or innocence has begun from the moment they are detained until they are either released or sent to trial, in whatever lawful form that trial may take place.

I might also add that detainment is never considered "imprisonment" under law. Every year, hundreds of thousands of Americans are detained indefinitely while awaiting a trial date. If they are found innocent, they are not compensated in any way for having been detained, because the process of detainment was found necessary by the courts for the actual judicial process to go forward in the first place. The same holds true for suspected enemy combatants, although since they are not US citizens and committed their crimes outside of the US, they are not entitled to the same judicial process.

As for point "3"? The legislation, as written, applies to all detainees, in any facility, whether on or off American soil. This is why people are getting a little worried.

That's an issue that was forced by the USSC, which ruled that Guantanamo was "sovereign US territory" simply because the US has a treaty with Cuba for its possession. This loosening of "sovereignty", to extend beyond US borders (previously extended ONLY to US embassies and consulates, for diplomatic purposes), could just as readily be applied by the same logic the Court used to almost any US-controlled base overseas, anywhere.

The USSC changed the rules in midstream and may choose to do so again. This legislation has to bear that fact in mind.

You are detained for the duration of the investigation as a possible "enemy combatant". (In the example, renting the room to him *does* count as "material aid".)

Sorry, doesn't cut it unless the FBI can show I knew he was a terrorist and that my intent was to shelter same. Instead, what's going to happen is that I will give the FBI all the information I know about this man and ask if there is anything else I can do to help track him down. Most likely, I will in this case become a material witness in any proceedings against my former renter.

Completely aside from the fact that turning our jails into Turkish prisons really doesn't seem like a good thing to me... I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but we seperated from Europe for some reason, right?

Merely pointing out the difference in shades between the pot and kettle.

Actually, you can sue in Britain for injuries received in jail. Read all about it, Calbeck.

I just did. There's nothing in your link about these guys, who shot a guard while trying to escape from prison, winning anything in their suit. You can file all the lawsuits you want; it means nothing if they're dismissed for lack of merit.

Further, I was quite specific: you cannot sue in Britain if, during detainment, you are injured in a manner which does not result in permanent disfigurement, including any disfigurement which is healed by state-provided medical treatment. The report you cite says nothing about any such level of injury being inflicted.

But sorry, you've ignored the text of the law: All that's required to detain you is a suspicion

And you're in the process of ignoring laws that CONTROL how the law is interpreted and how it may be enforced. Regardless of what any given law says, it does not trump statutes of jurisprudence. And those statutes are quite clear: intent of criminality cannot be imputed by a law, and no crime of felony level can be committed without intent.

I wouldn't NEED habeas corpus to be released. I'd merely have to demand the state provide me counsel, which is not prohibited by suspension of habeas corpus. My counsel would then file an order for my release with the arresting authorities, who would then have to either release me or provide evidence that I intentionally harbored a person known to me to be a terrorist.

Forgive me for not being overly trusting of the government sometimes, Calbeck. I just don't like giving it unsupervised power to detain resident aliens on suspicion, without due process of law, and without legal recourse.

It's neither unsupervised nor without due process, and this isn't the first time it's been done, either.

[Bruce Bergman]

I think that Fox should nominate that show episode for an Emmy - in the category of Acting in a work of Fiction, by President <hack> B.J. Bill Clinton. The more I watch it, and the more details I pick up on, that was an Academy Award level performance - unfortunately it wan't in a film so an Oscar isn't applicable.

He's faking it, "playing to his base" and deliberately unloading on Chris Wallace as "part of the Evil Right Wing Conspiracy..." A bad attempt at revisionist history. Almost as convincing as "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky."

"I tried" to get Bin Laden - BULLSHIT. The CIA handed him Bin Laden on a platter over a half-dozen times and Clinton wouldn't pull the trigger on a cruise missile or airstrike. Ask Lieutenant Colonel (Ret.) "Buzz" Patterson that was in charge of 'the football' (briefcase with the launch codes) during his presidency. Clinton would hem and haw just long enough for the window of opportunity to close.

If you don't want to risk collateral casualties with a bombing, you send in a Scout Sniper team. The target is dead, he just doesn't know it yet.

