This literally says that Bush does NTO believe he is bound by the law,
US or International, the Constitution, the Supreme Court ruling OR the
Geneva Convention.
THIS may be the GREATEST STRIKE YET AT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW...because
if he gets away with THIS, there is NO STOPPING what he can decide to do
to YOU AND ME.
Read the article in it's entirety PLEASE, and PLEASE WRITE YOUR SENATORS
AND CONGRESSMAN!!!
PEOPLE, GEORGE JUST DECLARED HIMSELF DICTATOR
July 12, 2006, 11:13PM
White House doesn't want detainees tried by military
Key lawmakers point to high court ruling as reason to let them in
By PETER SPIEGEL
Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON - Bush administration lawyers Wednesday rejected
congressional suggestions that suspected al-Qaida and Taliban war
criminals be prosecuted in the U.S. military justice system, saying
military courts provide protections for defendants that are unwarranted
in the war on terrorism.
("UNWARRANTED" as in, WHO CARES WHAT THE CONSTITUTION AND SUPREME COURT
SAY, BUSH IS KING!)
The lawyers said the government must be able to use evidence and
testimony gathered through "coercion" and hearsay and does not want to
provide captives with lawyers before interrogating them for intelligence
purposes.
Key lawmakers have argued that last month's landmark Supreme Court
ruling directs them to use the Uniform Code of Military Justice as the
legal framework for new war crimes courts. The lawmakers said they could
amend the code to address specific administration concerns.
But lawyers from the Defense and Justice Departments told members of the
House Armed Services Committee that such a plan was unworkable, and
urged lawmakers to retain the system put in place by President Bush four
years ago, despite the Supreme Court's finding that it violated U.S. law
and the Geneva Conventions.
Daniel Dell'Orto, the Pentagon's principal deputy general counsel, said
hundreds of changes to current military laws would be required if
Congress used the UCMJ as the basis for new war crimes courts.
Their insistence that Congress readopt the administration's existing
military commission system is the latest sign that despite the
Supreme Court ruling and the administration's acknowledgment Tuesday
that the Geneva Conventions must be legally applied to all detainees
the White House is likely to continue to be aggressive in
asserting its authority over detainee policy.
("AGRESSIVE"? THIS is not aggression, it is ILLEGAL and TOTALITARIAN!)
The Bush administration has so far refused to say publicly whether its
decision to apply the Geneva Conventions to military detainees also
applies to those believed to be held by the CIA in undisclosed
locations.
(THAT is CRIMINAL!)
An order issued Tuesday by Gordon England, the deputy Defense secretary,
applied Geneva Conventions protections only to detainees held by the
military, which include 450 at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and about 500 being
held at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan.
The Supreme Court ruling held that a special Geneva provision dealing
with fighters who are not formally part of a nation applied to al-Qaida.
Legal experts said that part of the Supreme Court ruling extends to the
CIA's alleged "ghost detainees," who may include Sept. 11 mastermind
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
White House officials would not answer questions about whether the
Geneva Conventions provision applied to CIA detainees. The CIA also
declined to comment on the topic. Human rights groups estimate there are
more than two dozen such captives.
In arguing that Congress should pass legislation implementing the
president's war crimes rules, administration lawyers for the first time
detailed their objections to proposals for a system based on the U.S.
military justice code.
Most of their objections focused on rules of evidence, which officials
said would prevent them from presenting testimony gathered from military
interrogations.
("RULES OF EVIDANCE"? Who needs RULES when presenting EVIDANCE in a
TRIAL?)
More controversially, Steven Bradbury, head of the Justice Department's
office of legal counsel, said the administration also wanted to maintain
"flexibility" in introducing evidence coerced from detainees.
("FLEXABILITY" as in following LAW ONLY WHEN IT IS CONVIENENT)
On Wednesday, House Republicans said they did not believe al-Qaida
suspects should be granted rights given to other defendants in military
courts-martial.
(QUESTION: HOW do you prove they are al Quada suspects WITHOUT A TRIAL?)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/KlSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
