
I know the photo is a little overly dramatic, but it's not there are whole lot of places to use it. There is a new law on the books this month, and once again it constitutes a threat to the rights we have all been taught to assume we will have in the event we are accused of a crime. This is not quite a follow-up to a blog entry from about a month ago about the
National Security Surveillance Act. This law is the
Military Commissions Act of 2006, and with the help of Wikipedia I'll help explain what changes are on the horizon. If you want to hear it from someone a whole lot smarter than I, check out
Keith Olbermann on The Death of Habeas Corpus. The provisions, with explanation:
An “unlawful enemy combatant” can be any alien and determined to be one by a “competent tribunal” established by the President or the Secretary of Defense. What comprises a competent tribunal is described in sections 948i through 948m. It can be an alien living in the United States, but it doesn't have to be.
UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.— (A) The term ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ means— ‘‘(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."The Act changes pre-existing law to explicitly disallow the invocation of the Geneva Convention when executing the writ of habeas corpus for detainees who are not U.S. citizens. Basically nobody has to prove evidence of wrongdoing in order to detain you. Call this the Jose Padilla provision.If the government chooses to bring a prosecution against the detainee, a military commission is convened for this purpose. The following rules are some of those established for trying unlawful enemy combatants who are not citizens of the United States. The Act does exclude these rules from being applied when trying unlawful enemy combatants who are American citizensCertain sections of the Uniform Code of Military Justice are deemed inapplicable - including some relating to a speedy trial, compulsory self-incrimination, and pre-trial investigation. Okay these last two parts are tricky, if you are an American citizen determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant you will not get a speedy trial, you will not have 5th ammendment protections or a pre-trial investigation. If you are not a citizen you are supposed to have those rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but this act voids that one. No soup for anyone.A civilian defense attorney may not be used unless they have clearance to view materials classified Secret. Fat chance of that happening.
Based on his findings, the judge may introduce hearsay evidence, evidence obtained without a search warrant, evidence obtained when the degree of coercion is disputed, or classified evidence not made available to the defense. So they can introduce unlawful evidence against you and you can't even see it.
A finding of Guilty requires only a 2/3 majority. What is this American Idol?No defendant may invoke the Geneva Conventions in legal proceedings on their behalf. In case you missed it above, the Geneva Convention no longer applies.
The President determines “the meaning and application” of the Geneva Conventions banning the torture of prisoners. If you are lucky, the President might wish to actually ban your torture, but don't plan on it.The accused may be tried for the same offense a second time “with his consent”. No double jeopardy, but I am going to assume that "with his consent" means they will torture you until you do.
If the military commission returns a finding of Not Guilty, its convening authority is not required to take action on the findings. Not Guilty doesn't mean you're free. It means they are going to circle the wagons and get you prepped for that second trial.Finally, several amendments were proposed before final passage of the bill by the Senate; all were defeated. Among them were an amendment by Robert Byrd which would have added a sunset provision after five years; an amendment by Ted Kennedy which would have outlawed specific interrogation techniques including waterboarding, and an amendment by Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) preserving habeas corpus. Specter's amendment was rejected by a vote of 51-48. Specter voted for the bill despite the defeat of his amendment. The bill was finally passed by the house on September 29, 2006 and presented to the President for signing on October 10, 2006.Now for the important part. Here are are the voting records from both
the House and
the Senate. As responsible voter you should know which of your congressman are up for re-relection in November. If you don't, just remember the names from your state and make a note when you're in the voting booth. As for Michigan, here is what you need to know:
YeaStabenow (D-MI, Senate)
Camp (R-MI, House)
Ehlers, Vernon J. (R-MI, House)
Hoekstra, Pete (R-MI, House)
Knollenberg, Joseph (R-MI, House)
Miller, Candice (R-MI, House)
McCotter, Thaddeus, (R-MI, House)
Rogers, Mike (R-MI, House)
Schwarz, J.H. (Joe) (R-MI, House)
Upton, Fred (R-MI, House)
NayLevin (D-MI, Senate)
Conyers Jr., John (D-MI, Senate)
Dingell, John (D-MI, House)
Dale E. Kildee (D-MI, House)
Kilpatrick, Carolyn (D-MI, House)
Levin, Sander (Sandy) (D-MI, House)
Stupak, Bart (D-MI, House)
The votes were almost right down party lines in both the House (250-170, with 218 Yeas coming from Republicans) and the Senate (65-34, with one abstention from a Republican. all 34 Nays were from Democrats).
CONTINUE