--<< Bruce >>--

[RHJunior]

Has anyone else noticed that Clinton effectively admitted to <I>violating U.S. laws regarding political assassination?</i>

[Squeaky Bunny]

Has anyone else noticed that Clinton effectively admitted to <I>violating U.S. laws regarding political assassination?</i>

Yes, unfortunately he was only good at character assassination.

[Wanderwolf]

You'll pardon me if I snip my lines to save everyone else some repetition, I hope...

Strengthened trade ties between two nations, one of which liberated the other from armed annexation? Say it ain't so! So you're saying that the natural and proper progression of events would have no improvement in trade, or even a lessening of same?

Considering the one nation (Kuwait) is run by hardline Muslims, who insisted the troops fighting and dying for them couldn't openly wear crosses, carry Bibles, or hold their Sunday services outside of their tents? Let's just say I see a "fundamental" incompatibility between them. After all, we did the same thing for France, and look how great our relations with them are...

If you want to promote the idea of a "protection racket", please present evidence to support it. Not to mention that the toppling of Iraq, Kuwait's only regional enemy, in favor of a democratic form of government, kind of removes any "need" for any such protection. Who is the US going to stop, Iran with its nonexistent amphibious landing capability, Saudi Arabia with its long-standing record of NOT beating up on its neighbors?

Well, leaving aside the fact that Sheikh Nasser's beloved daughter has once before appeared before the UN pretending to be one of the oppressed women of Afghanistan...

Iran is trying to develop nuclear capabilities, whether peaceful or not, and is still close enough for air strikes and missiles to be an effective threat. Yeah, nobody needs protection from them... (It's called an air force. Don't worry, it'll never catch on.)

Saudi Arabia is a lot less likely. Not just because they sell to everyone; it's also because the ruling families of both countries are members of the Banu Utub tribe. That's not an invasion, it's a family reunion. <rim shot>

If by "no reason at all" you mean "a nation we once generally detested, who came to our aid despite that fact when we were brutally invaded and overrun, who spoke up for us in the United Nations, who pressed our claims against Iraq when we were unable to do so, who kept pressure on Iraq to abide by the thirty-two ceasefire terms, which included repatriation of our kidnapped people, compensation for damages to our country"...yeah, no reason at all, except maybe simple gratitude.

Yes, gratitude for saving them from their own former allies; they were originally paying Iraq to protect them from Iran during the Iran-Iraq War. (Just ask the Teamsters how well that idea works...) Also, keep in mind that, in 1982, we removed Iraq from the list of "state sponsors of terrorism", in an effort to win Saddam's loyalty from the USSR.

We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

Compensation? Repatriation? Sorry, all We The People said anything about was the WMDs. The efforts at repatriation and collection of debt were from the UN and the Red Cross. Here's the text of UNSC Resolution 687 to prove it.

Forgive the snippage regarding the bill, but I've finally managed to find the actual text of the bill. It's in PDF, so warm up Adobe Acrobat...

First off, I apologize. The alarmists in the media completely skipped over the word "purposefully" in 948a (1) (i). Not that this improves matters much, since indefinite detention is still possible while the involved commission decides if you knew what you were doing when you were doing it. Likewise, you can be declared an "unlawful combatant" even if you don't fit the definition in (i), as specified in (ii). And to make things interesting, John Walker can be tried the same way; note the absence of any qualification of "unlawful enemy combatant". That's right, U.S. citizens can be detained as well... just not as long. At least in theory. (A later section indicates that at least Americans can cite the Geneva Convention as a source of rights.)

Oh, and I hope the militia members in the audience aren't nervous sorts, but the bill does mention them as potential "lawful enemy combatants" in 948a (2) (B). Be fair, it's only if you're acting against the government of the United States...

948b (d) is a little worrying. Recall that this bill is to set forth a system of military commissions to handle such cases as those of the Guantanamo detainees. Notice the sections being referred to as inapplicable:

From the Uniform Code of Military Justice:

810, Article 10: "When any person subject to this chapter is placed in arrest or confinement prior to trial, immediate steps shall be taken to inform him of the specific wrong of which he is accused and to try him or to dismiss the charges and release him."

831, Article 31:

"(a) No person subject to this chapter may compel any person to incriminate himself or to answer any questions the answer to which may tend to incriminate him."

"(b) No person subject to this chapter may interrogate, or request any statement from an accused or a person suspected of an offense without first informing him of the nature of the accusation and advising him that he does not have to make any statement regarding the offense of which he is accused or suspected and that any statement made by him may be used as evidence against him in a trial by court-martial."

"(d) No statement obtained from any person in violation of this article, or through the use of coercion, unlawful influence, or unlawful inducement may be received in evidence against him in a trial by court-martial."

(At least they left in (c): No person subject to this chapter may compel any person to make a statement or produce evidence before any military tribunal if the statement or evidence is not material to the issue and may tend to degrade him.)

832, Article 32:

"(a) No charge or specification may be referred to a general court-martial for trial until a thorough and impartial investigation of all the matters set forth therein has been made. This investigation shall include inquiry as to the truth of the matter set forth in the charges, consideration of the form of charges, and recommendation as to the disposition which should be made of the case in the interest of justice and discipline.

(b) The accused shall be advised of the charges against him and of his right to be represented at that investigation as provided in section 838 of this title (article 38) and in regulations prescribed under that section. At that investigation full opportunity shall be given to the accused to cross-examine witnesses against him if they are available and to present anything he may desire in his own behalf, either in defense or mitigation, and the investigation officer shall examine available witnesses requested by the accused. If the charges are forwarded after the investigation, they shall be accompanied by a statement of the substance of the testimony taken on both sides and a copy thereof shall be given to the accused.

(c) If an investigation of the subject matter of an offense has been conducted before the accused is charged with the offense, and if the accused was present at the investigation and afforded the opportunities for representation, cross-examination, and presentation prescribed in subsection (b), no further investigation of that charge is necessary under this article unless it is demanded by the accused after he is informed of the charge. A demand for further investigation entitles the accused to recall witnesses for further cross-examination and to offer any new evidence in his own behalf.

(d) The requirements of this article are binding on all persons administering this chapter but failure to follow them does not constitute judicial error."

So, no Fifth Amendment, no speedy trial, and no pretrial investigation. <facepaw> Oh, this is just begging to be abused...

Then, down in Section 4, the following are deemed inapplicable to the military commissions thus defined:

Non-exclusivity of jurisdiction (UCMJ 821)
Court reporters (UCMJ 828)
Contempt of Court (UCMJ 848)
"(a) In any case not capital and not extending to the dismissal of a commissioned officer, the sworn testimony, contained in the duly authenticated record of proceedings of a court of inquiry, of a person whose oral testimony cannot be obtained, may, if otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence, be read in evidence by any party before a court- martial or military commission if the accused was a party before the court of inquiry and if the same issue was involved or if the accused consents to the introduction of such evidence." (UCMJ 850)
Definition and penalty of aiding the enemy (UCMJ 904)
Definition and penalty of spying (UCMJ 906)
Rule of consistency in President-assigned rules (UCMJ 836(a))
Reporting rules and regulations created to Congress (UCMJ 836(b))

But, back to the detainee bill.

Oh, I found the habeas corpus section:

‘‘(e)(1) 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.

‘‘(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section
1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801
note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear
or consider any other action against the United States or its agents
relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial,
or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained
by the United States and has been determined by the United
States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant
or is awaiting such determination.’’.

Down in Section 8 (sorry, Klinger), you have the "nobody can take legal action against the U.S.A. or its people, and I don't care *who* you think you are" section. No national or international court is allowed to bring charges against any U.S. military personnel for what's been done to a detainee.

So, to sum up: The commissions have exclusive jurisdiction, can force self-incrimination, don't have to investigate before trial, don't have to give a speedy trial. They can't reference courts of inquiry, and don't have to report their rulings to the Congress. Nobody can be held in contempt of court. The stated definition, prosecutorial domain, and penalty for aiding the enemy and spying no longer apply to them. And the President can make any additional adjustments to the rules that he wants. Plus, they don't even have to tell you what you're being held for, no court records will be kept, and you can't file suit for mistreatment or wrongful imprisonment.

And all of the above, except where it specifically says "aliens", applies to U.S. citizens as well.

. . . Yeah. I dunno about you, but this does not inspire me with confidence...

Yours truly,

The wolfish,

Wanderer

[Calbeck]

Considering the one nation (Kuwait) is run by hardline Muslims

Hardly. Kuwait is a parliamentary monarchy, one of the very few such in the entire Arab world, and has a reputation for moderation. Taliban they ain't.

who insisted the troops fighting and dying for them couldn't openly wear crosses, carry Bibles, or hold their Sunday services outside of their tents?

