Basically, it rewrites the judicial process for trying "unlawful enemy combatants," which one would think would be foreign terrorists right? Well, it actually means anyone that an appointed military tribunal deems an "unlawful enemy combatant," including US citizens, who can be taken before said tribunal without being charged
. This tribunal can only be appointed by the President or the Secretary of Defense. It also nullifes habeas corpus, the fundamental principle which protects you from being detained without being charged with a crime. And there's a lot of other nasty shit in it: no speedy trial, no Geneva convention protections, no jury, the use of illegally obtained evidence or hearsay in trial, and more.Olberman already did a segment on it called "why does habeas corpus hate america"
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6prNQZmmuI). I've heard nothing but overwhelmingly negative responses to this act; does anyone support it? Am I getting a slanted view on it, because I don't see how anybody could vote for this as I understand it. If we have such a strong case against terrorists, why can't we try them the good ol' fashioned way. I'm confused.
