Dodd Bill May be First Candidate for Bush Veto

Due process is not a bad thing.

The system prescribed for Military tribunals is due process under the law, and is the appropriate venue for these types of proceedings.  To do otherwise, as some have suggested, would be to attempt to use the US criminal court system to try these cases.  Frankly, it just isn't practical to view the battlefield as a crime scene, or to expect criminal prosecutors to build a successful case against battlefield participants using the Criminal courts, the rules of admissibility of evidence, 5th amendment rights, and the whole "presumption of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt."  Plus, where are you going to get a jury of alQueda peers? 

Further, the Dodd bill would seek to exclude any evidence gathered by "coercion" without fully defining what "coercion" means.  I trust you see the difficulties there.

Finally, to your point about giving "every protection to every person," it becomes necessary again to specify what those terms mean.  I think the rules of jurisprudence, evidence, sentencing, and appeals should be spelled out and strictly adhered to.  If that is what you mean, then we agree.  If not, then please explain your point.

Thanks again for permission to use your photo.  It's really great!

Regards, nuke. 

The case of Jose Padilla is one glaring example where this system fails to meet my sniff test. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_%28alleged_terrorist%29 The fact that they were willing to withhold his access to due process casts a shadow on the whole process from my perspective.

In general though, due process starts with a prisoners actually being held with some legitimate charge and their ability to petition the court. Many and probably most have never been charged and could have not have been involved in any crime or action against the US or been involved in any type of terrorist activity but been swept up based on flimsy hearsay evidence.

Coersion has a definition.

Wikipedia defines it this way.

Coercion is the practice of compelling a person to involuntarily behave in a certain way (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation
or some other form of pressure or force. Coercion may typically involve
the actual infliction of physical or psychological harm in order to
enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may then lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced.

The term is often associated with circumstances which involve the unethical use of threats or harm to achieve some objective. Coercion may also serve as a form of justification in logical argument (see appeal to force).

 Websters Online.

 1 : to restrain or dominate by force <religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious -- W. R. Inge>
2 : to compel to an act or choice <was coerced into agreeing>
3 : to achieve by force or threat <coerce compliance>

Nuke, I disagree with this time. I am with Doug, above, but for a different reason. We don't need to provide anti-American sentiment around the world with more ammunition. A complete restoration of the right of habeus corpus and other guarantees of due process is the way to start restoring our credibility as the nation best that best embodies democratic values and the protection of individual rights.