Just so we know, the Law that is passing is very vague, but implies that US citizens could be tried by the military tribunal... see section 950fff. A person who is in breach of their allegiance to the USA who aids an enemy (or aids even a friend of an enemy it seems, a so called "co-belligerant" of an enemy) could be punished under this statute. This New Law of the Land also specifies that it will be that protector of human rights, Donald Rumsfled, who will decide who is the judge and the attorneys. More follows...
Someone tell me how I can vote for my senator who did not filibuster this legislation that undoes the beauty of our constitution and legal system. I must say that I, a life long Democrat, politically active since the Dukakis campaign, is more than disappointed at my "representation" in Washington. It seems that no one on either side of the aisle would do what I and most of my politically informed friends would have done. Filibuster.
Just so we know, the Law that is passing as we type and read allows that not only "enemy combatants" (which is of course bad enough) but possibly US citizens to be brought up before the military commission system. It is very vague, but implies that US citizens could be tried this way... see section 950fff. A person who is in breach of their allegiance to the USA who aids an enemy (or aids even a friend of an enemy is seems, a so called "co-belligerant" of an enemy) could be punished under this statute. Doesn't being able to breach allegiance mean you have allegiance to breach - so this would not be referring to a non-citizen enemy combatant. Doesn't this mean a citizen who helps someone defined as an enemy? What do you think about this (comments welcome on this).
This New Law of the Land also specifies that it will be that protector of human rights, Donald Rumsfled, who will decide who is the judge and the attorneys. Of course the detainees will be executed if they killed a civilian, but also if they killed a soldier. And, even more assuring (if you are a Nazi who just wants the detainees to just be gone), confessions given during torture are admissible. "Does it really say this?!" one might ask. No, it says confessions that occur under torture are not allowed ... unless. Unless they happened before the year 2006 AND the judge (picked by Rumsfeld) thinks it should be admissible. Also, it is OK if the person who gave the confession under torture is him or herself accused of torture.
Are you worried? I would be, except that King George can always suspend any sentence whenever he chooses. Yes that is in there, too.
Hey world - many of us are SORRY (Standing Opposed to Rumsfeld's Republican Yes-men).