 |
Nutrimentia
plata o plomo
Registered: Sep 2000
Location: The Bottom of the Toyem Pole
Posts: 9478 |
Bush/Ashcroft legal plan to combat terrorism
I saw a bit of ABC news this morning that commented on a committee of some sort that is trying to get new laws or new rules written to enable the Dept. of Justice to find and prosecute terrorist criminals. From what I understand (which, as usual, isn't much) is that they want to have the ability to detain without charging (essential suspension of habeas corpus?), ability to detain for long periods, monitoring of conversations with lawyers, and the real kicker, secret military tribunals/ trials, including the execution of criminals.
I talked with MstrG a little bit in chat and will give him the opportunity to respond on his own, but this really bothers me. I don't like the idea of the government conducting criminal prosecution and execution behind closed doors. You?
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
11-21-2001 01:42 AM |
|
|
| |
|
MstrG
The Talamasca
Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 10226 |
Some more info ...
This applies to non-US citizens only.
The administration has stated it will not be done behind closed doors.
The US (Roosevelt) last used this power during WWII.
The main difference between military tribunals and the "normal" justice system is the abbreviated appeals process in the military.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
11-21-2001 01:54 AM |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
Pangloss
feu follet
Registered: Aug 2000
Location: 54.60°N 5.70°W
Posts: 1950 |
It's disgusting, yes. The ultra-conservative paranoid leadership of the GOP is ramrodding all manner of freedom-stripping, anti-liberal bullshit down American throats simply by slapping the anti-terrorism label on it.
The UK had "internment" for many years. Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act anyone could be held for up to four (I think) weeks without evidence being brought against them. "Reason to believe" were the watchwords. And did it make a blind bit of difference? mm hm.
I'd never heard of Ashcroft before 9/11, but I think he may be the Anti-Christ. His heart is at least as black and withered as Cheney's.
In September FAIR had an article on how little news coverage the new legislation was getting. Also this article at newsbytes, commenting on the token resistance. Interesting now to see what's happening with it.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
11-21-2001 02:42 AM |
|
|
| |
|
MstrG
The Talamasca
Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 10226 |
Just for clarification, I think there are two different issues here.
1. The anti-terrorism bill, which passed Congress nearly unanimously (just one "no" vote in the Senate), and was signed by Bush on Oct 26, braadens the powers of the judicial system. A summary here: http://www.msnbc.com/local/kprc/a935699.asp If Ashcroft is the Anti-Christ, then Congress be his minions, including the Democrat-controlled Senate.
2. Within the past week, the executive branch has indicated they will use their powers to try non-US citizens in military tribunals for crimes related to terrorism. The context of what I've seen reported related to extradition of Bin laden and his cohorts should they be taken alive. The aim of this is to prevent large media show trials in the US, posing huge security risks. The link Nute posted above came from www.drudgereport.com ... I've been unable to find any more about it online yet.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
11-21-2001 03:07 AM |
|
|
| |
|
WastedPotential
sociotard
Registered: Aug 2000
Location: the heart of an awl
Posts: 3692 |
I heard about the tribunal thing on the radio the other day. When they mentioned that non-citizens were going to be tried under different rules, the first thing that came to mind, for some reason, were the deportations of drug offenders. People that have lived here for decades without becoming naturalized can be deported if they commit a crime. One of the end results of that policy is that people who were brought here when they were infants were being deported to their country of origin twenty years later with no knowledge of their native language or culture.
The profiles of the alleged 9/11 hijackers seemed to have quite a few guys that fit that age group. I guess what i'm trying to say is that i expect this new policy to subject people that are americans in every sense but the technical-legal sense to a 'justice' system that has the deck stacked against them. I don't think that's fair.
this "new kind of war" may blur the line between war and crime, but i don't see this bush-league plan as an appropriate response. i think that transgressors should be treated either as criminals subject to criminal law, or prisoners of war, subject to the same set of rules as POWs. not some amoebic in-between thing.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
11-21-2001 04:07 AM |
|
|
| |
|
skalie
the honourable
Registered: Sep 2001
Location: ........
Posts: 15661 |
............and over the water.
"Anti-terror bill damned for catch-all powers"
Government accused of smuggling in draconian laws
Alan Travis, home affairs editor
Wednesday November 14, 2001
The Guardian
The government's new anti-terrorist bill was last night attacked as a cover to smuggle into law draconian new police powers that have little direct connection to the war against terrorism.
Publication of the bill yesterday revealed it contains drastic measures such as making it a criminal offence to publish details of the movement of nuclear waste trains, and the power to jail for up to a month an animal rights extremist who refuses to remove a disguise such as a mask or face paint.
Details of the 125-clause bill, which is expected to become law by Christmas, confirm that suspected terrorists who could be interned for up to six months will not hear evidence from intelligence services that led to their detention as they and their lawyers will be excluded from parts of their hearings held in camera. Their interests instead will be represented by an advocate appointed by the attorney general.
Civil liberties groups last night voiced concerns that the anti-terrorism, crime and security bill goes far further than dealing with the specific threats posed by the September 11 attacks on America.
The bill will allow confidential information about an individual held by any government department or local authority to be disclosed to the police and intelligence services for any criminal investigation - not just an investigation into terrorist offences.
Home Office officials yesterday cited the example of an official in the Department of Transport passing confidential information about a train driver if that person was known to be wanted by the police.
During the eight weeks it has taken to draft the bill it has grown from just 40 clauses to 125 as other measures have been added. Some, including clauses relating to internet surveillance and disclosure, are powers that have failed to win parliamentary approval in the past.
