posted October 06, 2006 06:44 PM              

Now That You Could be Labeled an Enemy Combatant...
by Heather Wokusch

Since Congress recently handed Bush the POWER to identify American citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants".......

......and detain them indefinitely without charge......

......it's worth examining the administration's record of prisoner abuse as well as the building of stateside detention centers.

As Texas governor (from 1995-2000) Bush oversaw the executions of 152 prisoners, and thus became the most-killing governor IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES!!!

Ethnic minorities, many of whom did not have access to proper legal representation, comprised a large percentage of those Bush put to death....... ........and in one particularly egregious example, Bush executed an immigrant who hadn't EVEN SEEN a consular official from his own country (as is required by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, to which the US was a signatory).

Bush's explanation:

"Texas did not sign the Vienna Convention, so why should we be subject to it?"

Governor Bush also flouted the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child by choosing to execute JUVENILE OFFENDERS, a practice shared at the time only by Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

Significantly, in 1998 a full 92% of the juvenile offenders on Bush's death row were ethnic minorities.

Conditions inside Texan prisons during Bush's reign were so notorious that federal Judge William Wayne Justice wrote, "Many inmates credibly testified to the existence of violence, rape and extortion in the prison system and about their own suffering from such abysmal conditions."

In September 1996, for example, a videotaped raid on inmates at a county jail in Texas showed guards using stun guns and an attack dog on prisoners, who were later dragged face-down back to their cells.

Funding of mental health programs during Bush's reign was so poor that Texan prisons had a sizeable number of mentally-impaired inmates; defying international human rights standards, these inmates ended up on death row!

For instance, a prisoner named Emile Duhamel, with severe psychological disabilities and an IQ of 56, died in his Texan death-row jail cell in July 1998. Authorities blamed "natural causes" but a lack of air conditioning in cells that topped 100 degrees Fahrenheit in a summer heat wave may have killed Duhamel instead.

How many other Texan prisoners died of such neglect during Bush's governorship is unclear.

As president, Bush presides over a prison population topping two million people, giving America the dubious distinction of having a higher percentage of its citizens behind bars than any other country!

When considering that (based on 2003 figures) the US has three times more prisoners per capita than Iran and seven times more than Germany........

.....the nation LOOKS MORE LIKE A GULAG than the Land of the Free.

The White House has also stifled investigation into the roughly 760 aliens (mainly Muslim men) the US government rounded up post-9/11, ostensibly for immigration violations.

Amnesty International reports that 9/11 detainees have suffered "a pattern of physical and verbal abuse by some corrections officers" and a denial of "basic human rights."

Put it all together, and last week's passage of the Military Commissions Act is ominous for those in the US.

As Bruce Ackerman noted recently in The Los Angeles Times, the legislation "authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants.........even if they have never left the United States.

And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any protections of the Bill of Rights."

The vague criteria for being labeled an enemy combatant (taking part in "hostilities against the United States") don't help either.

Would that include anti-war protestors?

People who criticize Bush?

Unclear.

In 2002, wacko former Attorney General John Ashcroft called for the indefinite detainment of US citizens he considered to be "enemy combatants," and while widely criticized at the time, Congress went ahead and fulfilled Ashcroft's nefarious vision last week.

Ashcroft had also called for stateside internment camps, and accordingly, in January 2006 the US government awarded a Halliburton subsidiary $385 million to build detention centers to be used for, "an unexpected influx of immigrants or to house people after a natural disaster or for new programs that require additional detention space."

New programs that require additional detention space. Hmm.

The disgraceful Military Commissions Act and the building of domestic internment camps are yet more examples of blowback from the administration's so-called war on terror, and we ignore these increasing assaults on our civil liberties at our own peril.

Action Ideas:

1. Read the Military Commissions Act of 2006 for yourself
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.3930:

Find out how your congressmembers voted on this legislation,
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll508.xml

and raise the topic when they ask for your vote this November.

2. For more information on US prisoner abuse, check out BBC's report from 2005 entitled "Torture Inc. Americas Brutal Prisons."

