Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

No more habeus corpus for us

Expand Messages
  • Fred Cohen
    It looks like it s all over for the US - King George just signed off today on the ability for himself, through a commission he appoints, to grab anyone in the
    Message 1 of 13 , Oct 17, 2006
      It looks like it's all over for the US - King George just signed off
      today on the ability for himself, through a commission he appoints,
      to grab anyone in the world off the streets and make them disappear,
      subject them to tribunal without recourse or access to counsel, and
      torture and put them to death. The new law allows the very things the
      US prosecuted others for as war crimes after WW2. I would very much
      like to hear the opinions of the information war community on this
      issue and its effect on limiting dissent, its impact on controlling
      the media, and any other aspect of it.

      FC
      -- This communication is confidential to the parties it is intended
      to serve --
      Fred Cohen & Associates tel/fax: 925-454-0171
      http://all.net/ 572 Leona Drive Livermore, CA
      94550
    • Sam Liles
      Comments in dissent of the act could be construed to be acts against the interest of the United States and subject that person to the severest penalties. ...
      Message 2 of 13 , Oct 17, 2006
        Comments in dissent of the act could be construed to be acts against the
        interest of the United States and subject that person to the severest
        penalties.


        -----------------
        sam
        -----Original Message-----
        From: Fred Cohen [mailto:dr.cohen@...]
        Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 7:22 PM
        To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [iwar] No more habeus corpus for us

        It looks like it's all over for the US - King George just signed off today
        on the ability for himself, through a commission he appoints, to grab anyone
        in the world off the streets and make them disappear, subject them to
        tribunal without recourse or access to counsel, and torture and put them to
        death. The new law allows the very things the US prosecuted others for as
        war crimes after WW2. I would very much like to hear the opinions of the
        information war community on this issue and its effect on limiting dissent,
        its impact on controlling the media, and any other aspect of it.

        FC
        -- This communication is confidential to the parties it is intended to serve
        --
        Fred Cohen & Associates tel/fax: 925-454-0171
        http://all.net/ 572 Leona Drive Livermore, CA
        94550




        ------------------
        http://all.net/
        Yahoo! Groups Links
      • Kohlenberg, Toby
        All opinions are my own and in no way reflect the views of my employer. ... It seems to me that publicly stating opinions on this topic could be a dangerous
        Message 3 of 13 , Oct 17, 2006
          All opinions are my own and in no way reflect the views of my employer.
          -----------------------------------------------------------------------
          It seems to me that publicly stating opinions on this topic
          could be a dangerous thing to do.

          toby

          -----Original Message-----
          From: iwar@yahoogroups.com [mailto:iwar@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
          Fred Cohen
          Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 5:22 PM
          To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [iwar] No more habeus corpus for us

          It looks like it's all over for the US - King George just signed off
          today on the ability for himself, through a commission he appoints,
          to grab anyone in the world off the streets and make them disappear,
          subject them to tribunal without recourse or access to counsel, and
          torture and put them to death. The new law allows the very things the
          US prosecuted others for as war crimes after WW2. I would very much
          like to hear the opinions of the information war community on this
          issue and its effect on limiting dissent, its impact on controlling
          the media, and any other aspect of it.

          FC
          -- This communication is confidential to the parties it is intended
          to serve --
          Fred Cohen & Associates tel/fax: 925-454-0171
          http://all.net/ 572 Leona Drive Livermore, CA
          94550




          ------------------
          http://all.net/
          Yahoo! Groups Links
        • Gary Warner
          ... Gee, Fred. I have been an outspoken critic of the whole Gitmo thing, and sat down this morning planning to have a great RANT about how horrible the new law
          Message 4 of 13 , Oct 18, 2006
            Fred Cohen wrote:
            >
            > It looks like it's all over for the US - King George just signed off
            > today on the ability for himself, through a commission he appoints,
            > to grab anyone in the world off the streets and make them disappear,
            > subject them to tribunal without recourse or access to counsel, and
            > torture and put them to death. The new law allows the very things the
            > US prosecuted others for as war crimes after WW2. I would very much
            > like to hear the opinions of the information war community on this
            > issue and its effect on limiting dissent, its impact on controlling
            > the media, and any other aspect of it.
            >
            Gee, Fred. I have been an outspoken critic of the whole Gitmo thing, and
            sat down this morning planning to have a great RANT about how horrible
            the new law is. My huge objection is that on the one hand we say that:

