RIP Habeas Corpus

0

0mar

Newbie
Joined
Dec 3, 2004
Messages
315
Reaction score
0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act

This bill, already passed by the House and the Senate by pretty substantial margins and just needs the President's signature to be Law, eliminates Habeas Corpus as a protection for people arrested by the state. It means, literally, that if you were arrested tomorrow by the government, you would have no legal recourse to find out why. Anyone can held without charge and without legal recourse for as long as the government deems necessary.

It reaffirms the fact that the Republicans AND Democrats are one and the same. By fairly large margins (65-34 and 250-170-2), this bill was passed. Other than a few token dissenters, both parties voted for this bill. It also shows the general course of American politics is away from freedom and towards 1984.

Everything since 9-11 has played out nearly identically as the NDSAP Germany did after the Reichstag Fire. Hitler drew up the Enabling Acts, we have the Patriot Act and now this. Sure, people hate the Hitler reference, but the truth is that it's true.

And for those who support this sort of legislation, shame on you. Saying that only terrorists and terrortist-apologists have something to fear is the height of ignorance. It's akin to saying that only enemies of the State and seditious people have something to fear in 1938 in NDSAP Germany. This sort of power will be abused. History has shown it to be true. In the 1960s, the FBI and CIA had broad powers to conduct spying on American citizens. It led to massive arrests in Civil Rights Movements, the Peace movements and also led to the abuse of power by Nixon to help sabotage his opponents' political moves.

This move is a very, very chilling act in American history.
 
look boys, its the alien and sedition acts all over again!

Here's to hoping such an outrageous bill will get overturned by the supreme court...but it won't.
 
0mar said:
It means, literally, that if you were arrested tomorrow by the government, you would have no legal recourse to find out why. Anyone can held without charge and without legal recourse for as long as the government deems necessary.
Click to expand...
While I do despise this kind of legislation, I can't find anything in the text to support that notion.

As amended, US Code Title 10, Subtitle A, Chapter 47A, Subchapter I, Section 948c would read:
Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.
Click to expand...

As defined in Section 948a:
(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT-
_(A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--
__(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
__(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.
_(B) CO-BELLIGERENT- In this paragraph, the term `co-belligerent', with respect to the United States, means any State or armed force joining and directly engaged with the United States in hostilities or directly supporting hostilities against a common enemy.

[...]

(3) ALIEN- The term `alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.
Click to expand...

So you couldn't be affected by this law unless you were A) not a citizen, and B) materially supporting hostile action against the United States.

As amended, Subchapter III also sets out a few rights that detainees to these military commissions have. For instance:

Upon the swearing of the charges and specifications in accordance with subsection (a), the accused shall be informed of the charges against him as soon as practicable.

[...]

No person shall be required to testify against himself at a proceeding of a military commission under this chapter.

[...]

A statement obtained by use of torture shall not be admissible in a military commission under this chapter, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.
Click to expand...

There are also rules for these commissions, in Subchapter IV, Section 949a:

(A) The accused shall be permitted to present evidence in his defense, to cross-examine the witnesses who testify against him, and to examine and respond to evidence admitted against him on the issue of guilt or innocence and for sentencing, as provided for by this chapter.
(B) The accused shall be present at all sessions of the military commission (other than those for deliberations or voting), except when excluded under section 949d of this title.
(C) The accused shall receive the assistance of counsel as provided for by section 948k.
(D) The accused shall be permitted to represent himself, as provided for by paragraph (3).
Click to expand...

Et cetera, et cetera.
 
it's still not cool. sorry.

also, "The Trial" by Franz Kafka, anyone?
 
Ennui said:
it's still not cool. sorry.
Click to expand...
It's definitely not cool, but it's not like they're outlawing thoughtcrime.

Yet.

I also want to point this out from the original post.
0mar said:
It reaffirms the fact that the Republicans AND Democrats are one and the same. By fairly large margins (65-34 and 250-170-2), this bill was passed. Other than a few token dissenters, both parties voted for this bill. It also shows the general course of American politics is away from freedom and towards 1984.
Click to expand...
65-34/250-170 may seem like large differences, but it would take only a 16% change in either house to prevent any future legislation of this nature. Take a look at the roll calls for the bill: in the House, 87% of the Yea votes were from Republicans; 95%--all but seven--of the Nay votes were from Democrats. In the Senate, 81% of the Yeas were from Republicans; a full 94%--all but two--of the Nays were from Democrats.

Put another way: 271 out of 283 Republicans voted for this bill. 51 out of 213 Democrats voted for it. This hardly seems like an even distribution.
 
i never understood why are constitution has to apply to everyone in the world.
 
Raeven0 said:
It's definitely not cool, but it's not like they're outlawing thoughtcrime.

Yet.

I also want to point this out from the original post.

65-34/250-170 may seem like large differences, but it would take only a 16% change in either house to prevent any future legislation of this nature. Take a look at the roll calls for the bill: in the House, 87% of the Yea votes were from Republicans; 95%--all but seven--of the Nay votes were from Democrats. In the Senate, 81% of the Yeas were from Republicans; a full 94%--all but two--of the Nays were from Democrats.

