All 17 Democrats today voted against this legislation

[underpants]

To: National Desk

Contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn, 202-225-2492, both of the House Judiciary Committee

WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The House Judiciary Committee today approved two landmark bills fighting the War on Terror. The first, H.R. 6054, the "Military Commissions Act," establishes terrorist tribunals and was approved without amendment by a 20-to-19 margin. All 17 Democrats today voted against this legislation, which overwhelmingly passed the House Armed Services Committee last week by a 52-to-8 margin.


http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=72866


What legislation is this you ask....

!! House Committee Approves Bill to SHIELD BUSH FROM WAR CRIMES!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2182041

H. R. 6054

To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes.

SEC. 5. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking both the subsection (e) added by section 1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2742) and the subsection (e) added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law 109-163 (119 Stat. 3477) and inserting the following new subsection (e):

`(e)(1) Except as provided for in this subsection, and notwithstanding any other law, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action, including an application for a writ of habeas corpus, pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, against the United States or its agents, brought by or on behalf of any alien detained by the United States as an unlawful enemy combatant, relating to any aspect of the alien's detention, transfer, treatment, or conditions of confinement.


SEC. 7. REVISIONS TO DETAINEE TREATMENT ACT OF 2005 RELATING TO PROTECTION OF CERTAIN UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL.

(b) Protection of Personnel- Section 1004 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 2000dd-1) shall apply with respect to any criminal prosecution that--

(1) relates to the detention and interrogation of aliens described in such section;

(2) is grounded in section 2441(c)(3) of title 18, United States Code; and

(3) relates to actions occurring between September 11, 2001, and December 30, 2005.


SEC. 8. RETROACTIVE APPLICABILITY.

This Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply retroactively, including--

(1) to any aspect of the detention, treatment, or trial of any person detained at any time since September 11, 2001; and

(2) to any claim or cause of action pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

[Selatius]

1. I'm sorry, but isn't this ex post facto?

If I tortured you in prison in 2002 and then make it legal in 2006, am I guilty or not guilty in a court of law?

[wtmusic]

2. You can't be punished for something that's not a crime

Ex post applies to new laws.

[underpants]

3. SEC. 8. RETROACTIVE APPLICABILITY

goes back to 9/11

:shrug:

I don't know.

[woodsprite]

5. Even if they achieve immunity over here for their crimes,

can't other countries charge them if their soldiers/detainees were harmed? Does this also push thru the change to the Geneva Convention? It didn't sound like it, but with all the legal mumbo-jumbo I wasn't quite sure.

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. Think: Pinochet.

[endarkenment]

9. The extraordinary tribunals fail to meet GC standards.

There are two violations here: kangaroo kourts and torture. This bill appears to legalize kangaroo kourts that fail to meet article 3 GC standards.

[AllegroRondo]

6. That only works in the other direction

they cant pass a law making something you did yesterday a crime, and charge you for it.
but they can make a crime you did yesterday not a crime today.

[Selatius]

8. Seriously? That's bullshit.

So if I waterboarded you in 2002, and Congress makes it legal in 2006, then I won't be prosecuted for that?

[endarkenment]

14. So if drugs are legalized tomorrow

those who committed drugs violations today should be prosecuted?

[Selatius]

15. Sigh, no

I'm just upset that they're contemplating retroactively taking Bush off the hook. Ultimately, I am in favor of drug legalization, but if I had any say, I would've killed this bill in committee. You are right in bringing some sense back to me. The law requires consistency for better or for worse, and in this case, for worse.

[endarkenment]

16. Yes it sucks.

We are going to abolish the GC, legalize torture and kangaroo kourts. We are going to execute people after torturing them and trying in secret courts without even letting them see the evidence against them. We are going to wipe away the crimes already committed by the criminal bush cabal, and all those who stand against this outrage will be attacked as terrorist sympathizers.

I am ashamed of my country.

[jwirr]

4. Will this hold up in the SCOTUS?

[endarkenment]

11. I believe it will.

I think that is the goal: screw the world make it legal here. Treaties do not trump legislation, they appear to be on an equal footing with federal laws. New legislation that contradicts existing treaty obligations will be rubber stamped by the SC (in my opinion.)

[Supersedeas]

10. 19 Dems on the Armed Services Committee vote for it?????

<<At the same time, the House Armed Services Committee voted 52 to 8 to ratify the White House's version of legislation creating military commissions for trying terrorism suspects. The measure would give Bush the authority he seeks to withhold classified evidence from defendants, admit testimony that defendants might maintain was coerced, and protect U.S. intelligence agents from legal action over their interrogation methods. House Republican leaders plan to bring the tribunal bill to a vote next week.>>

[endarkenment]

12. You wouldn't want them to take a courageous stand

for justice would you? That might be politically unwise. Much better to wait and see if anyone on the other side of the aisle has any guts. However I salute the 17 Dems and 2 Reps who stood up and said no in on the judiciary committee.

[Supersedeas]

13. And I salute the 8 Members of the Armed Services Committee -

just wonder what the other 19 were thinking!!!


Here's a link to the Full Cmmittee membership:

http://www.house.gov/hasc/about/members.html