            "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
            equal, that they are endowed
            by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

            and then on the other hand say, he's a TERRORIST, he's got no rights! or
            say that someone has no rights because they aren't an American,
            ("Constitutional Rights only apply to Citizens!") when we've just said
            out of the other side of our mouth that its the CREATOR who endows men
            with these rights - not the US Government.

            I've also gone back and forth on Geneva Convention rights, and have
            finally come to understand that these make up part of the "Laws of War"
            which help countries make nice lists of how civilized individuals behave
            when their bombing the shit out of one another. I've grown comfortable
            with the fact that because there is not a Chain of Command or authority
            over these "unlawful enemy combatants" it doesn't make sense to follow
            the Geneva Convention literally, but there still must be rules of
            conduct and prisoner treatment in place, and I'm beginning to get
            comfortable that there are.

            All that said, I have to ask Fred, have you READ the law? Or are you
            responding to some sensational Bush-hating journalist's interpretations
            of the law for you?

            I just spent an hour going through the 38 page PDF, and actually found
            myself pleased to finally see clearly spelled out what things one would
            have to do to have one's crimes come under consideration of these
            military tribunals.

            http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.txt.pdf

            For the first time we have a list of things that one has to have done to
            be considered an "Alien Unlawful Enemy Combatant" that is very clearly
            spelled out. These tribunals only apply to the now, for the first time,
            clearly defined "Alien Unlawful Enemy Combatants".

            So, first, we can't disappear any of the 300 million US Citizens - even
            if they are aiding and abetting a terrorist, because this rule only
            applies to Aliens. And second, we can't disappear a member of any
            "Lawful Enemy Combatant". And also, although it is military provided
            Defense counsel, the accused will have charges presented against him in
            English and the language of his preference, and will have access to
            counsel and appropriate time with counsel to prepare a defense. Will it
            be a puppet defense counsel whose job is really to make sure everyone
            gets convicted? To say so would be to slander a good number of diligent
            lawyers who work for the Judge Advocate General's program. Not for me to
            say. But your accusation of denying them counsel also indicates you
            haven't actually read this thing, as there are something like 115
            references to "Counsel" and 33 of them are "Defense Counsel" in the new
            law..

            Definitions for Alien, and Unlawful Enemy Combatant are given, and the
            list of crimes one must conduct to fall under the jurisdiction of this
            tribunal are also clearly given.

            - Murder of Protected Persons
            - Attacking Civilians
            - Attacking Civilian Objects
            - Attacking Protected Property
            - Pillaging
            - Denying Quarter
            - Taking Hostages
            - Employing Poison or Similar Weapons
            - Using Protected Persons as a Shield
            - Using Protected Property as a Shield
            - Torture
            - Cruel or Inhuman Treatment
            - Intentionally Causing Serious Bodily Injury
            - Mutilating or Maiming
            - Murder in Violation of the Law of War
            - Destruction of Property in Violation of the Law of War
            - Using Treachery or Perfidy
            - Improperly Using a Flag of Truce
            - Improperly Using a Distinctive Emblem
            - Intentionally Mistreating a Dead Body
            - Rape
            - Sexual Assault or Abuse
            - Hijacking or Hazarding a Vessel or Aircraft
            - Terrorism
            - Providing Material Support for Terrorism
            - Wrongfully Aiding the Enemy
            - Spying
            - Conspiracy

            ===========

            That's HUGE progress from where we were, when it was unclear what you
            could be picked up for, and unclear who could be picked up, although as
            you mention, still quite some distance from where I'd like it to be, but
            I don't think the new law is nearly as ominous as you construe in your
            post. Habeas Corpus still needs to be more properly addressed, but your
            sensational accusation that this bill somehow enables the government to:

            FC> to grab anyone in the world off the streets and make them disappear,
            FC> subject them to tribunal without recourse or access to counsel, and
            FC> torture and put them to death

            is absolutely not supported by the facts.

            I'd also like to see from you examples of what things you are saying:

            FC> The new law allows the very things the
            FC> US prosecuted others for as war crimes after WW2

            While its clear there is quite a bit of activity that none of us would
            call Humane . . . (I would refer the reader to an excellent document by
            Amnesty International:

            "United States of America - Military Commissions Act of 2006 - Turning
            bad policy into bad law"

            http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR511542006

            I'm not sure that the things you are accusing the government of are
            actually addressed IN this law. This law seems more about providing
            clear definitions of previously nebulous activities and guidelines. It
            doesn't address many of the underlying problems, but it DOES expose
            light on some previously murky subject matter, and for that, I am pleased.


            ===========

            "Material Support for Terrorism" is still defined in Title 18 > Part I >
            Chapter 113B > Section 2339A(b)

            (one place for that is:

            http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=2339A&url=/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002339---A000-.html

            Which still gives acknowledgement of First Amendment rights:

            (i) *Rule of Construction.— *Nothing in this section shall be construed
            or applied so as to abridge the exercise of rights guaranteed under the
            First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

            ===========

            Torture is still better handled in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.

            http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/gazette/2005/12/detainee-treatment-act-of-2005-white.php

            The problem is not so much what this Act covers, as what this act does
            NOT cover. It clearly only addresses:

            "The interrogation of persons under detention of the Department of Defense".

            Which leaves the still wide and still gaping loophole of "persons under
            detention of the CIA and their scummy non-US buddies".

            If we're going to have a rant, it should not be about the current law,
            with the exception of Habeas Corpus needing to be addressed - but the
            CIA and Foreign Partners Torture Loophole.
          • Fred Cohen
            All that said, I have to ask Fred, have you READ the law? Or are you ... I have read it and I think we disagree about what it says. I don t particularly hate
            Message 5 of 13 , Oct 18, 2006
              All that said, I have to ask Fred, have you READ the law? Or are you
              > responding to some sensational Bush-hating journalist's
              > interpretations
              > of the law for you?

              I have read it and I think we disagree about what it says. I don't
              particularly hate GW or anyone else. But I hate what is happening to
              the US and how the country has been turned by propaganda and other
              iwar techniques in a period of only a few years from an increasingly
              enlightened society leading the world toward better things into a war
              mongering society ready to torture and kill whoever the President's
              or Secretary of Defense's appointed group may designate as an "enemy
              combatant". The notion that we should legitimize what the Supreme
              court called illegal only a few months ago to get the political
              leaders off the hook for their war crimes (which they don't recognize
              applies to them anyway) is offensive to me and the rest of the world
              as well.

              > I just spent an hour going through the 38 page PDF, and actually found
              > myself pleased to finally see clearly spelled out what things one
              > would
              > have to do to have one's crimes come under consideration of these
              > military tribunals.
              >
              > http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?
              > dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.txt.pdf

              > For the first time we have a list of things that one has to have
              > done to
              > be considered an "Alien Unlawful Enemy Combatant" that is very clearly
              > spelled out. These tribunals only apply to the now, for the first
              > time,
              > clearly defined "Alien Unlawful Enemy Combatants".

              It defines "(1) Unlawful enemy combatant...." as:
              "(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposely
              and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its
              co-beligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant..."

              First off - nothing here about a non-US citizen. So anyone who gives
              one dollar to a group and knows that they protest against Saudi
              Arabia and is not a member of the army of a state recognized by the
              US and that has declared war (see definition of Lawful Enemy
              Combatant) is subject to

              While section 948b(a) states that the purpose is to try "alien
              unlawful enemy combatants" (alien is defined as anyone not a citizen
              of the US), as you read on you may get the distinct impression that
              it doesn't actually limit it. It does however eliminate the military
              tribunals requirements against speedy trial, forced self-
              incrimination, and pretrial investigation (948b(d)(A, B, and C). It
              also eliminates any appeal to or use of previous rulings or
              precedents, asserts that it has to be a "regular court" with the
              judicial guarantees of the Geneva Conventions and then says that the
              Geneva Conventions are not a source of any rights (very strange pair
              of parts). No alien unlawful enemy combatant may invoke Geneva
              conventions - I guess US citizens can try to invoke them - but they
              won't apply and cannot provide precedent.

              >
              > So, first, we can't disappear any of the 300 million US Citizens -
              > even
              > if they are aiding and abetting a terrorist, because this rule only
              > applies to Aliens.

              Just not so. You need to read the legalisms a lot more carefully. It
              says that alien unlawful enemy combatant are subject to this law but
              nowhere does it say that anyone else is not!

              > And second, we can't disappear a member of any
              > "Lawful Enemy Combatant".

              Sure we can - the Secretary of Defense just has to designate them as
              such and there is no requirement for investigation to prove it. In
              fact, all the SoD or any officer or official they may appoint to do
              the job has to do is have a group of appointees designate it with no
              requirements for investigation whatsoever. As an aside, it appears
              that if you are a spy, or out of uniform when found (in the shower),
              you fit the definition.

              > And also, although it is military provided Defense counsel, the
              > accused will have charges presented against him in
              > English and the language of his preference, and will have access to
              > counsel and appropriate time with counsel to prepare a defense.

              But no right to do investigation or appeal to any precedents. While
              you need an actual judge, nobody is permitted to review or challenge
              their qualifications as a judge. Note the last military defense
              attorney that actually defended one of these folks is now being
              drummed out of the military for managing to get the matter to the
              supreme court after having been ordered to not seek that path for
              legal defense in that case.

              > Will it
              > be a puppet defense counsel whose job is really to make sure everyone
              > gets convicted? To say so would be to slander a good number of
              > diligent
              > lawyers who work for the Judge Advocate General's program. Not for
              > me to
              > say. But your accusation of denying them counsel also indicates you
              > haven't actually read this thing, as there are something like 115
              > references to "Counsel" and 33 of them are "Defense Counsel" in the
              > new
              > law..

              Right - how many other military counsels have sought against orders
              to actually defend these defendants? None! So the military is
              systematically eliminating those that do attempt such defenses. I am
              not trying to slander anyone. I am telling the world that I think
              this is wrong and that the US must undo this or become everything I
              have grown up to believe is wrong.

              > Definitions for Alien, and Unlawful Enemy Combatant are given, and the
              > list of crimes one must conduct to fall under the jurisdiction of this
              > tribunal are also clearly given.
              >
              > - Murder of Protected Persons
              > - Attacking Civilians
              > - Attacking Civilian Objects
              > - Attacking Protected Property
              > - Pillaging
              > - Denying Quarter
              > - Taking Hostages
              > - Employing Poison or Similar Weapons
              > - Using Protected Persons as a Shield
              > - Using Protected Property as a Shield
              > - Torture
              > - Cruel or Inhuman Treatment
              > - Intentionally Causing Serious Bodily Injury
              > - Mutilating or Maiming
              > - Murder in Violation of the Law of War
              > - Destruction of Property in Violation of the Law of War
              > - Using Treachery or Perfidy
              > - Improperly Using a Flag of Truce
              > - Improperly Using a Distinctive Emblem
              > - Intentionally Mistreating a Dead Body
              > - Rape
              > - Sexual Assault or Abuse
              > - Hijacking or Hazarding a Vessel or Aircraft
              > - Terrorism
              > - Providing Material Support for Terrorism
              > - Wrongfully Aiding the Enemy
              > - Spying
              > - Conspiracy
              >
              Providing material support - in other words - at least one dollar
              given to someone who is a terrorist - by declaration of the
              President. Using treachery - is that what I am doing by writing this?
              Wrongfully aiding the enemy - which is exactly what? Conspiracy -
              which is having a discussion where you take any act to forward it -
              which according to this government includes the discussions
              themselves (yes there are specific examples of these in the last few
              years).

              > ===========
              >
              > That's HUGE progress from where we were, when it was unclear what you
              > could be picked up for, and unclear who could be picked up,
              > although as
              > you mention, still quite some distance from where I'd like it to
              > be, but
              > I don't think the new law is nearly as ominous as you construe in your
              > post. Habeas Corpus still needs to be more properly addressed, but
              > your
              > sensational accusation that this bill somehow enables the
              > government to:

              All of this was illegal until yesterday. Today it is legal.

              > FC> to grab anyone in the world off the streets and make them
              > disappear,
              > FC> subject them to tribunal without recourse or access to counsel,
              > and
              > FC> torture and put them to death
              >
              > is absolutely not supported by the facts.

              I think that it is.

              > I'd also like to see from you examples of what things you are saying:
              >
              > FC> The new law allows the very things the
              > FC> US prosecuted others for as war crimes after WW2

              Torturing prisoners of war - or anyone else for that matter - war
              crimes in WW2 - specifically allowed under this law.

              > While its clear there is quite a bit of activity that none of us would
              > call Humane . . . (I would refer the reader to an excellent
              > document by
              > Amnesty International:
              >
              > "United States of America - Military Commissions Act of 2006 - Turning
              > bad policy into bad law"
              >
              > http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR511542006
              >
              > I'm not sure that the things you are accusing the government of are
              > actually addressed IN this law. This law seems more about providing
              > clear definitions of previously nebulous activities and guidelines. It
              > doesn't address many of the underlying problems, but it DOES expose
              > light on some previously murky subject matter, and for that, I am
              > pleased.

              I will agree that exposing what the US has been doing is beneficial.
              And the law does say that the punishment for killing a prisoner under
              this regime can go as high as death. You are allowed to torture to
              the point of protracted and unobvious disfigurement or cause loss of
              use of bodily organs for limited time periods - of course you have to
              be subject to this chapter which may not include the CIA agents who
              advice the soldiers of what to do but don't do it themselves.

              >
              > ===========
              >
              > "Material Support for Terrorism" is still defined in Title 18 >
              > Part I >
              > Chapter 113B > Section 2339A(b)
              >
              > (one place for that is:
              >
              > http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?
              > terms=2339A&url=/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002339---A000-.html
              >
              > Which still gives acknowledgement of First Amendment rights:
              >
              > (i) *Rule of Construction.— *Nothing in this section shall be
              > construed
              > or applied so as to abridge the exercise of rights guaranteed under
              > the
              > First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
              >
              > ===========
              >
              > Torture is still better handled in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.
              >
              > http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/gazette/2005/12/detainee-treatment-act-
              > of-2005-white.php
              >
              > The problem is not so much what this Act covers, as what this act does
              > NOT cover. It clearly only addresses:
              >
              > "The interrogation of persons under detention of the Department of
              > Defense".
              >
              > Which leaves the still wide and still gaping loophole of "persons
              > under
              > detention of the CIA and their scummy non-US buddies".
              >
              > If we're going to have a rant, it should not be about the current law,
              > with the exception of Habeas Corpus needing to be addressed - but the
              > CIA and Foreign Partners Torture Loophole.


              I think we need to have a protracted discussion of the whole thing -
              but this forum is about information warfare. I think the issue is
              that most people will be unwilling to even engage in the sort of
              discussion we I am trying to start because they fear that the
              government is watching. Have no fear - they are...

              FC
              -- This communication is confidential to the parties it is intended
              to serve --
              Fred Cohen & Associates tel/fax: 925-454-0171
              http://all.net/ 572 Leona Drive Livermore, CA
              94550
            • Ross A. Leo
              I have been on extensive travel of late, and am not acquainted with this piece of legislation. Please point me to it, or provide a copy. After reading it, I
              Message 6 of 13 , Oct 18, 2006
                I have been on extensive travel of late, and am not acquainted with this
                piece of legislation. Please point me to it, or provide a copy. After
                reading it, I will respond.



                Ross A. Leo





                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Gary Warner
                Fred, I neglected to include something very important in my previous email. The ability to wield definitions is a powerful tool in information warfare, and I
                Message 7 of 13 , Oct 18, 2006
                  Fred,

                  I neglected to include something very important in my previous email.
                  The ability to wield definitions is a powerful tool in information
                  warfare, and I agree that discussing such should be our primary focus on
                  this mailing list with regard to the current law. Being able to declare
                  someone a new status, and a newly defined status, is certainly a form of
                  information warfare.


                  Fred Cohen wrote:

                  GW> I'd also like to see from you examples of what things you are saying:
                  GW>
                  GW> FC> The new law allows the very things the
                  GW> FC> US prosecuted others for as war crimes after WW2


                  FC> Torturing prisoners of war - or anyone else for that matter - war
                  FC> crimes in WW2 - specifically allowed under this law.

                  I'm still missing this part . . .
                  please show me where this law "specifically allows" torturing of prisoners of war?

                  Not only is the Military Commission forbidden from using any statement compelled by torture, they are also clear to forbid torture in Sec.6.(c) "Additional Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment", choosing to make clear their intent by citing the 1984 "United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment"

                  Yet somehow you choose to declare that "torturing prisoners of war" is "specifically allowed under this law".

                  Please jump in and join the discussion List Lurkers.

                  _-_
                  gar
                • Tony Bartoletti
                  Thoughts ... While there is precedent, during real wars, for suspension of certain liberties (suspension of Habeus Corpus during the Civil War, and
                  Message 8 of 13 , Oct 18, 2006
                    Thoughts ...

                    While there is precedent, during "real" wars, for suspension of certain
                    liberties (suspension of Habeus Corpus during the Civil War, and internment
                    of Japanese Americans during WWII comes to mind), the info-war aspect of
                    the recent developments does hinge critically upon definitions.

                    Most people (in the US and the world) know when a real war is over - one
                    side surrenders, there is a very public ceremony in which the defeated
                    leadership signs an armistice agreement, terms of surrender, etc.

                    The "war on terror" certainly has its martial aspects, but seems in other
                    ways a lot like the "war on crime", "war on drugs", etc. In particular, it
                    is over "when I say its over". This is (perhaps) a bit unavoidable
                    (terrorist NGOs are not going to be seen surrendering) but also troubling
                    when such "war" in invoked to justify extraordinary executive powers,
                    vis-a-vis civil liberties. It becomes an avenue to impose "temporary
                    restrictions" and suspend constitutional protections quite indefinitely.

                    ____tony____

                    >

                    Tony Bartoletti 925-422-3881 <azb@...>
                    Information Operations and Assurance Center
                    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
                    Livermore, CA 94551-9900
                  • stephenpend
                    Nobody has mentioned Orwell s 1984: The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake...We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know
                    Message 9 of 13 , Oct 18, 2006
                      Nobody has mentioned Orwell's 1984:
                      "The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake...We are different
                      from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are
                      doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were
                      cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists
                      came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the
                      courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they
                      even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a
                      limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise
                      where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We
                      know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of
                      relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not
                      establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one
                      makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The
                      object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is
                      torture. The object of power is power."

                      The Roman Republic, of course, became the Roman Empire because of
                      internal corruption, civil war, and "temporary" emergency measures
                      which were allowed to become permanent.

                      --- In iwar@yahoogroups.com, Tony Bartoletti <azb@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > Thoughts ...
                      >
                      > While there is precedent, during "real" wars, for suspension of
                      certain
                      > liberties (suspension of Habeus Corpus during the Civil War, and
                      internment
                      > of Japanese Americans during WWII comes to mind), the info-war
                      aspect of
                      > the recent developments does hinge critically upon definitions.
                      >
                      > Most people (in the US and the world) know when a real war is
                      over - one
                      > side surrenders, there is a very public ceremony in which the
                      defeated
                      > leadership signs an armistice agreement, terms of surrender, etc.
                      >
                      > The "war on terror" certainly has its martial aspects, but seems
                      in other
                      > ways a lot like the "war on crime", "war on drugs", etc. In
                      particular, it
                      > is over "when I say its over". This is (perhaps) a bit
                      unavoidable
                      > (terrorist NGOs are not going to be seen surrendering) but also
                      troubling
                      > when such "war" in invoked to justify extraordinary executive
                      powers,
                      > vis-a-vis civil liberties. It becomes an avenue to
                      impose "temporary
                      > restrictions" and suspend constitutional protections quite
                      indefinitely.
                      >
                      > ____tony____
                      >
                      > >
                      >
                      > Tony Bartoletti 925-422-3881 <azb@...>
                      > Information Operations and Assurance Center
                      > Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
                      > Livermore, CA 94551-9900
                      >
                    • stephenpend
                      Unfortunately our laws have reached a state where it takes a lawyer to tell a layman what they mean, and a judge may still find another interpretation. I would
                      Message 10 of 13 , Oct 19, 2006
                        Unfortunately our laws have reached a state where it takes a lawyer
                        to tell a layman what they mean, and a judge may still find another
                        interpretation. I would refer you to a study at

                        http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/1741-
                        5705.00006/abs/

                        with the abstract as follows:

                        Presidential Studies Quarterly
                        Volume 33 Page 547 - September 2003
                        doi:10.1111/1741-5705.00006
                        Volume 33 Issue 3


                        National Security versus Civil Liberties
                        Nancy V. Baker1
                        Political, media, and academic observers have consistently noted the
                        adverse impact of post-9/11 antiterrorism measures on civil
                        liberties, yet Attorney General John Ashcroft and others in the
                        administration insist that the measures are consistent with
                        constitutional values. The national security versus civil liberties
                        debate has special saliency during wartime, particularly an open-
                        ended war against terrorism. Responding to the attacks as a war—
                        instead of a crime against humanity—has led to two domestic
                        developments for the presidency: first, the centralization of
                        authority in the White House, and second, the securitization of the
                        domestic sphere, specifically the administration's view of civil
                        liberties as a weakness in the system that can be exploited by
                        terrorists. This study focuses on the second of these developments.
                        It examines how the conception of liberties as points of
                        vulnerability compels the administration to restrict individual
                        rights while, at the same time, to deny that it is doing so.



                        --- In iwar@yahoogroups.com, "Ross A. Leo" <rleo@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > I have been on extensive travel of late, and am not acquainted
                        with this
                        > piece of legislation. Please point me to it, or provide a copy.
                        After
                        > reading it, I will respond.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Ross A. Leo
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                      • stephenpend
                        The text of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is located at http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/MC_Act-2006.html ... with this ... After
                        Message 11 of 13 , Oct 19, 2006
                          The text of the "Military Commissions Act of 2006" is located at
                          http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/MC_Act-2006.html

                          --- In iwar@yahoogroups.com, "Ross A. Leo" <rleo@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > I have been on extensive travel of late, and am not acquainted
                          with this
                          > piece of legislation. Please point me to it, or provide a copy.
                          After
                          > reading it, I will respond.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Ross A. Leo
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                        • Drew Schaefer
                          Hello Fred, Gary and others, List Lurkers? :-) on a list for which I receive a Digest once every two weeks to two months?? (smiling) Here s what my
                          Message 12 of 13 , Oct 20, 2006
                            Hello Fred, Gary and others,

                            List Lurkers? :-) on a list for which I receive a Digest once every
                            two weeks to two months?? (smiling)

                            Here's what my law-glazed eye spotted on a quick read-through:

                            Section 2:
                            "The authority to establish military commissions under chapter 47A of
                            title 10, United States Code, as added by section 3(a), may not be
                            construed to alter or limit the authority of the President under the
                            Constitution of the United States and laws of the United States to
                            establish military commissions for areas declared to be under martial
                            law or in occupied territories should circumstances so require."

                            COMMENT:
                            On the very first page, this Act grants an exceptional power for the
                            President to establish "other military commissions" even further
                            beyond this Act's paradigm, if in a period of declared Martial Law.

                            NB: the word 'area' is is not defined as external: this shines a new
                            light on the 'FEMA camps' phenomenon; juxtiposing the word 'or' to
                            divide from 'occupied territories' may add something sinister to this.
                            [I think that second paragraph screws the American pooch; better cross
                            over the border soon...]

                            Moving into Chapter 47 (which in effect this Military Commission Act
                            modifies):

                            Section §948b(e):
                            "(e) TREATMENT OF RULINGS AND PRECEDENTS.—The findings,
                            holdings, interpretations, and other precedents of military
                            commissions under this chapter may not be introduced or
                            considered in any hearing, trial, or other proceeding of a
                            court-martial convened under chapter 47 of this title. The
                            findings, holdings, interpretations, and other precedents
                            of military commissions under this chapter may not form
                            the basis of any holding, decision, or other determination
                            of a court-martial convened under that chapter.

                            COMMENT:
                            Any record of a commission proceeding here, cannot be used as
                            evidence, NOR as basis for a legal determination, against any US
                            military held for a court-martial or trial. Thus if *Habibi* was
                            tortured by "Sargeant Spike*, and such treatment is noted in the
                            authorized trial transcript, Amnesty International cannot use those
                            documents as evidence, established in the Habibi case, when Spike
                            faces trial for war crimes.


                            §948(g)
                            ``(g) GENEVA CONVENTIONS NOT ESTABLISHING SOURCE OF
                            RIGHTS.—No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by
                            military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva
                            Conventions as a source of rights.

                            COMMENT:
                            States that, within these commission proceedings, a treaty to which
                            the United States was one of the prime drafters, and signatory States,
                            will not allow such US law (via Constitutional mandate for the Senate
                            to review and ratify the treaty, to then have effect as US law: 6 UST
                            3217 (which itself encompasses the First and Second Geneva
                            Conventions); 6 UST 3316 (the Third GC); 6 UST 3516 (the Fourth GC))
                            to be considered.

                            It also seems circular, that this Act defines illegal torture, and yet
                            denies the protections of the GVA Conventions.

                            The effect of this is unknown, as one surely hopes that the Supreme
                            Court would overturn that contention (that 'a US law is not a US law
                            if applied to...') on first review.

                            Any comments?

                            Drew



                            --- In iwar@yahoogroups.com, Gary Warner <gar@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Fred,
                            >
                            > I neglected to include something very important in my previous email.
                            > The ability to wield definitions is a powerful tool in information
                            > warfare, and I agree that discussing such should be our primary
                            focus on
                            > this mailing list with regard to the current law. Being able to
                            declare
                            > someone a new status, and a newly defined status, is certainly a
                            form of
                            > information warfare.
                            >
                            >
                            > Fred Cohen wrote:
                            >
                            > GW> I'd also like to see from you examples of what things you are
                            saying:
                            > GW>
                            > GW> FC> The new law allows the very things the
                            > GW> FC> US prosecuted others for as war crimes after WW2
                            >
                            >
                            > FC> Torturing prisoners of war - or anyone else for that matter - war
                            > FC> crimes in WW2 - specifically allowed under this law.
                            >
                            > I'm still missing this part . . .
                            > please show me where this law "specifically allows" torturing of
                            prisoners of war?
                            >
                            > Not only is the Military Commission forbidden from using any
                            statement compelled by torture, they are also clear to forbid torture
                            in Sec.6.(c) "Additional Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading
                            Treatment or Punishment", choosing to make clear their intent by
                            citing the 1984 "United States Reservations, Declarations and
                            Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and
                            Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment"
                            >
                            > Yet somehow you choose to declare that "torturing prisoners of war"
                            is "specifically allowed under this law".
                            >
                            > Please jump in and join the discussion List Lurkers.
                            >
                            > _-_
                            > gar
                            >
                          • Gary Warner
                            ... Then the Information War is already lost. When people believe Speaking is a Crime, then Thinking will be next, and soon we will be a nation of sheep. (or
                            Message 13 of 13 , Oct 20, 2006
                              Kohlenberg, Toby wrote:
                              >
                              > All opinions are my own and in no way reflect the views of my employer.
                              > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
                              > It seems to me that publicly stating opinions on this topic
                              > could be a dangerous thing to do.
                              >
                              > toby
                              >
                              Then the Information War is already lost.

                              When people believe Speaking is a Crime, then Thinking will be next, and
                              soon we will be a nation of sheep. (or was that pigs?)

                              _-_
                              gar
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.