It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush given retroactive immunity for warcrimes.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   
ok my eyes are starting to hurt after reading this bill... which can be found here:

H.R. 6166 EH

So far this is all I have been able to find:


`(B) PROTECTION OF SOURCES, METHODS, OR ACTIVITIES- The military judge, upon motion of trial counsel, shall permit trial counsel to introduce otherwise admissible evidence before the military commission, while protecting from disclosure the sources, methods, or activities by which the United States acquired the evidence if the military judge finds that (i) the sources, methods, or activities by which the United States acquired the evidence are classified, and (ii) the evidence is reliable. The military judge may require trial counsel to present to the military commission and the defense, to the extent practicable and consistent with national security, an unclassified summary of the sources, methods, or activities by which the United States acquired the evidence.

source: thomas.loc.gov


I will keep reading to see if there is anything that directly states immunity but so far...nothing concrete yet.




posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Thanks Tone,

As is evidenced by the Bill itself, this thread is based on propaganda.


`Punishment by flogging, or by branding, marking, or tattooing on the body, or any other cruel or unusual punishment, may not be adjudged by a military commission under this chapter or inflicted under this chapter upon any person subject to this chapter. The use of irons, single or double, except for the purpose of safe custody, is prohibited under this chapter.
~~~~~~~
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.
~~~~~~~
The accused shall be permitted to present evidence in his defense, to cross-examine the witnesses who testify against him, and to examine and respond to evidence admitted against him on the issue of guilt or innocence and for sentencing, as provided for by this chapter.
~~~~~~~
(2) No person may attempt to coerce or, by any unauthorized means, influence--

`(A) the action of a military commission under this chapter, or any member thereof, in reaching the findings or sentence in any case;

`(B) the action of any convening, approving, or reviewing authority with respect to his judicial acts; or

`(C) the exercise of professional judgment by trial counsel or defense counsel.
~~~~~~~
thomas.loc.gov...:2:./temp/~c109MrOd80::


And as is evidenced here, all the protection pertains to, is those that acted under the "old" regulations are not held accountable under the new.

It is called "Grandfathering" and is a policy that is ALWAYS done in ANY action.


(a) Counsel and Investigations- Section 1004(b) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 2000dd-1(b)) is amended--

(1) by striking `may provide' and inserting `shall provide';

(2) by inserting `or investigation' after `criminal prosecution'; and

(3) by inserting `whether before United States courts or agencies, foreign courts or agencies, or international courts or agencies,' after `described in that subsection'.

(b) Protection of Personnel- Section 1004 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 2000dd-1) shall apply with respect to any criminal prosecution that--

(1) relates to the detention and interrogation of aliens described in such section;

(2) is grounded in section 2441(c)(3) of title 18, United States Code; and

(3) relates to actions occurring between September 11, 2001, and December 30, 2005.thomas.loc.gov...:2:./temp/~c109MrOd80:e118225:


So as you can clearly see, this is all hype and no substance.

Semper



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   
The Senate bill is S 3930 for those who want a look there.

[edit on 1-10-2006 by Xeros]



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
I agree semper...

And with that I will do an about face(not the first time)

I have read both versions of that bill in its entirety and I cannot find it anywhere unless I missed it(and I dont think I did)... damn you Alex Jones...


I do not like looking like a fool... but I opened my mouth and inserted my own foot... so noone to blame really but myself for being so gullable..I am glad I did read that bill though thats for sure.. as I dont mind making mistakes nor do I mind admitting them.

And this time I did jump the gun a bit.... But after my initial reaction I took the time to sit and actually read the Bill(both versions)



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xeros
The Senate bill is S 3930 for those who want a look there.

[edit on 1-10-2006 by Xeros]


darn it just when I thought I was done reading...lol
back to the drawing board I guess.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TONE23
I agree semper...

And with that I will do an about face(not the first time)

I have read both versions of that bill in its entirety and I cannot find it anywhere unless I missed it(and I dont think I did)... damn you Alex Jones...


I do not like looking like a fool... but I opened my mouth and inserted my own foot... so noone to blame really but myself for being so gullable..I am glad I did read that bill though thats for sure.. as I dont mind making mistakes nor do I mind admitting them.

And this time I did jump the gun a bit.... But after my initial reaction I took the time to sit and actually read the Bill(both versions)


I thought that was the "House Resolution"? The Senate bill can be found here - S 3930. Eh, but what do I know about US politics?

[edit on 1-10-2006 by Xeros]



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 02:04 PM
link   
It is the same basic bill as far as I can see.

They would not change it much once passed by either the House or Senate.

Also on that site is the finalized bill presented to both House and Senate.

That is the one I believe I quoted from.

Semper



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   
What is the difference between the two?

I am getting confused as to why there are three differnt versions.. two House and one Senate version...


Can you help me make sense of this Xeros?
and thanks for posting the Senate version too...



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by TONE23
What is the difference between the two?

I am getting confused as to why there are three differnt versions.. two House and one Senate version...


Can you help me make sense of this Xeros?
and thanks for posting the Senate version too...


I read this article and it seems to tie them together. They are listed at the bottom.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   
OK,
this is quick and by no means 100%

But basically

A bill is introduced in the House... 1st presentation bill
they make whatever changes they deem necessary. (Usually add on some Pork Barrel)

Then the Bill is placed on the Senate Calendar .... 2nd presentation bill

Changes are again made and additions included again..

The the "Quasi-Final bill is Enrolled or Agreed upon ..... 3rd and supposed final publication.

Semper



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   
******
*******
**** ** * ** **** ** * ***** **** *** ***

alright, now that the multi-lingual profanity is out of the way and censored

can we do this?

isn't this both out of our jurisdiction and illegal?

we should really make the "no executive pardons for executive officers" ammendment



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Tone, Semper, Xeros,

My hat is off to all of you for doing the leg work on this. I wish more people would take the time to actually read these new and sometimes complex laws before going off half-cocked after reading the biased propaganda rags (on both ends of the political spectrum)

Nice work!



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 11:23 AM
link   
OH THANK GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It not true very good, thank you guys almost had a heart attack!



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Cover thy own assssss so that when the masses wake up, there's not a darn thing that can be done about any of this.

How stupid can we be? How smart can they get?



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Hold the Phone...... I was reading the Senate version of this bill and lookey lookey here



SEC. 7. HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS.

(a) In General- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking both the subsection (e) added by section 1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2742) and the subsection (e) added by added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law 109-163 (119 Stat. 3477) and inserting the following new subsection (e):

`(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.'.

(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001.

source: S. 3930


So it DOES give retroactive immunity protection against the govt. and its agents.....

Just had alot of reading to do to get to it. So maybe Alex wasnt that far off after all.
It also only disallows Habeas Corpus for "alien unlawful Combatants" it mentions nothing about US citizens that I could find.

Now I am not sure. But from what I can determine here; it proects the govt. from individuals seeking grievences aginst the govt. "mistakes" they might make.... clever wording huh... and it does retroact back to 911

what are everyones thoughts on this?



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Well done TONE23
I suspected it would be there somewhere and thought it was a bit soon for people to be saying "thank god" etc seeing as respectable news sources were talking about it. I'm glad you understand it better than me to pick that out

[edit on 2-10-2006 by Xeros]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   
yeay ...now I get to pull my foot back out of my mouth yet again...lol... or is it put it back in my mouth.. either way I have now done a 360...

But anyway.. I think it may only apply to 'aliens' and NOT US citizens... but thats only IF I am reading it correctly.

But does this mean the Administration/govt. can label anyone
(US citizens included) as a terrorist and suspend their rights indefinately? I dont know... I just dont know.

[edit on 10/2/2006 by TONE23]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Tone,

Though everyone on here that is vehemently against the administration will never believe it, if you look at ANY!! 100% of all bills that effect law, that clause is always .....ALWAYS...100% of the time included...

It is commonly referred to as the "Grandfather" clause and is utilized to protect anyone from actions thought to be legal at the time and made illegal by legislation after the fact.

Very common and not conspiratorial at all.

Semper



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Here's my read...

The clause Alex Jones referes to when trying to say US citizens will be subject to this Act begins "Any person subject to this Chapter..."

To review..The Chapter is 47A - Military Commissions (In its entirety)

Now lets go to the Chapter 47A
Subchapter 1 - General Provisions
Section 948b. - Millitary Commissions Generally
Section 948c. - Persons subject to Military Commissions
Section 948d.- Jurisdiction of Military Commissions


‘‘§ 948b. Military commissions generally
‘‘(a) PURPOSE.—This chapter establishes procedures governing
the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants
engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations
of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission.


This clearly states the entire chapter applies to ALIEN unlawful enemy combatants (UECs)


‘‘§ 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
‘‘Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by
military commission under this chapter.


Clear enough.


‘‘§ 948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions
‘‘(a) JURISDICTION.—A military commission under this chapter
shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this
chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful
enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.


Again...key word "alien".


So...What's the purpose of Chapter 47A - Military Commissions?
Establishes procedures to deal with ALIEN UECs

What persons are subject to Chapter 47A -Military Commissions?
Alien UECs

Who do the Military Commmissions have jurisdiction over?
You get the theme here.

So Jones's claims of possible unlawful imprisonment of US citizens are false.


Now it does seem that they have included a clause for immunity from being charged for not giving detainess access to legal representation, but only for the suspension of Habeas Corpus as it relates to the other issues (treatment transfer condidtions of detention etc.) not these issues themselves.

I can't blame them.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   
The Grandfather clause IS common I agree....

I was just repositioning myself from my earlier position of not being able to find it in there at all.

I think the thing that gets everyone worked up is the retro dating to 911(911 stirs up the worst in most of us.

Retro dating it back to 911 doesnt in anyway make an admittion of guilt for the events of 911. (if there is any there at all in the first place)

But it does cover their butts quite nicely from possible retributions for mistakes that the govt. has made/ or is going to make.... Personally I dont like that because even though mistakes may be made out of the best of intentions it doesnt erase the damage done to said individual. And what if one day that individual is me!!!!... sure I am a pacifist and would never raise a hand in anger to my own wife let alone my govt.

But with all the hyperbole being spouted out of the presidents big yapper about either being with us or against us... I can see why so many would have their back hair raised by this...

Either way it is something to keep an eye out for... now that it has passed.. hopefully they will be prudent in thier quest... And well be here to make sure of it...


And for Dark... yes I agree... I have not been able to find anything about actual US citizens... I see no suspension of Habeas Corpus for US citizens.

[edit on 10/2/2006 by TONE23]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join