Sorry, but you're thinking about the SAUDIS. I served in the 1991 Gulf War, and the Kuwaitis said nothing about any of these subjects. Furthermore, the Saudis didn't even go as far as you're talking; outdoor services WERE held, and I participated in them. Neither were crosses or Bibles banned; what WAS prohibited was "any attempt at religious conversion of a Saudi national".

If you want to promote the idea of a "protection racket", please present evidence to support it.

Well, leaving aside the fact that Sheikh Nasser's beloved daughter has once before appeared before the UN pretending to be one of the oppressed women of Afghanistan...

So that's your evidence of a protection racket, is it?

Iran is trying to develop nuclear capabilities, whether peaceful or not, and is still close enough for air strikes and missiles to be an effective threat. Yeah, nobody needs protection from them... (It's called an air force. Don't worry, it'll never catch on.)

Congratulations, you've just made an argument for Iran picking a fight with a fellow Arab nation that it CAN'T CONQUER. The point of doing so would be to do what, exactly? And in the event that Iran, entirely of its own volition, picks a fight with Kuwait, you're saying it would be BAD for Kuwait to ask the US for help? As opposed to asking who else? The UN?

Yes, gratitude for saving them from their own former allies; they were originally paying Iraq to protect them from Iran during the Iran-Iraq War.

Where did you pick up THAT particular myth? Kuwait was not once threatened by Iran, and did not "pay" Iraq anything. They LOANED Iraq six billion dollars, and in 1990 Iraq made that loan one of their reasons for invading Kuwait, in an attempt to nullify the debt.

I might also add that the war began in the first place entirely as a matter of Hussein trying to seize critical oilfields and the Shatt-al-Arab Waterway in what he expected to be a limited war. Iran was NOT the aggressor to start with, and was never in position to extend the war to any other nations even if it had wanted to.

Compensation? Repatriation? Sorry, all We The People said anything about was the WMDs.

And, sorry, but you're wrong. Try reading the UN Resolutions some time, including the terms of ceasefire that the UN made the US a direct signatory to.

The efforts at repatriation and collection of debt were from the UN and the Red Cross.

And ignored by Iraq, in violation of the ceasefire agreement, which was ultimately enforced by the United States acting "unilaterally". The UN efforts at repatriation and debt collection failed utterly.

Here's the text of UNSC Resolution 687 to prove it.

Yeah, I know, I've READ it. Have you bothered to actually read it yourself? Even under the WMD-related sections, Iraq was found --- both before and after the invasion --- to be in violation. Standing stockpiles were far from the ONLY thing in those terms, although they seem to be the only part of the terms the anti-war crowd seems interested in.

First off, I apologize. The alarmists in the media completely skipped over the word "purposefully" in 948a (1) (i).

Accepted, and well spoken.

Not that this improves matters much, since indefinite detention is still possible while the involved commission decides if you knew what you were doing when you were doing it.

No, because intent does not come under the habeas corpus process. To be held beyond the US normal standard, the prosecution must be able to show opportunity AND a reasonable argument for intent. In cases where there is any room for ambiguity, this is often easily theorized, but it cannot be manufactured from whole cloth and so does not apply to the sort of case you're bringing up.

Likewise, you can be declared an "unlawful combatant" even if you don't fit the definition in (i), as specified in (ii).

Only if you're found such by the Combatant Status Review Tribunal, which itself has to follow legal procedure in making its determination. Not to mention this is the same tribunal anyone seeking release has to get past in the first place.

And to make things interesting, John Walker can be tried the same way; note the absence of any qualification of "unlawful enemy combatant".

Actually, it says "(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)". Sounds pretty qualified to me.

Oh, and I hope the militia members in the audience aren't nervous sorts, but the bill does mention them as potential "lawful enemy combatants"

Have you forgotten that there are independent Iraqi and Afghani militias? Or what the differences between lawful and unlawful enemy combatants are, under the Geneva Conventions?

From the Uniform Code of Military Justice:

810, Article 10: "When any person subject to this chapter

831, Article 31: "(a) No person subject to this chapter", "(b) No person subject to this chapter"

Unlawful enemy combatants are not subject to these chapters. We're not required to treat people who don't even qualify as a legitimate military force as though they were uniformed and professional soldiers.

