Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CONYERS CALLS FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES HEARINGS
Drudge ^ | 11/14/01 | Mark Benjamin of www.insider.com

Posted on 11/16/2001 1:09:11 PM PST by Elkiejg

WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 (UPI) -- House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, D-Mich., said Wednesday a decision by President George W. Bush that terrorist suspects might face a military tribunal adds to questions about civil liberties.

In a Nov. 14 letter to Committee Chairman Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., Conyers called for hearings on civil liberties, including an administration plan to monitor some defendants' communication with their lawyers, and the status of suspects detained in the government's investigations of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Conyers said Bush's Tuesday decision to establish military tribunals run by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld only adds to his concern.

"Indeed, the very purpose of the directive appears to be to skirt the usual constitutional and criminal justice rules that are the hallmark of our democratic form of government."

While Sensenbrenner did not return calls seeking comment, Conyers' request comes one day after United Press International reported that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., might soon hold hearings on the new government policy on monitoring communication between defense attorneys and their clients, and the status of what lawmakers said could be 1,000 people detained by the government. Some of those detainees have reportedly been released.

Leahy twice sent letters to Attorney General John Ashcroft on the issues on Oct. 31 and Nov. 9.

"We also have received no cooperation from the Justice Department in our effort to obtain information regarding the 1,000 plus immigrants who have been detained in connection with the terrorism investigation, as reflected in a letter that several Democratic Members transmitted to the attorney general on Oct. 31, 2001," Conyers wrote to Sensenbrenner Wednesday. "We would be remiss in our duties, however, if we did not also oversee the extent to which the Department may be abusing its authority and wrongfully targeting innocent Americans."


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-112 last
To: Elkiejg
If I had my way, Conyers would be the first to go before the Military Tribunal--damn traitor!
101 posted on 11/16/2001 1:14:43 PM PST by PeoplesRepublicOfWashington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elkiejg
Civil liberties hearings? I don't think Fidel is going to appreciate his pal Conyers calling for civil liberties hearings in Cuba. (humor)
102 posted on 11/16/2001 1:14:44 PM PST by Havisham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrs9x
What do you mean by going with the Constitution? Where in the Constitution does it say that foreign terrorists have any Constitutional rights?
103 posted on 11/16/2001 1:14:44 PM PST by PeoplesRepublicOfWashington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: PeoplesRepublicOfWashington
Where in the Constitution does it say that foreign terrorists have any Constitutional rights?

These guys are soldiers out of uniform, clearly hostile to US interests and humanity itself.

National Self Defense: The act of defending the U.S.; U.S. forces; and in certain circumstances, U.S. citizens and their property, U.S. commercial assets, other designated non-U.S. forces, foreign nationals and their property, from a hostile act or hostile intent. As a subset of national self-defense, the act of defending other designated non-U.S. citizens, forces, property, and interests is referred to as collective self-defense. Authority to exercise national self-defense rests with the NCA, but may be delegated under specified circumstances; however, only the NCA may authorize the exercise of collective self-defense.

The SROE distinguish between the right and obligation of self-defense—which is not limited—and use of force for the accomplishment of an assigned mission. Authority to use force in mission accomplishment may be limited in light of political, military or legal concerns, but such limitations have no impact on the commander's right and obligation of self-defense.

Once a threat has been declared a hostile force, United States units and individual soldiers may engage without observing a hostile act or demonstration of hostile intent. The basis for engagement becomes status rather than conduct. The authority to declare a force hostile is given only to particular individuals in special circumstances.

Appendix A to Enclosure A of the SROE contains guidance on this authority.

104 posted on 11/16/2001 1:14:56 PM PST by NixNatAVanG InDaBurgh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: NixNatAVanG InDaBurgh
Damn good post. I hope you don't mind if I steal it for later use.
105 posted on 11/16/2001 1:14:57 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Be my guest.
106 posted on 11/16/2001 1:15:02 PM PST by NixNatAVanG InDaBurgh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: X-FID
From the UCMJ - note 9 and possibly 10

802. ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER

(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:

(1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.

(2) Cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipman.

(3) Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal Service.

(4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.

(5) Retired members of a reserve component who are receiving hospitalization from an armed force.

(6) Members of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve.

(7) Persons in custody of the armed forces serving a sentence imposed by a court-martial.

(8) Members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Public Health Service, and other organizations, when assigned to and serving with the armed forces.

(9) Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces.

(10) In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.

(11) Subject to any treaty or agreement which the United States is or may be a party to any accepted rule of international law, persons serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces outside the United States and outside the Canal Zone, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

107 posted on 11/16/2001 1:16:15 PM PST by Magnum44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Magnum44
(9) Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces.

(10) In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.

Ok, to me, (9) covers their behavior while in custody, and I am assuming (10)covers friendly persons accompanying the troops.

POW's are still covered under the Geneva convention, and putting them on trial may even be a war crime, at the very least it's not very productive, I mean what else can you do to them?

108 posted on 11/16/2001 1:21:38 PM PST by X-FID
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: X-FID
Since we are one of the few nations that subscribe and actually adhere to International Laws (read Geneva Convention) of Armed Conflict, I would be very surprised if wording in the UCMJ with regard to POW's ran contrary to that Law. As with most arguments on these issues, I respectfully request anyone who thinks we might me in the wrong to find the law we might be violating so we can examine it, rather than just speculating we are in violation.

No criticism intended, I've just spent too much time lately trying to convince people that their fears on various issues are founded in speculation, editorial spin, or lack of subject knowledge rather than in fact.

109 posted on 11/16/2001 1:23:57 PM PST by Magnum44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: X-FID
Actually, on additional thought, I beleive the argument that allows trial for these particular POW's may be based upon the fact that they themselves operated outside of the International Laws of Armed Conflict when they committed atrocities against unarmed civilians. This may make them 'not only POW's but war criminals (similar to the notorious NAZI war criminals), but I will research this.
110 posted on 11/16/2001 1:24:00 PM PST by Magnum44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Magnum44
Actually, on additional thought, I beleive the argument that allows trial for these particular POW's may be based upon the fact that they themselves operated outside of the International Laws of Armed Conflict when they committed atrocities against unarmed civilians. This may make them 'not only POW's but war criminals (similar to the notorious NAZI war criminals), but I will research this.

Good point, actually a "crimes against humanity" charge is more than appropriate, in this case.

111 posted on 11/16/2001 1:27:01 PM PST by X-FID
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: mlocher
I don't have a comment yet. Conyers might be right here though.

It all depends on if US citizens are affected here.

112 posted on 11/17/2001 2:53:54 PM PST by Dan from Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-112 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson