Your Litmus Test?

I am still struggling with coming to terms with this atrocious torture bill that passed both the House and the Senate last week. You would think an important bill such as this would not be ramrodded through the Congress but it was and passed, along with a few straggling fake Democrats. But, perhaps the Repukes are nervous because there's a chance that the Democrats will control the House and, possibly, the Senate in this year's elections and decided to push all this stuff through during the last week. Plus, talking about "terra" and Iraq doesn't hurt them either.

What disturbs me the most is the broad undefined language that is used in the torture bill. Take, for example, the following:

Habeas Corpus(a) IN GENERAL.—No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories."

Habeas Corpus dates be to the Magna Carta which states: "...no free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed except by the lawful judgment of their peers or by the law of the land.". Simply put, this states that a perosn being detained may not bring up Geneva Conventions violations. So water boarding, crushing testicals, all that, which is torture, can't be brought up.

(26) WRONGFULLY AIDING THE ENEMY.—Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.

This begs the question: Who is "any person"? It can be said that those defending the detainees are "knowingly and intentionally" aiding an enemy thus making them punishable. You see, this is not defined. Any person can be anybody who disagrees with the agenda.

(2) PROHIBITION ON GRAVE BREACHES.—The provisions of section 2441 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by this section, fully satisfy the obligation under Article 129 of the Third Geneva Convention for the United States to provide effective penal sanctions for grave breaches which are encompassed in common Article 3 in the context of an armed conflict not of an international character. No foreign or international source of law shall supply a basis for a rule of decision in the courts of the United States in interpreting the prohibitions enumerated in subsection (d) of such section 2441." "(3) INTERPRETATION BY THE PRESIDENT.— (A) As provided by the Constitution and by this section, the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and to promulgate higher standards and administrative regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. (B) The President shall issue interpretations described by subparagraph (A) by Executive Order published in the Federal Register. (C) Any Executive Order published under this paragraph shall be authoritative (except as to grave breaches of common Article 3) as a matter of United States law, in the same manner as other administrative regulations."

Okay, read this again slowly. This allows Bush Inc to interpret the meaning of and the execution of the GENEVE CONVENTIONS! And, from what Bush Inc has said, waterboarding isn't torture but a necessary tool for the war on "terra".

"(c) DETERMINATION OF UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT STATUS DISPOSITIVE.—A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter."

Once a military tribunal finds one to be an "enemy combatant", then that person is considered one. There is no appeal that can be sought and there is absolutly no review on this. Whatever the tribunal says, goes.

This also undoes certain provisions in the War Crimes Act. Under the new privision in this piece of crap, civilians such as the CIA and the White House would be exempt from prosecution. Amended are several sections that are prohibited (rape, murder, et cetra...gee thanks guys) but techniques not listed (like waterboarding) allow civilian CIA officals to use them without fearing persecution. In my opinion waterboarding and forms like it are torture. Check out this YouTube clip on waterboarding and tell me what you think in the comments section. These people need to be held accountable for this, every single one of them. In the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case, the Supreme Court ruled that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is the minimum standard for detainee treatment. This Article states that detainees must be "treated humanely", must avoid "curel treatment...outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment" and must go through "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."₁

I urge you to read the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Okay, I didn't read every single word but I did skim it. You must do this. This is being done in "our" name, yours and mine and our citizens.

This is from the Center for Constitutional Rights:

Recent mass detentions of non-citizens in this country give us reason to fear that this unchecked authority will lead to rampant racial and religious profiling, prolonged detention without reason, physical and psychological abuse. The Government's own investigations have produced evidence that:

• Shortly after September 11, 2001, hundreds of non-citizens were swept up in the United States and detained in connection to the terrorism investigation without any evidence to connect them to terrorism or crime.


• These men were arrested and detained based on their Muslim faith, their Arab or South Asian descent, and their immigration status, rather than any evidence to connect them to terrorism.


• The "9-11 detainees" were imprisoned in the United States until they were cleared of any connection to terrorism by the FBI. This clearance usually took months, and some detainees were held for over a year.


• During the detention period, many men were held in the most restrictive confinement that exists in the federal system. They were locked down 23 to 24 hours a day, hand-cuffed and shackled, deprived of sleep, beaten and verbally harassed, and denied the opportunity to practice their religion.


• Since the men were released, at least two federal court judges have ruled that the treatment of the detainees would constitute violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

If here "what could the Democrats do? They're the minority." True, but they also could have unanimously voted against this piece of filth legislation that is being used as a political "dirty bomb". If all Democrats united and voted against and denouced this as trash, I would be satisfied. But they didn't. 34 Democrats in the House crossed over and 12 in the Senate signed off the torture. They are gutless, spineless creatures who care not what the governemtn does but, rather, what the thrity second attack ads says about them. They deserve to be challenege in a primary (sadly it's late for that) and harassed every day that they're in office. Reid, as the minority leader, should have called for a filibuster. If the Democrats united, the filibuster would have been sustained and this tourture bill wouldn't have made it through. Nothing was done. Now torture is legal in this Country and it's being done in all our names. I often hear and read why people come here. People come here for the rights, the Bill of Rights that garentees us freedoms without government encrochment. But now, bit by bit, our freedoms are being stripped and dragged through the mud. It started with "freespeech zones" and works itself up to the USA Fascist Act. My only hope now is that the Supreme Court of the United States rules this torture bill unconsitutional and lambastes our gutless servants who don't care about us, the people, but with power. If the Democrats take the House and/or Senate I'm not expecting them to undo this. My full faith depends on the Courts. Oh my..

This brings me back to the title: what's your litmus test? Usually I vote based on my conscience (i.e. not party loyalty). I have been supporting good, progressive anti-war candidates (for example, I supported the underdog candidate Ned Lamont who was successful in his primary challenge against LIEber/LOSERman). I refuse to vote for someone who supports this war crime in Iraq. With this torture bill, I now have another limus test that I can apply. There is no excuse whatsoever for voting for this. Please tell me if you apply a litmus test and why in the comments section. It's my new feature called "Shout Back" where you, the reader, answer the questions posed. So please, by all means, "Shout Back" if you can.

First, I give you the Hall of Shame:

U.S. House Roll Call
U.S. Senate Roll Call

---

¹ http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060918/brecher