Text and video versions are archived here..
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll508.xml

You can learn more about US prisoner's rights from the American Civil Liberties Union
http://www.aclu.org/

3. To take action regarding "the plight of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and other detainees held as part of the War on Terror," visit Cageprisoners.com.
http://www.aclu.org/

Heather Wokusch is the author of The Progressives' Handbook: Get the Facts and Make a Difference Now (Volumes 1 and 2).

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0978784200?tag=commondreams-20/ref=nosim

Heather can be reached at

www.heatherwokusch.com.

posted October 06, 2006 07:16 PM            

The same is true when we post distorted articles that contain a distorted analysis of the bill and refer people to a link (a distorted link) that is disguised as "real information".

People should read the actual Bill...

Military Commissions Act - http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/nkk/documents/MilitaryCommissions.pdf#search=%22%22Military%20Commissions%20Act%22%22

Here an excerpt:

(6) The use of military commissions is par-
ticularly important in this context because other alternatives, such as the use of courts-martial, generally are impracticable. The terrorists with whom
the United States is engaged in armed conflict have demonstrated a commitment to the destruction of the United States and its people, to the violation of
the law of war, and to the abuse of American legal processes. In a time of ongoing armed conflict, it generally is neither practicable nor appropriate for
combatants like al Qaeda terrorists to be tried before tribunals that include all of the procedures associated with courts-martial.

As to your "enemy combatant" allegation - here is how you become labelled as such:

a Lawful enemy combatant:

“(5) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.—The 22
term ‘lawful enemy combatant’ means an individual determined by or under the authority of the President or Secretary of Defense (whether on an 1
individualized or collective basis) to be: (i) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States or its
co-belligerents; (ii) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities,
which are under responsible command, wear a
fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance,carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or (iii) a member of a regular armed forces who professes allegiance to a government engaged
in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.

UNLAWFUL enemy combatants:

“(7) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.—The 17
term ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ means an individual determined by or under the authority of thePresident or the Secretary of Defense

“(A) to be part of or affiliated with a force or organization—including but not
limited to al Qaeda, the Taliban, any international terrorist organization, or associated forces—engaged in hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents in violation of the law of war;
“(B) to have committed a hostile act
in aid of such a force or organization so en
gaged;
“(C) to have supported hostilities in aid of such a force or organization so engaged.
“This definition includes any individual determined by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal before the effective date of this Act, to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant, but excludes any alien determined by the President or the
Secretary of Defense (whether on an individualized or collective basis), or by any competent tribunal established under their authority, to be (i) a lawful enemy combatant (including a prisoner of war), or (ii) a protected person whose trial by these
military commissions would be inconsistent with Articles 64-76 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of August 12, 1949. For purposes of this section, the term “protected person” refers to the category of persons described in Article of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of August 12, 1949.
“(6) GENEVA CONVENTIONS.—The term ‘Geneva Conventions’ means the international conventions signed at Geneva on August 12, 1949, including common Article 3. 6
Ҥ 948b.

I think providing the actual words in the Act verses some Pro-terrorist rights website is the way to go.

Scaring the hell out of people into thinking that if they post an altered picture of Bush they will be sent Gitmo is irresponsible and assinine!

posted October 06, 2006 09:46 PM              

In my haste my fingers must have accidentally touched the wrong keys....

posted October 06, 2006 10:00 PM              

quote:

---

Distortion is a beautiful thing isn't it? When we distort what is real the truth is hidden.

---

Not always, Pid.....at least not for long....

bush and company have "distorted" the truth for a long time, but they can no longer hide it because the facts are now KNOWN and ....because truth will out....every time....

posted October 06, 2006 10:22 PM              

To say that is it NOT "appropriate" for persons to be "tried before tribunals that include ALL of the procedures associated with courts-martial" because they are impractical is taking away God given RIGHTS!

Are you too blind to see the unfairness???

quote:

---

.....the term ‘lawful enemy combatant’ means an individual determined by or under the authority of the President or Secretary of Defense (whether on an 1
individualized or collective basis) to be: (i) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States or its blah, blah, blah!!!!

---

What it boils down to is that 'THE DECIDER" (as he has boldly and blantatly already told us that he is)....is the one who decides who is an enemy combatant.....and we are all subject to "the Decider's" choice!

Sad but true....*sigh*

posted October 07, 2006 01:16 PM            

Quick lesson on how to read legalese...

The president can determine you to be an enemy combatant if you meet certain critera, that critera being listed further down in the document.

Are you, "a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States or its
co-belligerents"?

Are you, "a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance,carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war?

Are you, "a member of a regular armed forces who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States."?

Are you, "part of or affiliated with a force or organization—including but not limited to al Qaeda, the Taliban, any international terrorist organization, or associated forces—engaged in hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents in violation of the law of war"?

Have you, "committed a hostile act in aid of such a force or organization so engaged", or have you, "supported hostilities in aid of such a force or organization so engaged."?

If you answered "no" to those questions, then I think you can relax.

posted October 07, 2006 03:04 PM              

Is that what gives you your expertise on "legalese?"

I must say I find it very kind of you to offer your "professional services," and for free too I take it......(as I certainly have no intention of paying you....)

Isis offers......

quote:

---

The president can determine you to be an enemy combatant if you meet certain critera, that critera being listed further down in the document

---

DUH! Gee, thanks for the explanation!

But you know what, Isis????

That "criteria" means diddly sh1t to me.

It's about as "solid" as jello....

If "THE DECIDER" says I meet the criteria.....(whether I do, or not), then it's been "decided" that I do......

so tell me.....what do those nicely written words, really mean?

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!

......no ifs, ands, or buts....

It's as simple as that!

....but thank you for thinking that in "my ignorance" I didn't understand....so out of the goodness of your heart, you take it upon yourself to "explain" it to me....

But you see......

.....I DO UNDERSTAND!

I understand perfectly!

So you go ahead and decipher your "legalese" (for free) to all the sheeple you can find whom you think don't have the brain to understand.....

I'm sure they'll appreciate your kind offer to lay it all out for their simple minds!

posted October 07, 2006 03:16 PM              

quote:

---

The United States Constitution designates the President of the United States as Commander in Chief......

---

In that case, I'll recognize Al Gore as the Commander in Chief, as he's the one who actually won that election and would have again....

posted October 08, 2006 01:51 AM              

Any true American who loves this country would find it a very serious matter for any one man, the president to have as much power as Bush does. This country was specifically set up to keep that much power from the hands of one man.

However Congress and the House has sold out America. They failed to do their job.

posted October 08, 2006 12:47 PM            

Not true American would even think to march with a bunch of communists, terrorists, including narco terrorists whose entire energy is dedicated to the overthrow of the United States of America...again, International ANSWER a communist front organization for the communist Workers World Party...and you both touted their protest marches.

That's really all anyone...who is an American needs to know about you both.

posted October 08, 2006 03:33 PM              

THEY ARE NOT ONE IN THE SAME!

Just because I am anti-bush in no way says that I'm anti-my great country which has been around waaay longer than that little pipsqueak has!

If I've told you once I've told you a million times that being anti-bush is NOT being anti-American...........but you don't seem to get it.....duh!

Think about just WHO IS anti-American......

Who sent our young Americans into a senseless war to sacrifice their lives?

posted October 08, 2006 05:26 PM            

Don't even try to deny it.

posted October 08, 2006 06:02 PM            

I pointed out to you that International ANSWER IS a communist front organization for the Workers World Party and provided links to their site(s). Pointed out to you who their marching partners were...Hamas and the narco terrorists from Central and South America.

None of that deterred you when you were touting the communist Ramsey Clark's petition. You remember Ramsey Clark don't you Rainbow? Ramsey Clark is the front man for the Workers World Party and other communist groups....the communist who is now defending his communist pal Saddam Hussein.

posted October 08, 2006 07:55 PM              

I'd never do that to you, jwhop!

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

jwhop says to me.....

quote:

---

I remember how thrilled you were by that little communist bast@rds impeachment petition

---

Know what jwhop?

I really don't remember.

It had to be a LONG time ago if you were still posting at CE....*sigh*

....but I'll tell you this....that impeachment petition would have thrilled me, even if it had been a big communist b@stard's petition......as long as it was a petition to get bush out!

posted October 08, 2006 08:38 PM            

At that time the US had not invaded Iraq. Bush was giving the UN a chance to get Saddam to live up to his ceasefire obligations and also reminding the UN that they could not pass 16 useless Security Council Resolutions on exactly the same subject matter, fail to act and have any credibility. Bush told the UN they had to act or be considered irrelevant...which they are..irrelevant, not to mention corrupt. That was before anyone even knew about the corrupt UN Oil for Food Program scandal.

So Rainbow, exactly what were you so hot to see Bush impeached over? He hadn't done anything...except kick the Taliban out of Afghanistan for harboring bin Laden....at that point....and that was well before your current jihad against Bush for the alleged WTC bombing conspiracy.

I notice that communist kook Clark's petition didn't mention a word about impeachment of the leftist democrats who voted for removing not only the Taliban but Saddam Hussein.

posted October 09, 2006 12:17 AM            

Let's see, Algore the lunkhead who flunked out of Divinity School...how the hell does anyone manage that...Algore who dropped out of Law School, Algore who says he invented the Internet, Algore who says he cleaned up Love Canal, Algore who says he and Tipper were the inspiration for Love Story , Algore who grew up in Washington DC but couldn't recognize a bust of George Washington , Algore who held a fund raiser in a church..in violation of US campaign finance law...but it's OK because "THERE'S NO CONTROLLING LEGAL AUTHORITY", Algore who campaigned from and raised campaign funds from the White House...in violation of US campaign laws..PLURAL, Algore who attempted to steal the 2000 presidential election..and finally, Algore who though he cheated like hell in the Florida recounts still lost...proving Algore is entirely too stupid to ever be President of the United States.

Or, perhaps the traitor John Heinz Kerry fits your profile. Traitor Kerry who gave aid and comfort to our enemies the communist North Vietnam and Viet Cong, Traitor Kerry who attempted to aid another enemy of the United States...the little communist bast@rd Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, Traitor Kerry who attempted to aid the communist Soviet Union by declaring and working for a nuclear freeze in Europe when the Soviet Union enjoyed an overwhelming nuclear superiority...as well as force and equipment superiority, Traitor Kerry who proposed at every opportunity, a reduction in the CIA budgets...at a time when the United States was under terrorist attacks here, in the middle east and in Africa.

posted October 09, 2006 03:21 PM              

.....and since he got the most votes I would say that he met the criteria of MOST of the American voters...that's supposed to be THE AMERICAN WAY! (Long gone - THAT!)

But it's really unbelievable you should ask about meeting criteria for president, when the guy who's falsely in there now, has the criteria of what would be required to make a criminal!!!

.....and I don't want to hear any more nonsense about "Kerry giving comfort and aid to the enemy".....what a bunch of hogwash!

posted October 10, 2006 12:57 PM            

Are you too blind to see the unfairness???

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.....the term ‘lawful enemy combatant’ means an individual determined by or under the authority of the President or Secretary of Defense (whether on an 1
individualized or collective basis) to be: (i) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States or its blah, blah, blah!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What it boils down to is that 'THE DECIDER" (as he has boldly and blantatly already told us that he is)....is the one who decides who is an enemy combatant.....and we are all subject to "the Decider's" choice!

Sad but true....*sigh*

So no matter how much you try and "flower it up" it ain't gonna wash! I'm not buying!
_______________________________

I am neither blind nor am do I encourage unfairness. Rather, I read a document and dissect it. One does NOT have to be an attorney to understand legalese. One only has to research the law, the terminology and then understand what one is reading. Rather than allowing some communistic, Anti-American website TELL me what how should read it by... what did you call it "Rearranging the words" I read it and interpret it as well as research it.

Rearranging words in order to make is appear to be something it isn't is called "misrepresentation" which is also paramount to perpetuating a lie. This law has been in effect in the Military for years, it just seemed that it needed to be spelled out ONCE AGAIN for the liberals in our Country because they wanted to argue over what constituted a terrorist and what rights they should have under the law.

Yelling at Isis and then asking her if she is an attorney is immature at best. You also interpreted the law as you see fit, but did not stay within the confines of the law itself. Did anyone here ask you if you had a law degree? How about the website that first sent it to you or that you refer to? Do they have a team of lawyers busy dissecting the law for us mere mortals?

Isis was not "practicing" law, she was pointing out various statements within a specific law. One does not have to be a laywer in order to read and interpret the law, one has to be a lawyer if they represent themselves as such and "practice" law.