Bush Signs Terror Interrogation Law

[Jayhawkk]

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush signed legislation Tuesday authorizing tough interrogation of terror suspects and smoothing the way for trials before military commissions, calling it a "vital tool" in the war against terrorism.

Bush Signs Terror Interrogation Law

[Sendo]

Really this is pretty scary stuff. If you read the Bill carefully this is really an Anti-Bill of rights.

I really find this disgusting and I can't believe that it passed.

[DAdams91982]

Really this is pretty scary stuff. If you read the Bill carefully this is really an Anti-Bill of rights.

I really find this disgusting and I can't believe that it passed.

F*CK THAT. A way to bring people to justice that need it. F*CK these bastards lived better in our detention system than prior, and they killed american citizens on our own soil. Talk to someone who had family in one of the buildings.

Adams

[Rage (SoCal)]

Really this is pretty scary stuff. If you read the Bill carefully this is really an Anti-Bill of rights.

I really find this disgusting and I can't believe that it passed.

It's quite interesting what it actually does too. Any pending requests of any sort from terrorist suspects will be void now.

If the sh1t ain't hit the fan enough right now, Japan is now heavily considering acquiring nukes.

[glg]

Really this is pretty scary stuff. If you read the Bill carefully this is really an Anti-Bill of rights.

I really find this disgusting and I can't believe that it passed.

I agree. Big brother is here he just arrived 20 yrs late.

[wastedwhiteboy2]

our bill of rights should only apply to americans. screw the terrorists. Let the military do their job. red tape sucks.

[klugman]

our bill of rights should only apply to americans. screw the terrorists. Let the military do their job. red tape sucks.

You got that right brutha!!!

Also, did these f*cking animals give Nick Berg any rights???

[BigVrunga]

You got that right brutha!!!

Also, did these f*cking animals give Nick Berg any rights???

That's what Im saying.

Its understandable why people are alarmed by this though. This bill is to 'protect' us from terrorists. But its the government who defines what a 'terrorist' is. Its pretty clear right now that that's a extreme muslim-type - but what about 25-50 years from now? Maybe it will be someone who doesnt want to pay their taxes, or someone who verbally criticizes the government.

If they really wanted to take a hard line on terror and bring down radical Islam, there are more direct routes than this. A lot of the decisions made by this administration just reek of ulterior motives.

BV

[spatch]

I really find this disgusting and I can't believe that it passed.

I find it disgusting but wasn't surprised at all. It's one of those "yeah I heard about that... can you pass the salt" things.

Edit- i'm not disgusted with the law on paper, but this will lead to worse things down the road.

[Dwight Schrute]

Maybe some of you need to read it before being disgusted.

DETAINEE BILL AT A GLANCE

Highlights of legislation on the treatment and prosecution of terrorist suspects the House approved Wednesday:

War crimes:

• The bill outlines specific war crimes. These include torture, cruel or inhuman treatment, murder, mutilation or maiming, rape and biological experiments. The law provides extensive definitions of each crime.

• The bill does not include a provision President Bush wanted interpreting U.S. obligations under the Geneva Conventions, the 1949 treaty that sets international standards on prisoner treatment. Also, the president would not be allowed to authorize any interrogation technique that amounted to a war crime.

But he can "interpret the meaning and application" of Geneva Convention standards applied to less severe interrogation procedures. Such a provision is intended to allow him to authorize methods that might otherwise be seen as illegal by international courts.

Court system:

• Establishes a legal system to prosecute "unlawful enemy combatants." An unlawful enemy combatant is defined as a person "who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents."

• The court would not be used to prosecute U.S. citizens or individuals who fight in foreign forces on behalf of a sovereign state. The phrase "purposefully and materially" is intended to clarify that a person must knowingly support terror networks to be deemed an unlawful enemy combatant.

• The individual must be selected by the government to be prosecuted under the court system, known as a "military commission." The commission can determine the punishment, including death.

Evidence rules:

• The agreement requires that a defendant be allowed to examine and respond to any evidence given to a jury. If classified information is needed for prosecution, an unclassified summary can be provided.

• When the government wants to protect classified information and an unclassified substitute is not available, the government could opt to drop the charges. Under the laws of war, the president would not be required to release the combatant.

• Defendants could be convicted on hearsay evidence so long as a judge finds it to be reliable.

• Coerced testimony would be allowed in narrow circumstances, generally if the statement was acquired before a 2005 ban on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and a judge finds it to be reliable. Bans coerced statements taken after the 2005 ban took effect if it violates constitutional definitions of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Habeas corpus:

• Bars defendants from protesting their detention or treatment in civilian courts.

[Dwight Schrute]

TIts pretty clear right now that that's a extreme muslim-type - but what about 25-50 years from now? Maybe it will be someone who doesnt want to pay their taxes, or someone who verbally criticizes the government.

It doens't apply to US Citizens.

[Dwight Schrute]

It's quite interesting what it actually does too. Any pending requests of any sort from terrorist suspects will be void now.

Thats flat out wrong.

They first go through a Combatant Review Tribunal to determine if he is an unlawful enemy combatant.