John Wadham, director of Liberty, last night said that while the internment proposal was by some way the worst threat to civil rights, "other illiberal measures are being smuggled in under the cover of proposals to deal with the events of September 11. Too many of these proposals risk falling short of the highest British standards of justice".
But the home secretary, David Blunkett, insisted that the legislation contained "proportionate and targeted measures which will ensure and safeguard our way of life against those who would take our freedom away".
Ministers believe that about 16 suspected terrorists would have been caught by the detention powers had they been in force last year. "Because we are talking only about a handful of people, we are not threatening the civil liberties of this country, but we are ensuring those handful don't threaten those civil liberties," Mr Blunkett said.
He denied that the new offence of incitement to religious hatred would prevent reasoned debate, humour or criticism of religions or religious practices, stressing the new crime would protect atheists as much as Muslims.
The Home Office minister, Beverley Hughes, confirmed that plans for a much wider ranging anti-terrorist conspiracy law announced last month had been dropped. Ministers have also torn up plans to backdate to September a new offence of making hoax calls about anthrax and other noxious substances. The number of such calls has dropped sharply.
Although the opposition parties have said they will support the bill when it has its second reading next week, they made clear their unease yesterday. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, Simon Hughes, said the legislation was a "mixture of the welcome, the reasonable, the worrying and the completely unacceptable". He said that while the detention powers would have to be renewed every year there were no similar expiry dates for the majority of emergency powers in the bill.
"Liberal Democrats will only support emergency powers restricting liberties if they have strict time limits and are in place for the shortest possible time," Mr Hughes said.
The ban on publishing details of movements of nuclear waste trains comes in clause 79, which outlaws unauthorised disclosures that may prejudice the security of any nuclear premises or nuclear material. Clause 93 makes it a criminal offence punishable by up to one month in prison to refuse a reasonable police request to remove a disguise such as a mask or face paint in a place where a senior police officer believes serious violence may take place.
the emergency measures
. Detention of suspected terrorists Applies to foreign nationals certified by the home secretary as threats to national security. Detention will be reviewed every six months by a commission which will hear intelligence evidence in camera. Appeal allowed only on points of law. Powers will need annual renewal by parliament.
· Incitement to religious hatred Penalty of up to seven years for using "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour intended or likely to stir up hatred against a group of people because of their religious belief (or lack of religious belief)".
· Airport security New powers will allow police to stop, detain, question and search aircraft passengers within Britain and to remove and arrest someone who refuses to leave an aircraft.
· Hoaxes Creates new offence of threatening to use noxious substances, such as anthrax, smallpox and acid, to make people believe there is a threat to human life or health.
· Internet data Requires internet service providers to retain data of internet and email traffic, such as itemised billing - but not content - for 12 months for use by police in serious crime investigations. To be renewed every two years.
· Weapons of mass destruction Makes it an offence to aid the overseas use or development of chemical, nuclear, biological or radiological weapons.
· Civil nuclear industry Bans publication of details of security of nuclear sites, transport of nuclear materials and sensitive nuclear technology such as uranium enrichment.
· Withholding information Makes it a criminal offence to fail to disclose information to the authorities that could help to prevent terrorist attacks.
· Security services Wider powers for MI6 and GCHQ to carry out "intelligence gathering" outside Britain.
· Disguises Makes it a criminal offence to refuse a police request to remove hand and face coverings, such as masks and face paint, in certain public order situations. Could be used against animal rights extremists.
· MPs bypass Anti-terrorist measures agreed by EU ministers to become law in Britain without need for legislation in British parliament.
· Terrorist finances Allows immediate freezing of assets of overseas individuals and groups that support terrorists.
· Bribery and corruption Introduces crimes of corruption committed by British citizens and companies abroad and by foreign nationals in Britain which "help to undermine good governance and contribute to the conditions which engender terrorism".
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
11-21-2001 04:34 AM |
|
|
| |
|
Smug Git
Arrogance Personified
Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35976 |
Interestingly, what I find chilling is that this process will only apply to non-americans. This seems to imply that they know that it is unfair and just plain wrong; if they tried to do it to americans, the people would vote against it, but non-americans don't get a vote. I have always been impressed by the way that the US, broadly speaking, extends 'fair treatment' to those on its soil regardless of nationality.
In the UK, we have the 'Prevention of Terrorrism' act (referred to by Pangloss) which effectively suspends some of the rights of the accused if the accusations pertain to terrorist crimes, including extension of the period of detention without charge. There are arguments both for and against this sort of approach but I think at least that the law applies to everyone in the UK, foreign or UK passport holding. You might point out that the laws regarding asylum seekers are only relevant to people not holding a UK passport, but it must be pointed out that they are laws relating to residence in the UK without a passport, so that is ineivitable; if these people are accused of other crimes while here, the legal machinery is the same.
I can see the case for more powers, but they should be applicable to all; people should realise that they are trading freedom for security. Else a foreign worker, granted a work visa because he or she is considered essential to the US economy (which, when strong, needs more qualified individuals than are produced domestically) and therefore a valuable member of society is in some sense criminalised by having less rights.
It is an arguable point and the above is just my feeling, but the idea of laws of this sort applied to non-americans somehow seems 'un-american' to my (admittedly) limited understanding of what the US stands for.
__________________
I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
11-21-2001 01:25 PM |
|
|
| |
|
![[new thread]](/images/vb/button_newthread_off.png "Post New Thread")
![[post reply]](/images/vb/button_newreply_off.png "Post A Reply")