So, to sum up: The commissions have exclusive jurisdiction, can force self-incrimination

You must have missed this part:

948r. Compulsory self-incrimination prohibited; treatment of statements obtained by torture and other statements
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—No person shall be required to testify against himself at a proceeding of a military commission under this chapter.
‘‘(b) EXCLUSION OF STATEMENTS OBTAINED BY TORTURE.—A statement obtained by use of torture shall not be admissible in a military commission under this chapter, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.

don't have to investigate before trial

If they don't, they're going to have a lame-duck case.

don't have to give a speedy trial.

Good thing the USSC has long held that "speedy" simply means "not unduly subject to excessive delays", including having someone held in jail for years pending trial if it takes that long for the courts to schedule one.

And the President can make any additional adjustments to the rules that he wants.

And you found this particular bit where? I'm not seeing it anywhere in the bill you cited.

Plus, they don't even have to tell you what you're being held for

948q. Charges and specifications
(b) NOTICE TO ACCUSED.—Upon the swearing of the charges
and specifications in accordance with subsection (a), the accused
shall be informed of the charges against him as soon as practicable.

no court records will be kept

949a. Rules
(a) PROCEDURES AND RULES OF EVIDENCE.—Pretrial, trial, and
post-trial procedures, including elements and modes of proof, for
cases triable by military commission under this chapter may be
prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
Attorney General. Such procedures shall, so far as the Secretary
considers practicable or consistent with military or intelligence
activities, apply the principles of law and the rules of evidence
in trial by general courts-martial.

This definition includes record-keeping.

[Wanderwolf]

Have to dash off to bed for a little sleep, so I'll keep this brief:

1. I'm not saying we're running a protection racket, Calbeck; I'd hoped that was a minor misunderstanding that would be cleared up by the nature of my examples. I'm saying that Kuwait is showing a distressing tendency to come running to us as a weapon of convenience, rather than defense. Thus, the pre-Iraq-War attempt to inflame us against Afghanistan by using a ringer as a "poor, oppressed Afghan woman".

2. I bow to the veteran as regards Saudi and Kuwaiti practices on the battlefield. It is likely I misremembered which nation was involved in the news report. (As for the services, what the Saudis want and what they'll get are sometimes two different things.)

3. Considering Kuwait's head of state recently re-appointed his newphew as PM, I think there's a little more to their constitutional monarchy's monarch.

4. Kuwait allied with Iraq: Originally, I found this on Wikipedia, under "Kuwait". The BBC News likewise points out that Iraq's debt to Kuwait was a "war debt". Sakes, what'd you think, he spent it on birthday presents?

5. Iraq could conquer Kuwait, and Iraq couldn't conquer Iran. If A>B and B>C then A>C, Calbeck. Forgive a weary wolfie, but Jehosophat, Calbeck, what was the foundation for believing Iran could never conquer Kuwait?

6. Habeas corpus, huh? You mean the same habeas corpus that is suspended for aliens detained? Can't have it both ways, Calbeck: If there's no habeas corpus for detainees, there's no habeas corpus for detainees.

7. Yes, I know Iraq violated the ceasefire agreement. My point, in case Your Magnificence has forgotten, was that the United States was not the one pushing for the war debts and repatriation. (Note that not a word has been said of either since we dethroned Saddam.)

8. "Unlawful combatant": (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.

9. Militias: I know, but if I hadn't said it then someone else would've.

10. UCMJ 831 is regarding the behavior of court officers in the pre-trial phase, Calbeck. Are you saying court officers are "unlawful enemy combatants"? Because if not, I don't see how they're normally exempt from this chapter.

11. 948r: (a)This only states that a person cannot, "In General", be required to testify against himself at the military commission "under this chapter". Since the self-incrimination has already been explicitly allowed in pre-trial, I fail to see how removing it here is more than a sop to a starving dog. And since "self-incrimination" is actually distinct from "testifying against oneself" in legal matters, it's barely a sop. (b) Don't know why you included this; you misinterpreted "force", perhaps? You might look at (c), however, which states that statements regarding the degree of coercion administered will only be admitted into evidence if "the interests of justice would be best served"; in other words, it's up to the judge, whose action will not be recorded.