He has the right to appeal that status in the D.C Court of Appeals.

If the D.C Court of Appeals uphold the decision he has the right to petition the U.S Supreme Court.


Even after all that and the person is convicited he still appeals again through the same measures as mentioned above.

[jomi822]

legislation legalizing torture, not a good idea.

when is bush going to stop. it seems that as long as he says "it will protect american lives" you people will let him do anything.

how long before provisions like these dont apply to just non-U.S. citezens?

[Pioneer]

sounds good to me

[Dwight Schrute]

legislation legalizing torture, not a good idea.

when is bush going to stop. it seems that as long as he says "it will protect american lives" you people will let him do anything.

how long before provisions like these dont apply to just non-U.S. citezens?

Why don't you get a clue. It PROHIBITS TORTURE.

The senate is going to approve a bill that outlines torture as a war crime yet they are going to allow torture to obtain that information. Yeah, that would pass in a minute.

And who is "you people" ?

[jomi822]

Why don't you get a clue. It PROHIBITS TORTURE.

The senate is going to approve a bill that outlines torture as a war crime yet they are going to allow torture to obtain that information. Yeah, that would pass in a minute.

And who is "you people" ?

"The legislation also eliminates some of the rights defendants are usually guaranteed under U.S. law, and it authorizes continued harsh interrogations of terror suspects."

"He also insisted that the law authorize CIA agents to use tough _ yet unspecified _ methods to interrogate suspected terrorists."

In other words, torture. this is america and we need to be above the methods that other countries use, or in my opinion, at least not let people know publicly by passing laws that basically make it ok. i was raised to believe that america was above and beyond other nations in regards to how we handled war, since then, i have been let down. However this is a very large slap in the face.

"The legislation says the president can "interpret the meaning and application" of international standards for prisoner treatment, a provision intended to allow him to authorize aggressive interrogation methods that might otherwise be seen as illegal by international courts. "

In other words, war crimes. bush can now do whatever he wants to terrosist detainees and violate the geneva convention. This really ruins what little of America's superior image there was.

By what ive said above you might think i am appalled that we are now torturing terrorists and taking away what little rights they had. Not true, i hope we torture them until they literally go insane. i believe they should beg for death after what we do to them behind closed doors at guatanamo. however, what i am appalled at is that we are making this so public. That is not a wise move at all, and does nothing for America's image.

[Jayhawkk]

Why don't you get a clue. It PROHIBITS TORTURE.

It prohibits torture but it also lets the president define torture and they would not give examples. One of the big up-in-the-air torture examples is water boarding. As an example.

[Dwight Schrute]

"The legislation also eliminates some of the rights defendants are usually guaranteed under U.S. law, and it authorizes continued harsh interrogations of terror suspects."

"He also insisted that the law authorize CIA agents to use tough _ yet unspecified _ methods to interrogate suspected terrorists."

In other words, torture. this is america and we need to be above the methods that other countries use, or in my opinion, at least not let people know publicly by passing laws that basically make it ok. i was raised to believe that america was above and beyond other nations in regards to how we handled war, since then, i have been let down. However this is a very large slap in the face.

"The legislation says the president can "interpret the meaning and application" of international standards for prisoner treatment, a provision intended to allow him to authorize aggressive interrogation methods that might otherwise be seen as illegal by international courts. "

In other words, war crimes. bush can now do whatever he wants to terrosist detainees and violate the geneva convention. This really ruins what little of America's superior image there was.

By what ive said above you might think i am appalled that we are now torturing terrorists and taking away what little rights they had. Not true, i hope we torture them until they literally go insane. i believe they should beg for death after what we do to them behind closed doors at guatanamo. however, what i am appalled at is that we are making this so public. That is not a wise move at all, and does nothing for America's image.

You seriously need to get a grasp on reality. Harsh interrogations is NOT torture. There is a reason John McCain was involved to make sure that torture was NOT written into the act and why he didn't agree with the wording on the original draft.

I suggest you do some research on what the English, French, Israeli governments define as harsh interrogations because its MUCH worse than us. We are above and beyond the most lenient of nations on enemy combatants but that's not enough for you.

If the criteria is that we should be better than most countries when it comes to following the pertaining enemy combatants then we have achieved that already but you are so caught up in your anti-war, anti-bush attitude that you can't even read whats printed. You think harsh interrogations is torture. Sorry, its not.


"Pacifists emphasize the ideal while igoring the real"

Ben Franklin

[Dwight Schrute]

It prohibits torture but it also lets the president define torture and they would not give examples. One of the big up-in-the-air torture examples is water boarding. As an example.

No it does not. It lets him interpret them under the Geneva Convention which means he has to abide by them...which means no torture.

Ask John McCain if he would allow a bill to pass that included torture.

"• The bill does not include a provision President Bush wanted interpreting U.S. obligations under the Geneva Conventions, the 1949 treaty that sets international standards on prisoner treatment. Also, the president would not be allowed to authorize any interrogation technique that amounted to a war crime.

[Jayhawkk]

Waterboarding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia