pecunium | Cold fury and rage... again

Cold fury and rage... again

I'm not as happy as I used to be. Usually it's nothing much, well no, it is... that sense of being irritated with everything, and no fun to be around. That I am not single again is a testament to the power of love.

I could be dramatic, and blame it on Post Traumatic Stress, or something (and some of it is... there are days I don't trust anyone I don't know, and would be willing to harm everyone who falls in that category... those are odd feelings, of walking a tightrope, but I digress) but a lot of it comes from the way I see things going here, the sense that all is fruitless and the Grand Experiment, a Gov't of the People, by the People and for the People is going to perish from this earth.

But then I see things like this:

HR 4674 To prohibit the return of persons by the United States, for purposes of detention, interrogation, or trial, to countries engaging in torture or other inhuman treatment of persons. (Introduced in House) Thomas link (I think that one is permanent)

and I have hope.

Until I see things like this (now, those who read this regularly will know my stand on the use of torture... suffice it to say, because I can't let it pass; and the energy to fulminate on this is taxing, and I slept poorly, my back hurts, the sun was in my eyes and I lost the ball in the lights, that I hate it, with a passion deep and abiding. With so strong, and visceral a reaction that I want to hurt people who say it's useful much less those who try to argue needful),

"Section 3032 and 3033 of H.R. 10, the "9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act of 2004," introduced by House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL). The provision would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue new regulations to exclude from the protection of the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, any suspected terrorist - thereby allowing them to be deported or transferred to a country that may engage in torture. The provision would put the burden of proof on the person being deported or rendered to establish "by clear and convincing evidence that he or she would be tortured," would bar the courts from having jurisdiction to review the Secretary's regulations, and would free the Secretary to deport or remove terrorist suspects to any country in the world at will - even countries other than the person's home country or the country in which they were born. The provision would also apply retroactively.

(emphasis in original, from Mackeys' Office, underline mine).

Lets see what the text 'ol Denny "Soros is a Drug Kingpin" Hastert actually put in the bill, shall we?

Thomas Link
(a) Regulations-
(1) REVISION DEADLINE- Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall revise the regulations prescribed by the Secretary to implement the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, done at New York on December 10, 1984.
(2) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN ALIENS- The revision--
(A) shall exclude from the protection of such regulations aliens described in section 241(b)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3)(B)) (as amended by this title), including rendering such aliens ineligible for withholding or deferral of removal under the Convention; and
(B) shall ensure that the revised regulations operate so as to--
(i) allow for the reopening of determinations made under the regulations before the effective date of the revision; and
(ii) apply to acts and conditions constituting a ground for ineligibility for the protection of such regulations, as revised, regardless of when such acts or conditions occurred.
(3) BURDEN OF PROOF- The revision shall also ensure that the burden of proof is on the applicant for withholding or deferral of removal under the Convention to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.
(b) Judicial Review- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall have jurisdiction to review the regulations adopted to implement this section, and nothing in this section shall be construed as providing any court jurisdiction to consider or review claims raised under the Convention or this section, except as part of the review of a final order of removal pursuant to section 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1252).
SEC. 3033. ADDITIONAL REMOVAL AUTHORITIES.
(a) In General- Section 241(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in each of subparagraphs (A) and (B), by striking the period at the end and inserting `unless, in the opinion of the Secretary of Homeland Security, removing the alien to such country would be prejudicial to the United States.'; and
(B) by amending subparagraph (C) to read as follows:
`(C) ALTERNATIVE COUNTRIES- If the alien is not removed to a country designated in subparagraph (A) or (B), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall remove the alien to--
`(i) the country of which the alien is a citizen, subject, or national, where the alien was born, or where the alien has a residence, unless the country physically prevents the alien from entering the country upon the alien's removal there; or
`(ii) any country whose government will accept the alien into that country.'; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking `Attorney General' each place such term appears and inserting `Secretary of Homeland Security';
(B) by amending subparagraph (D) to read as follows:
`(D) ALTERNATIVE COUNTRIES- If the alien is not removed to a country designated under subparagraph (A)(i), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall remove the alien to a country of which the alien is a subject, national, or citizen, or where the alien has a residence, unless--
`(i) such country physically prevents the alien from entering the country upon the alien's removal there; or
`(ii) in the opinion of the Secretary of Homeland Security, removing the alien to the country would be prejudicial to the United States.'; and
(C) by amending subparagraph (E)(vii) to read as follows:
`(vii) Any country whose government will accept the alien into that country.'.
(b) Effective Date- The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to any deportation, exclusion, or removal on or after such date pursuant to any deportation, exclusion, or removal order, regardless of whether such order is administratively final before, on, or after such date.

So an alien (one wonders what protections an "unlawful enemy combatant" as defined by the Gov't, which, it appears, can be a citizen, might have against this) shall be removed from any protections against torture.

There seems to also be some clever jiggery pokery on the issue of judicial review. The Courts are barred from intervening until after , except as part of the review of a final order of removal pursuant to section 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1252)."

So after the poor sap fails to overcome a presumption of guilt, he has to hope he is allowed to file a petition for a stay of rendition, so the courts can look into the matter… great.

This isn't some shuck and jive, no looking the other way while the Syrians torture a guy, so we can claim, "we never intended them to twist his arms out of his sockets and remove his teeth with a hand drill and a rusty chisel."

Nope, we have joined the Big Leagues… we are going to be grown up about this and make it the law of the land that we can torture people. To prove how enlightened we are about this, we are even going to help the American Economy by requiring it to be outsourced.

I keep thinking my disgust has found it's boundaries, but then they pull shit like this.

Make a stink… point people to these things, drag the filthy sons of bitches out into the cold light of day, and make them admit to the evils they want to do.

We much hold them to account, we must argue with our representatives, tell them that nothing in the rest of that bill is worth this… If we can't do it now, we will have a much harder time of it later.

Hamdi and Padilla were disappeared for a few days, Maher Arar was sent to Syria and tortured, for months, before Syria (that bastion of due process) decided he knew nothing, was innocent, and let him go.

How, pray tell, can the accused, overcome the presumption of guilt, when the trial is secret, he is not allowed access to the courts and can be sent to a country he has no connection to (look at it, anyplace willing to beat the crap out of someone for us can have the poor bastard: is he Iranian, send him to Iraq, Syrian, send him to Israel… oops, they decided torture doesn't work, maybe Singapore wants some brownie points, Chechen… I'm sure the Russians'll be glad to tune him up a bit… ).

This is worse than a crime, it is a mistake… and we are being played for saps. This makes Abu Ghraib a crime, only because we did it ourselves.

I have to stop now, I'm becoming incoherent and losing any focus this started with. Call them, write them, cajole your friends, harangue your opponents, fight this as though your lives depended on it, because I think they do.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

OMFG.

I don't even know where to start. I suppose letters to my congresscritters are in order? Do those actually have any effect, though?

Oh, it does. First, point people at me, and then point them at Obsidian Wings (if you need help in making the html work, I'll give it to you) and write your senators, and call them, and your rep, and argue about it... make flyers, fight to kill it.

Every little thing helps.

TK

Okay, pointed folx at you, in my journal.

I'll have to check out the other site at home, prolly next week, because I'm moving this weekend.

What happened to actually being able to say that we wore the white hats in the world?

BTW, if you want to read it, this is what I wrote:

Sir,

I am a soldier in the United States Army, and I love my country. In light of that fact, and the fact that I will soon be deploying to the Middle East, I am writing to plead with you to discuss, dig and then discredit any actions connected with this bill/pending action of our government.

My attention was directed to this piece of pending legislation by a good friend and soldier, and I am appalled.

We, as a country, have a burning need to feel that we wear the white hat in our actions with regards to other countries. We need to know that we're treating our soldiers, families, and even our captives and detainees with candor, and fairness. However, this bill clearly states that we're no longer interested in being the good guys, and have decided that if we can't get what we want by being nice, we'll get it by becoming thugs.

Please review the following wording, and do what needs to be done, in your official sphere of influence, and in the sphere of your peers to show this piece of legislation for what it is; a license to bully.

""Section 3032 and 3033 of H.R. 10, the "9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act of 2004," introduced by House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL). The provision would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue new regulations to exclude from the protection of the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, any suspected terrorist - thereby allowing them to be deported or transferred to a country that may engage in torture. The provision would put the burden of proof on the person being deported or rendered to establish "by clear and convincing evidence that he or she would be tortured," would bar the courts from having jurisdiction to review the Secretary's regulations, and would free the Secretary to deport or remove terrorist suspects to any country in the world at will - even countries other than the person's home country or the country in which they were born. The provision would also apply retroactively."

Sincerely,
(SoldierGrrrl)
SPC US Army

(Please keep in mind that this is my first letter to a representative of any type. I'm wingin' it here.)

Works for me... save I don't quite see the use of the word dig.

TK

I realized that I left out "up information on", so it was inserted manually into my emails. Sorry.

For what it's worth, I did fire off emails to folx who represent me.

I don't have a lot of hope that it's ging to do any good, but I can say that I tried?

*sigh*

I welcome your anger, though I know it can't be easy to live with.

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!!!

*loads shot gun*

My rep hears from me on a regular basis. My thanks for giving me a new outlet for my own rage at shit like this. UGH!!

Idiots that write legislation like that just have no. fucking. clue...

Have you seen the editorial in the Crawford, TX newspaper, endorsing John Kerry?

http://news.iconoclast-texas.com/web/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm

Yep... stuck that in the quiver and sent it thunking into a target this morning (he was berating someone for saying PFC England deserves prison time if convicted, and not militating that Kerry be imprisoned for actions in Viet-nam [never mind that he never mentions what those actions are]).

TK

Dear God. More and more, I keep feeling that the terrorists have won.

..... the fascists have.

All they need to be is a suspected terrorist now? Sweet Christ, that's terrifying.

Thanks for the info, TK, I'll be writing to my representatives immediately.

Ah, TK, both your Thomas links go to HR 4674. Here's the link to HR 10 Sec. 3032 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c108:1:./temp/~c108C56Rju:e274504:), though I think it's temporary.

Particluarly nasty is the judicial review bit: "except as part of the review of a final order of removal." Meaning that only individuals could challenge their own specific orders of renewal (good luck!); the ACLU or the like couldn't launch a 'bad law' challenge.

Actually, since I went and read through the wonderfully short and clear H.R. 4674, I thought I'd quote Section 2:

(a) Reports to Congress- Beginning 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act and every 6 months thereafter, the Secretary of State shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a list of each country where torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment is commonly used by the government of that country in interrogation and detention.

(b) Prohibition on Transferring Persons- No person in the custody of a United States Government department, agency, or official may be transferred, rendered, or returned to the custody of the government of a country included on the most recent list submitted under subsection (a) for the purpose of detention, interrogation, or trial.

(c) Waivers-

(1) Authority- The Secretary of State may waive the prohibition contained in subsection (b) with respect to the government of a country if the Secretary certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that--

(A) that government has made significant, verifiable progress in eliminating the acts of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment that were the basis for the inclusion of that country on the list; or

(B) there is in place a mechanism that assures the United States in a verifiable manner that a person transferred, rendered, or returned will not be tortured or subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in that country, including, at a minimum, immediate, unfettered, and continuing access, from the point of return, to each such person by an independent humanitarian organization.

(2) Assurances insufficient- Written or verbal assurances made to the United States by the government of a country that persons in its custody will not be tortured or subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, are not sufficient to meet the requirements of paragraph (1)(B).

So what happens if both bills pass? The Government explodes?

Here's the PDF version on Hastert's web site. The sections in question begin on page 134.

Damn... cut and paste error, and hasty typing (I was a trifle irked... best to wait until the heat of passion has cooled a bit).

If both bills pass, then someone will have to bring a suit about the conflict before the bench, at which point it all gets tossed in the lap of the Court.

Or, someone with a set of balls will get legislation passed to clarify it (I say that, in the supposition that getting the offending passage of H.R. 10 invalidated will be less popular than H.R. 4674).

Now to go fix that link.

TK

that's the query... what one needs is the status (and there is a link to that, on the answer to the query page... can't dive into the text, but one can make a new query, rather than be told you goofed).

H.R. 10

Thanks. Looks like both are in committee...

This issue is getting a fair bit of play in the blogosphere: note this posting at Obsidian Wings (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2004/09/republicans_mus.html). The following exchange of comments is one of the better blogosphere ones as well.

That would be Sebastian's?

If you look a little further down (to the piece of OW he referents) You'll see me holding forth to a Dr. Kerry Dean, who is spouting the claptrap that we need to do this, if it will save one American life because they are so eager to kill, and maim all of us Americans.

I am mocking him here, but that sort of emphasis is in his original.

The WaPo, also linked to the the original post in OW, and last I checked that post had more trackbacks than comments. Given that I went and plugged it a couple of places, with simple href coding, I I am certain there are more people making hay about it.

But none of that means a damned thing if people don't agitate in the public sector; don't hector their congressmen, tell their nieghbors (I have a friend whom I have made unhappy enough about Bush that he now says he wishes he could vote for Kerry. If I hadn't moved his vote might shift. This being Calif, and a fairly solid Kerry state my only sadness is that moving of a bit of the total balance, but I wish I could do it... being in L.A. last night, I told him about this..., and he is going to write his Congressman. I have hope yet).

TK

*slaps forehead again*

Should have spotted that one.

And your point taken...I'm going to write my Representatives, in the hope that they may care about an absentee voter's opinion.

Might write Senator DeWine as well, since he came to my Bar Mitzvah back when he was a state rep.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Cold fury and rage... again

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

On a not unrelated issue--

Re: On a not unrelated issue--

no subject

Actually, scratch that...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Republican critic of HR 10

Re: Republican critic of HR 10

Re: Republican critic of HR 10