12. Section 4, subsection 3:

INAPPLICABILITY OF REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO REGULATIONS.—
Section 836 (article 36) is amended—
(A) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘, except as provided
in chapter 47A of this title,’’ after ‘‘but which may not’’;
and
(B) in subsection (b), by inserting before the period
at the end ‘‘, except insofar as applicable to military
commissions established under chapter 47A of this title’’.

Thus, the relevant section of the UCMJ would read:

(a) Pretrial, trial, and post trial procedures, including modes of proof, for cases arising under this chapter triable in courts-martial, military commissions and other military tribunals, and procedures for courts of inquiry, may be prescribed by the President by regulations which shall, so far as he considers practicable, apply the principles of law and the rules of evidence generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts, but which may not, except as provided
in chapter 47A of this title, be contrary to or inconsistent with this chapter.
(b) All rules and regulations made under this article shall be uniform insofar as practicable and shall be reported to Congress, except insofar as applicable to military commissions established under chapter 47A of this title.

I hope this explains better where I "got that".

13. "as soon as practicable": "practicable"="feasible". This is a vagueness, Calbeck, and one we used to suffer under in the bad old days. How soon is it feasible to tell someone what he's been detained for? When you detain him? When you question him? When your superior can make time in his booked-until-the-Apocalypse schedule? It's left as a judgement call, and that was a much-abused call in the old days. Unless human nature's changed a whole lot since the 1920's, this is a problem waiting to happen.

14. 949a: Notice that it says the rules will be defined by Secretary of Defense, according to his ideas of what is practicable. My complaint stands: There is no longer a requirement for court recording, and that requirement has been stricken with regard to said commissions.

Now I need sleep. Please pay the receptionist and leave further questions on the desk blotter. (Kidding, kidding!)

Yours truly,

The weary,

Wanderer

[Calbeck]

1. I'm not saying we're running a protection racket, Calbeck

Actually, that IS what you said, claiming that our good relations with Kuwait were mostly about "continuing American protection". In point of fact, we've always been on good terms with Kuwait, because they've always been one of the more moderate and stable Arab nations.

I'm saying that Kuwait is showing a distressing tendency to come running to us as a weapon of convenience, rather than defense.

I might be willing to consider that notion, if Kuwait had a record of picking fights in the first place.

Thus, the pre-Iraq-War attempt to inflame us against Afghanistan by using a ringer as a "poor, oppressed Afghan woman".

As opposed to the simple fact that the Taliban openly gave bin Laden shelter and refused to extradite him. Not to mention the fact that regardless of what the Kuwaiti woman said, Afghani women WERE oppressed under the Taliban with its enforcement of full-blown Shari'a law.

"If a fool speaks wisdom, it does not make fools of the wise."

I bow to the veteran as regards Saudi and Kuwaiti practices on the battlefield. It is likely I misremembered which nation was involved in the news report. (As for the services, what the Saudis want and what they'll get are sometimes two different things.)

The Saudis brought us BOOZE.

Granted, it was a pair of Saudi civvies, in a chauffeured Jeep Grand Cherokee, but they brought our unit a case of Jack Daniel's out of thanks for our service to their country.

Saudi Arabia is a dry country, but it turns out "Prohibition" is full-on there --- complete with speakeasies and bathtub gin. Code phrases like "white in your Sprite" abound.

When we looked at them in blank amazement, they spoke to their driver, and he said "We know you are infidels. Why do you insist on acting like Muslims?". They thought it was a combination of funny and insulting, so we broke the ice by sharing the first bottle all around.

Considering Kuwait's head of state recently re-appointed his newphew as PM, I think there's a little more to their constitutional monarchy's monarch.

Not unusual amongst constitutional monarchies, actually. They aren't all like England, you know. And technically, as it stands, the Queen of England still has full authority to dissolve Parliament and resume rule by decree any time she wishes. It wouldn't be PRETTY if she did that --- it would likely spark a civil war --- but it would be legal.

If A>B and B>C then A>C, Calbeck. Forgive a weary wolfie, but Jehosophat, Calbeck, what was the foundation for believing Iran could never conquer Kuwait?

Because Iran can't defeat Iraq any more than Iraq could conquer Iran. The entire point of US involvement in the '82-'88 War in the first place was to prevent EITHER from winning and creating a Muslim superstate possessed of over a third of the world's oil supply.

