|
The
devil is in the details
MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT OF 2006
|
|
Basically
they are overturning or ignoring the Hamdan
case (see footnotes to this and other, hidden
in footnotes!) And also the USLA v NSA WILL
BE TOO.
THE
COURTS LEFT OPEN A LOOPHOLE, AS WE ALL KNEW. THE
COURTS (EVEN US SUPREME COURT) CANNOT
STOP NEW LEGISLATION FROM MAKING ANYTHING
LEGAL! SO OUR TREASONOUS LEGISLATURERS
ARE AS GUILTY AS BUSH. WHO ELECTED THESE ASSHOLES?!
It
is not in the actual bills, but in the House
REPORTS TO IT.
I
did not read Part 1 yet, but links are here.
You
must look at all the bills currently in session.
They vote tomorrow in Senate (if they did
not vote today)
H.R.6054 House
Report Number 109-664 Part 2 (you need to
read part 1 also, and also the related bills,
S. 3861, S 3886, S. 3901, and H.R. 6166 (antichrist
number oh my). READ ALL REPORTS THAT GO WITH
THEM, THIS IS WHERE THEY HIDE THE SHIT!
Related bills
in this first section following, then Part
2 of House Report. Links to all reports and
bills follow.
mama
====================================
READ
THE HOUSE REPORTS PART 2
H.R.6054
Title: To amend title 10,
United States Code, to authorize trial by
military commission for violations of the
law of war, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep
Hunter, Duncan [CA-52] (introduced
9/12/2006) Cosponsors
(19)
Related Bills: H.R.6166, S.3861, S.3886, S.3901
Latest Major Action: 9/25/2006
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No.
409.
House Reports: 109-664
Part 1, 109-664
Part 2
===================================
Committee Report 1
of 2 - House Report 109-664 - Part 2 -
MILITARY COMMISSIONS
ACT OF 2006
SEC. 9. AMENDMENTS TO UNIFORM
CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE.
(a) Applicability
to Lawful Enemy Combatants- Section
802(a) of title 10, United States Code
(article 2(a) of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice), is amended by adding
at the end the following new paragraph:
(b) Exclusion
of Chapter 47A Commissions- Section
821 of such title (article 21 of
such Code) is amended by adding
at the end the following new sentence:
`This section does not apply to
military commissions established
under chapter 47A of this title.'.
(c) Inapplicability
of Requirement for Uniform Regulations-
Section 36(b) of such title (article
(36) of such Code) is amended
by inserting before the period
at the end `, except insofar as
applicable to military commissions
established under chapter 47A
of this title'.
PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
H.R. 6054,
the `Military Commissions Act
of 2006' amends title 10, United
States Code, to authorize military
commissions for violations of
the law of war by alien unlawful
enemy combatants. H.R. 6054 would
establish procedural rules governing
the conduct of military commissions,
including the use of sensitive
classified evidence, admissibility
of hearsay evidence, and the rights
afforded detainees before, during
and after trial. The bill would
also make changes to the War Crimes
Act 1
[Footnote]
to enumerate specific `serious
violations' of Common Article
3 of the Geneva Conventions
which would be subject to prosecution
as war crimes under our domestic
criminal code.
[Footnote
1: 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2441 (2006).]
H.R.
6054 limits judicial review
of causes of action relating
to any aspect of the alien's
detention, transfer, treatment,
or conditions of confinement,
including habeas corpus
applications, by unlawful
enemy combatants pending
on, or filed after, the
date of enactment of this
Act. The bill also declares
prohibitions against cruel,
inhuman and degrading
treatment in the Detainee
Treatment Act of 2005
(DTA) fully satisfies
the United States' obligations
with respect to the standards
for detention and treatment
established by the relevant
sections of Common Article
3 of the Geneva Conventions.
H.R. 6054 additionally
would overturn a portion
of the Supreme Court's
decision in Hamdan v.
Rumsfeld and clarify that
the Geneva Conventions
are not judicially enforceable
in United States courts.
Finally, the bill expands
the right to counsel for
United States government
personnel established
in the DTA.
BACKGROUND
AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION
On
November 13, 2001,
President George W.
Bush issued a military
order regarding `Detention,
Treatment, and Trial
of Certain Non-Citizens
in the War Against
Terrorism.' 2
[Footnote]
One purpose of this
order was to authorize
the Secretary of
Defense to establish
military commissions
that would provide
full and fair trials
to foreign individuals
who were members
of the al Qaeda
terrorist organization
or who engaged in,
aided or abetted,
or conspired to
commit, the attacks
against the United
States on September
11, 2001. 3
[Footnote]
[Footnote
2: Military
Order, 66 FR
57,833-57,836
(November 13,
2001).]
[Footnote
3: Id.]
In
January
2002, the
United States
began detaining
foreign
individuals
captured
in the global
war on terror
as `enemy
combatants'
at United
States military
facilities
at Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba.
Upon an
individual's
arrival
at Guantanamo,
United States
officials
assess whether
that individual
should be
released
or transferred
to the custody
of his government.
After Supreme
Court decisions
providing
individuals
with a method
to contest
their detention,
4
[Footnote]
the United
States
established
the combatant
Status
Review
Tribunal
(`CSRT')
procedures
in 2004.
5
[Footnote]
These
procedures
provide
for
a one-time
review
of an
individual's
combatant
status.
The
United
States
also
created
an Administrative
Review
Board
(`ARB')
procedure
to consider
each
individual's
status
on an
annual
basis.
6
[Footnote]
Finally,
United
States
courts
have
held
that
each
individual
must
have
access
to
counsel
in
the
United
States
judicial
system,
and
in
2004,
the
United
States
Supreme
Court
ruled
that
the
United
States
District
Court
for
the
District
of
Columbia
Circuit
has
jurisdiction
to
consider
habeas
corpus
challenges
to
the
legality
of
the
detention
of
foreign
nationals
at
Guantanamo.
7
[Footnote]
That
ruling,
in
concert
with
other
related
rulings,
has
resulted
in
further
litigation
at
the
Federal
trial
and
appellate
court
levels.
[Footnote
4:
Hamdi
v.
Rumsfeld,
542
U.S.
507
(2004).]
[Footnote
5:
U.S.
Dep't
of
Def.,
Fact
Sheet,
Combatant
Status
Review
Tribunals
Update
(Jul.
7,
2004),
available
at
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2004/d20040707factsheet.pdf
[hereinafter
DOD
Fact
Sheet];
Memorandum
from
the
Deputy
Secretary
of
Defense,
for
the
Secretary
of
the
Navy,
Order
Establishing
Combatant
Status
Review
Tribunal
(Jul.
7,
2004),
available
at
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/jul2004/d20040707review.pdf
[hereinafter
DOD
Order].
See
also
Memorandum
from
the
Secretary
of
the
Navy,
Implementation
of
Combatant
Status
Review
Tribunal
Procedures
for
Enemy
Combatants
detained
at
Guantanamo
Bay
Naval
Base,
Cuba
(Jul.
29,
2004),
available
at
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/jul2004/d20040730comb.pdf
(providing
implementation
guidance
of
the
combatant
status
review
tribunal).]
[Footnote
6:
Deputy
Secretary
of
Defense
Paul
Wolfowitz,
Order
OSD
06942-04
Administrative
Review
Procedures
for
Enemy
Combatants
in
the
Control
of
the
Department
of
Defense
at
Guantanamo
Bay
Naval
Base,
Cuba
(May
11,
2004),
available
at:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/policy/dod/d20040518gtmoreview.pdf]
[Footnote
7:
Rasul
v.
Bush
542
U.S.
466
(2004).]
Aside
from
establishing
procedures
to
address
individuals'
status
as
`enemy
combatants',
the
United
States
has
noted
that
other
nations
have
traditionally
used
military
commissions,
which
are
recognized
by
the
Geneva
Conventions,
to
prosecute
violations
of
the
law
of
war.
The
United
States
chose
to
prosecute
certain
foreign
individuals
for
such
violations
using
military
commission
procedures
established
by
the
Secretary
of
Defense
as
authorized
by
Executive
Order
in
November
2001.
Some
defendants
in
these
cases
chose
to
sue
United
States
officials
to
challenge
these
procedures.
8
[Footnote]
[Footnote
8:
See
Hamdan
v.
Rumsfeld,
548
U.S.XXX;
165
L.
Ed.
723
(2006).]
On
June
29,
2006,
the
United
States
Supreme
Court
ruled
5-3
in
Hamdan
v.
Rumsfeld,
that
the
President's
military
commissions
could
not
proceed
because
they
did
not
comply
with
the
Uniform
Code
of
Military
Justice
(UCMJ)
and
Common
Article
3.
9
[Footnote]
The
Court's
essential
holdings
were
that:
(1)
military
commissions
require
specific
congressional
authorization;
(2)
the
structure
and
procedures
of
the
Hamdan
military
commission
violated
the
UCMJ;
(3)
the
mandates
of
Common
Article
3
of
the
Geneva
Conventions
are
judicially
enforceable
in
United
States
courts;
and
(4)
the
procedures
adopted
to
try
Hamdan
did
not
meet
the
Common
Article
3
requirement
that
sanctions
must
be
pronounced
by
`a
regularly
constituted
court
affording
all
judicial
guarantees
which
are
recognized
as
indispensable
by
civilized
peoples.'
[Footnote
9:
Id.
at
2.]
Although
the
Court
declared
the
military
commissions
as
constituted
to
be
illegal,
it
left
open
the
possibility
that
changes
to
commission
rules
or
new
legislation
could
bring
the
commissions
within
the
law
of
war
and
conform
with
the
UCMJ.
The
Court
also
suggested
that
the
President
could
ask
Congress
to
authorize
commission
rules
that
diverge
from
the
UCMJ,
provided
that
they
were
consistent
with
the
Constitution
and
other
laws.
10
[Footnote]
[Footnote
10:
Id.
at
1
(Breyer,
J.,
concurring)(`nothing
prevents
the
President
from
returning
to
Congress
to
seek
the
authority
he
believes
necessary.')]
In
Hamdan,
the
Court
also
found
that
section
1005
of
the
Detainee
Treatment
Act
of
2005,
11
[Footnote]
which
prohibited
any
court,
justice
or
judge
from
considering
statutory
habeas
corpus
claims
and
other
lawsuits
by
aliens,
including
those
held
at
Guantanamo
Bay,
Cuba,
did
not
apply
to
cases
pending
on
the
date
of
enactment
of
the
DTA.
12
[Footnote]
Section
1005
also
gave
the
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
District
of
Columbia
Circuit
exclusive
jurisdiction
to
determine
the
validity
of
any
final
decision
of
a
Combatant
Status
Review
Tribunal
(CSRT).
In
failing
to
hold
that
the
DTA's
jurisdictional
bar
applied
to
pending
cases,
the
Court
ignored
decades
of
its
own
precedents
applying
intervening
statutes
conferring
or
eliminating
Federal
court
jurisdiction
to
cases
pending
on
the
date
of
enactment.
13
[Footnote]
At
least
three
members
of
the
Court
believed
that
this
conclusion
was
`patently
erroneous.'
14
[Footnote]
In
his
dissent,
Justice
Scalia
also
reminded
the
majority
that
they
failed
to
cite
a
single
case
where
such
a
jurisdiction
limitation
provision
was
denied
immediate
effect
in
pending
cases.
15
[Footnote]
We
agree
with
his
opinion
that
`the
cases
granting
such
immediate
effect
are
legion.'
16
[Footnote]
[Footnote
11:
Pub.
L.
No.
109-148,
119
Stat.
2739
(2005).]
[Footnote
12:
548
U.S.
X
at
7-20.]
[Footnote
13:
See
Hallowell
v.
Commons,
239
U.S.
506
(1916);
Bruner
v.
United
States,
343
U.S.
112
(1952);
Landgraf
v.
USI
Film
Products,
511
U.S.
244,
274
(1994);
Republic
of
Austria
v.
Altmann,
541
U.S.
677,
693
(2004).]
[Footnote
14:
548
U.S.
X
at
1
(Scalia,
J.
dissenting).]
[Footnote
15:
Id
at
5.]
[Footnote
16:
Id.]
The
Committee
strongly
believes
that
the
Constitution
gives
Congress
the
power
to
determine
whether
the
Federal
courts
have
jurisdiction
over
applications
for
a
writ
of
habeas
corpus
pursuant
to
28
U.S.C.
Sec.
2241
filed
by
or
on
behalf
of
an
alien
detained
by
the
Department
of
Defense
at
Guantanamo
Bay,
Cuba.
In
the
view
of
the
Committee,
the
Supreme
Court
had
no
authority
to
hear
the
Hamdan
case
after
enactment
of
the
DTA.
The
plain
language
of
this
statute
clearly
applies
to
cases
pending
at
the
date
of
enactment.
The
Committee
believes
that
the
Supreme
Court
should
have
reached
this
conclusion
by
relying
on
its
own
precedents,
but
it
failed
to
do
so.
In
response,
H.R.
6054
has
been
carefully
drafted
so
that
the
Court
can
fully
understand
that
it
applies
to
both
pending
and
later-filed
cases.
It
was
not
necessary
for
Congress
to
be
so
specific,
but
in
order
to
be
sure
that
the
Court
will
not
make
the
same
mistake
twice,
the
Committee
has
carefully
chosen
the
words
`pending
on
or
filed
after
the
date
of
the
enactment'
in
section
5
of
this
legislation.
Opponents
of
the
bill
may
claim
that
it
impermissibly
`suspends'
or
limits
the
right
of
habeas
corpus
for
individuals
held
as
enemy
combatants
at
Guantanamo
Bay
or
elsewhere.
This
argument
ignores
decades
of
Supreme
Court
precedent
to
the
contrary.
In
fact,
the
case
of
Johnson
v.
Eisentrager
17
[Footnote]
held
that
United
States
constitutional
protections
do
not
apply
to
alien
prisoners
of
war
held
outside
of
our
borders.
The
Court
in
Eisentrager
noted
that
`[n]o
decision
of
this
Court
supports
such
a
view.
None
of
the
learned
commentators
on
our
Constitution
has
ever
hinted
at
it.
The
practice
of
every
modern
government
is
opposed
to
it.'
18
[Footnote]
[Footnote
17:
339
U.S.
763
(1950).]
[Footnote
18:
Id
at
784-85.]
More
recently,
the
Supreme
Court
reaffirmed
this
view
in
the
case
of
United
States
v.
Verdugo-Urquidez
19
[Footnote]
when
it
found
that
`we
have
rejected
the
claim
that
aliens
are
entitled
to
Fifth
Amendment
rights
outside
of
the
sovereign
territory
of
the
United
States.'
20
[Footnote]
Verdugo
also
makes
it
clear
that
aliens
receive
constitutional
protections
when
they
have
come
within
the
territory
of
the
United
States
`and
developed
substantial
connections
with
this
country.'
21
[Footnote]
The
Committee
believes
that
terrorists
and
other
detainees
suspected
of
planning,
supporting
or
otherwise
participating
in
attacks
against
the
United
States
and
its
citizens
have
not
developed
the
type
of
substantial
connections
with
the
United
States
sufficient
to
justify
extending
to
them
all
of
the
protections
of
our
Constitution.
Nonetheless,
this
legislation
provides
a
full
and
fair
process
for
the
review
by
the
D.C.
Circuit
of
enemy
combatant
determinations
by
a
CSRT
and
for
review
of
the
decisions
of
military
commissions.
The
Committee
believes
the
judicial
review
authorized
in
this
bill
provides
more
than
ample
protections
for
the
rights
of
the
detainees.
[Footnote
19:
494
U.S.
259
(1990).]
[Footnote
20:
Id
at
269.]
[Footnote
21:
Id
at
271.]
In
response
to
the
Hamdan
decision
and
legislation
proposed
by
the
President,
the
Judiciary
Committee
considered
H.R.
6054
in
open
session
on
September
20,
2006.
The
legislation
addresses
the
scope,
jurisdiction,
and
procedures
of
military
commissions
in
which
the
United
States
could
prosecute
alien
unlawful
enemy
combatants
for
violations
of
the
law
of
war
and
other
offenses,
makes
changes
to
the
War
Crimes
Act,
clarifies
the
intent
of
Congress
that
statutory
habeas
corpus
relief
is
not
available
to
alien
unlawful
enemy
combatants
held
outside
of
the
United
States,
and
that
such
jurisdictional
bar
applies
to
pending
and
future
claims.
|
|
summary php
More, but still not nearly
all the Evidence. There are literally thousands of pieces to the 9/11
puzzle, and when we put them together, they make a picture that looks
like, walks like, talks like, an inside job.
Free
9/11 conspiracy Videos -- Loose Change Second Edition
Learn
More
Upcoming International Conference sponsored by 9/11 Truth:
Revealing the Truth, Reclaiming Our Future
Chicago, IL June 2-4th -- Embassy Suites Hotel Chicago-O'Hare Rosemont
Take Action
Featured Videos:
Watch
911 Eyewitness --- Watch
911 in Plane SIte --- Watch
Loose Change Second Edition
--- Watch
911 Revisited ---
Watch MIT Engineer
----- Watch JFK2 --- E-MAIL
CNN ask for MORE of Charlie Sheen, Alex Jones
911
--- Must See
Boston Legal US Liberty
--- Actor
Charlie Sheen talks 9/11 With Alex Jones
---
Actor
Charlie Sheen talks 9/11 With Alex Jones2 ---
Watch
Dr. James Fetzer --- Watch
proof of controlled demolition
Listen To our Grassroots InfoMedia's Of The
People™ Radio Show
We, the Undersigned, endorse
the following petition:
Scholars Call for Release of 9/11 Information
Target: THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AM
Sponsor: Alex Floum Take Action
What first woke you up
to the Truth of 911? Take
the Survey at the Veterans for 911 Truth Group.
|
|
What did
not happen
|
|
|
A.
K. Dewdney
|
|
|
George
Nelson Colonel USAF (Ret.) |
|
|
A.
K. Dewdney |
|
|
A.
K. Dewdney & Jerry Longspaugh |
|
|
Thomas
R. Olmsted, MD |
|
|
Ralph
Omholt |
|
|
Morgan
Reynolds |
|
|
A.
K. Dewdney |
|
|
Dave
Heller |
|
|
Dr.
Steven Jones |
|
What may
have happened
|
|
|
A.
K. Dewdney |
|
|
Derrick
Grimmer |
|
|
Karl
W. Schwarz |
|
How to
fake a terrorist attack
|
|
|
Report
from the Panel |
|
|
Paul
Joseph Watson |
|
Background
Information
|
|
|
Unknown
Source |
| The
DEA Report |
Drug
Enforcement Administration |
| General Partin's
Report |
Benton
K. Partin |
| Israel,
Iran and a Nuclear False Flag Attack |
R.
Leland Lehrman |
| Larry Franklin
and Two AIPAC Members Indicted for Espionage |
US
Department of Justice |
|
More Evidence
|
|
|
|
|
WTC
Dust Analysis The EPA Chromatograph tells of the chemicals that were
left at the scene of the WTC crimes.
|
FOIA Bombs at WTC Emergency Responders talk
about bombs and missiles at the WTC on 9/11 in documents released by the
City of New York under the Freedom of Information Act.
|
|
|
|
|
PNAC
Project For The New American Century, a think tank that now pervades the
Bush cabinet, they say things like "Further, the process of transformation,even
if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent
some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."
And even more chilling is their statement of genocide "...advanced
forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform
biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Painful Questions,
An analysis of the September 11th Attack, by Eric Hufschmid. Learn
More
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dr. Morgan Reynolds,
Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition
And 'Inside Job' Highly recognized former chief economist in Labor Department
now doubts official 9/11 story, claiming suspicious facts and evidence
cover-up indicate government foul play and possible criminal implications.
Read
More
|
Grassroots InfoMedia
debunks Popular Mechanic's experts, and their false claims, with evidence.
Read
More
|
Around
the Pentagon there were reports of high radiation levels after 9-11."
.. ... What happened at the Pentagon is highly suspicious, leading me
to believe a missile with a depleted uranium warhead may have been used,”
said radiation expert Leuren Moret..." Learn
More -- Read
More
|
The dust tells
a story of what may have caused the collapse of the WTC towers. WTC dust
analysis, EPA chromatograph shows high levels of radio active isotopes,
and magnesium. Learn
More
|
A series of
articles suggest that at least seven of the 9/11 hijackers trained in
US military bases. [Newsweek, 9/15/01; New York Times, 9/15/01 (E)] Ahmed
Alnami, Ahmed Alghamdi, and Saeed Alghamdi even listed the Naval Air Station
in Pensacola, Florida, as their permanent address on their driver's licenses.
[Pensacola News Journal, 9/17/01] Hamza Alghamdi was also connected to
the Pensacola base. Learn
More
|
|
|
Best of Grassroots
InfoMedia - Good Speeches and Talks 9/11 facts Listen
|
|
|
01/27/2006
Scholars Repudiate Official Version of 9/11. They claim government's account
violates laws of physics and engineering. Learn
More
|
Of 266 purported
passengers killed on 9-11 planes, only 11 are listed in the SSDI Social
Security Death Index Learn
More
|
Miami
Herald: 9/11Conspiracy Hits the Mainstream
9/11 ATTACKS Avoiding the hard questions Learn
More
|
Dr. Steven
Jones BYU Physics. Must hear this! This sound file is a Power Point presentation,
you can follow along looking at the pictures at this web page Here.
Or if you are already at the picture site, you can download the mp3s and
hear Dr. Jones speak about the pictures. Steven
E. Jones 1.mp3 --- Steven
E. Jones 2.mp3
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
|
An
influential group of prominent experts and scholars have joined together
alleging that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts
about what really happened on 9/11. The members of this new non-partisan
association, "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), are convinced
their research proves the current administration has been dishonest with
the nation about events in New York and Washington, D.C. Learn
More
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Upcoming International
Conference sponsored by 9/11 Truth:
Revealing the Truth, Reclaiming Our Future
Chicago, IL June 2-4th -- Embassy Suites Hotel Chicago-O'Hare Rosemont
Take Action
|
Ground Zero
EMT Patricia Ondrovic talks about her harrowing day at the WTC on 9/11.
Within minutes after the South Tower collapses, she witnessed the WTC
5 blowing up, cars exploding, and explosions inside the lobby of the WTC
6, all the while narrowly escaping with her own life. Learn
More
|
|
|
Kevin
Ryan Lecture 911.mp3 --- Kevin
Ryan.mp3--- Underwriters Laboratories Executive Speaks Out on WTC
Study "The buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress
caused by pools of burning jet fuel." - Kevin Ryan Read
More
06/12/2005: 9/11 Whistle blower Kevin Ryan, former Underwriters Laboratory
Executive speaks out about the US government's official hypothesis on
how the WTC towers came down. Read
More
|
Dr. Bowman has
inside knowledge of military protocol, and has stated that it is apparent
to him that the massive military exercises that took place on September
11, 2001 were intentionally staged to confuse civil defenses. Learn
More --- Listen
|
Survival of
Firemen in North Tower Collapse Corroborates Use of Demolition Charges
Mighty upward rush of wind in staircase supports demolition model for
tower collapse. Ground-level staircase preservation argues against pancake
model, according to laws of physics. Learn
More
|
David
Shayler MI5.mp3 --- David Shayler former British MI5 says 9/11 was
an inside job done to create pretext for invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq,
and eventually Iran. Learn
More
|
|
|
