The way they call these Gitmo defendants 'enemy combatants' is prejudicial

[bigtree]

to their defense. How can they get a fair trial in any proceeding when the government has already paraded them around as guilty?

The very language, 'enemy combatant', is not even descriptively accurate except in the way they've again made up a definition to suit their made-up law.


com‧bat‧ant 

1. a nation engaged in active fighting with enemy forces.
2. a person or group that fights.
–adjective
3. combating; fighting: the combatant armies.
4. disposed to combat; combative.


Whether or not these defendants have been 'combatants', or not, is a matter to be determined in court, even under their own legislation. Yet, the label is applied to every individual Bush grants permission to detain. In effect, under this law, the mere act by the president of detaining someone takes away their presumption of innocence which is the most basic of protections against any prosecution, in any system.

Further, the detainee/torture legislation puts even more of a burden of proof on the accused by allowing the introduction of hearsay evidence by the prosecution if the defendant can't discredit it. In effect, the government won't have to present any evidence at all against those Bush decides to hold indefinitely, without charges, to convict them. All they have to say is they have knowledge of their guilt, and, that knowledge they intend to suffice for due process and justice done. There is no opportunity for any real measure of defense.

There will be zero convictions under these tribunals which will stand any judicial review, despite the provisions which limit appeals based on the Geneva provisions. Just basic jurisprudence would tell you that. This mock court is no different from the one the Supreme Court already struck down, except in the provisions which are even more pernicious and unconstitutional. I find it hard to imagine this law will end up effecting anything except the upcoming congressional campaign.

[Solly Mack]

1. Exactly

anyone captured has the right to a hearing BEFORE they are labeled...it's a status hearing to determine their status...Bush labeling them before that hearing was illegal.

They are entitled to have that hearing BEFORE

And when Bush decided (and SCOTUS nudged) he'd allow hearings to challenge their status...that was just smoke and mirrors to cover up the fact that he had already broken the alw

[bigtree]

2. It's hard for me to see how this bill solves the SC objections

it raises even more points of order, in my view. I'll have to defer to the lawyers on this . . .

[Solly Mack]

3. The bill raises a great many legal objections

but then everything about the Bush administrations raises legal objections

Primarily, the goal of this bill was to provide legal cover and to expand the office of the executive

and while it meanders through the courts seeking resolution...

People will comtinue to be victims of extraordinary rendition
People will continue to be held indefinitely without the due process entitled to them under laws that used to matter
People will continue to be "interrogated aggressively" with "alternative means of interrogation"
War criminals still have immunity
Bush will continue to expand his powers

[bigtree]

4. I'm not certain it will do anything to actually 'cover' them

any more than Congress has the ability (and majority will) to actually confront and direct them.

Bush will continue to be Bush unless we take back control of the majority in one or both houses of Congress in November, not withstanding what the courts do. But, I do think that there are these challenges coming from these Gitmo defendants as the government allows these cases to proceed with the defendants having more access to counsel and able to actually engage the prosecution in procedural motions.

Then there are the constitutional challenges, which I would think, would begin almost immediately after passage.