And without an amphibious warfare capability to speak of, Iran would have to cross IRAQ to get to Kuwait. Hence, without the ability to put troops on the ground and seize Kuwait, Iran cannot conquer it. Harass it, yes, batter it, yes, conquer it, no.

Habeas corpus, huh? You mean the same habeas corpus that is suspended for aliens detained?

Aliens detained overseas have never had the right of habeas corpus. The entire point of the recent USSC ruling on Guantanamo revolved around how habeas corpus applies, and they ONLY were able to apply it to Guantanamo by declaring it part of America's sovereign territory. This in the face of a standing treaty which recognizes CUBA'S sovereignty over the area. What the justices did was say "well, for all intents and purposes, it's LIKE our sovereign territory, so we'll just call it that".

Unless "sovereign" status is extended to every overseas US base, there will always be someplace that aliens may be detained without habeas corpus, according to the Court's ruling.

Can't have it both ways, Calbeck: If there's no habeas corpus for detainees, there's no habeas corpus for detainees.

US law and the USSC both say otherwise. Detainees on US "sovereign territory" have habeas corpus, detainees off US "sovereign territory" don't.

Yes, I know Iraq violated the ceasefire agreement. My point, in case Your Magnificence has forgotten, was that the United States was not the one pushing for the war debts and repatriation. (Note that not a word has been said of either since we dethroned Saddam.)

Not true of either of the latter points. What you mean is that these things did not make the TV news or newspapers in sufficient coverage to be something you recall. But in fact, we did call for war debts and repatriation in every discussion of the Iraq Resolutions before the UN. We trotted out EVERY violation Iraq had ever made against the ceasefire terms, and we did so to justify the No Fly Zones, "Operation Desert Fox", and finally "Operation Iraqi Freedom".

The fact that WMDs made for more airplay than Kuwaiti rights in the press does not change a thing.

"Unlawful combatant": (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.

Yes, and...? Please tell me where in here this means "the President gets to say who is and isn't a terrorist".

UCMJ 831 is regarding the behavior of court officers in the pre-trial phase

...of a courts-martial held against a member of the US Armed Forces. Not in a military tribunal held to determine the combatant status of a suspected terrorist.

948r: (a)This only states that a person cannot, "In General", be required to testify against himself at the military commission "under this chapter". Since the self-incrimination has already been explicitly allowed in pre-trial

Self-incrimination is NORMALLY allowed, including in standard US criminal court cases. A teenager who admits under pressure during a "good cop/bad cop" routine to murdering his father has made a confession and if he signs off on it, that coerced self-incrimination will be allowed to stand until and unless the court is given a good reason to strike it from the record. None of which means that once he is in court, the teenager can be induced to incriminate himself again.

You might look at (c), however, which states that statements regarding the degree of coercion administered will only be admitted into evidence if "the interests of justice would be best served"; in other words, it's up to the judge, whose action will not be recorded.

Quite the contrary, his action will be recorded as part of standard jurisprudence. Effectively, though, your issues stems from the fact that you're pre-judging the judge as biased in favor of conviction.

I hope this explains better where I "got that".

Yes, it does. I presume that you actually checked on what Chapter 47A was?

It's the ENTIRE SECTION ON MILITARY COMMISSIONS. Which not only includes the definitions of who qualifies as an "enemy" or "unlawful" combatant, but also:

I. General Provisions .................................................................. 948a
II. Composition of Military Commissions ....................................... 948h
III. Pre-Trial Procedure ............................................................... 948q
IV. Trial Procedure ..................................................................... 949a
V. Sentences .............................................................................. 949s
VI. Post-Trial Procedure and Review of Military Commissions .......... 950a
VII. Punitive Matters .................................................................... 950p

Which means Bush gets to determine NONE OF THIS.

How soon is it feasible to tell someone what he's been detained for?

You mean none of these people are aware they've been detained as suspected terrorists? Informing someone of the reasons for their detainment is legally separate from formally charging someone with a crime, and it is the lack of formal charges that I hear people yelling about.

Notice that it says the rules will be defined by Secretary of Defense, according to his ideas of what is practicable.

Or the President, and BOTH are held accountable to the standards put forth in 47A.

There is no longer a requirement for court recording

I see nothing which removes the obligation of court recording from military tribunals in the given bill.