Put another way: 271 out of 283 Republicans voted for this bill. 51 out of 213 Democrats voted for it. This hardly seems like an even distribution.
Click to expand...
yeah, i understand. i agree with you all the way on this, i was just saying - arguing against it is fine, it's still a very lame thing though.

and he's right, democrats aren't really worth much anyway.

we need a political party that's not made up of politicians, you know?
delusional said:
i never understood why are constitution has to apply to everyone in the world.
Click to expand...
because being american does not make us better than anyone else. if we don't treat everyone else the same way as us... how could we possibly be anything but worse?
 
delusional said:
i never understood why are constitution has to apply to everyone in the world.
Click to expand...
Surprisingly--and this comes as a shock to many Americans--the Founding Fathers were not the first to come up with habeus corpus, the presumption of innocence, trial by jury, or most of the other hallmarks of our court system. They're basic principles of all civil society.

Ennui said:
and he's right, democrats aren't really worth much anyway.

we need a political party that's not made up of politicians, you know?
Click to expand...
Everybody should just vote for me and be done. ;)

I'm a little disappointed that my Senator Pryor voted for this bill. I had gotten the impression from his speech(es) that he was against this rampant, rights-trampling War On Somethingorother.
 
0mar said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act

This bill, already passed by the House and the Senate by pretty substantial margins and just needs the President's signature to be Law, eliminates Habeas Corpus as a protection for people arrested by the state. It means, literally, that if you were arrested tomorrow by the government, you would have no legal recourse to find out why. Anyone can held without charge and without legal recourse for as long as the government deems necessary.

It reaffirms the fact that the Republicans AND Democrats are one and the same. By fairly large margins (65-34 and 250-170-2), this bill was passed. Other than a few token dissenters, both parties voted for this bill. It also shows the general course of American politics is away from freedom and towards 1984.

Everything since 9-11 has played out nearly identically as the NDSAP Germany did after the Reichstag Fire. Hitler drew up the Enabling Acts, we have the Patriot Act and now this. Sure, people hate the Hitler reference, but the truth is that it's true.

And for those who support this sort of legislation, shame on you. Saying that only terrorists and terrortist-apologists have something to fear is the height of ignorance. It's akin to saying that only enemies of the State and seditious people have something to fear in 1938 in NDSAP Germany. This sort of power will be abused. History has shown it to be true. In the 1960s, the FBI and CIA had broad powers to conduct spying on American citizens. It led to massive arrests in Civil Rights Movements, the Peace movements and also led to the abuse of power by Nixon to help sabotage his opponents' political moves.

This move is a very, very chilling act in American history.
Click to expand...

Um....

First of all, if you go fascist democratically, you're still democratic. Fascist, yes. But still democratic. Besides, only non-citizens of the US have anything to fear...... wait.... wtf?

Besides, look at us. We've had our National Security Law (a version of the Patriot act on LSD, according to some weird people)and the Anti Communist law for nearly 6 decades, and we turned out just fine. Look at us!

Don't go so apocalyptic.
 
What's the rules towards telling whether you are an 'unlawful enemy combatant'?
 
Jintor said:
What's the rules towards telling whether you are an 'unlawful enemy combatant'?
Click to expand...
The president can declare any non-citizen an enemy combatant, and have you tried by military court and executed.
 
Solaris said:
The president can declare any non-citizen an enemy combatant, and have you tried by military court and executed.
Click to expand...
Excuse me?

As defined in Section 948a:
(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT-
_(A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--
__(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
__(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.
_(B) CO-BELLIGERENT- In this paragraph, the term `co-belligerent', with respect to the United States, means any State or armed force joining and directly engaged with the United States in hostilities or directly supporting hostilities against a common enemy.

(2) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- The term `lawful enemy combatant' means a person who is--
_(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
_(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
_(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.

(3) ALIEN- The term `alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.
Click to expand...
The classification "alien unlawful enemy combatant", which is the only group that can be tried by these commissions, refers specifically to those people who:
- are not citizens of the United States;
- are engaged in material hostile action against the United States; and
- are not operating under sanction of or allegiance to any national government, even those national governments not recognised by the United States.
 
damn Raeven0, are you a lawyer or something? Reading that shit is harder than anything I've ever read, and I have an MS in bioengineering.
 
Well, basically part 1/A/i says that you're an unlawful combatant if you're not a lawful combatant. Oh, you have to be engaged in hostilities against American or Allied forces too. (What are hostilities though? Shouting "Down with Bush!" ?). Hope that clears things up!
 
right, Habeas Corpus was one of the Rights of Englishmen which the first 10 amendments basically restate, but its origins extend far beyond that, even to the days of sumerians and hammurabi. It's one of the basic rights of law, and even if you're not an american citizen you should be entitled to it.
 
Raeven0 said:
Excuse me?

As defined in Section 948a:

The classification "alien unlawful enemy combatant", which is the only group that can be tried by these commissions, refers specifically to those people who:
- are not citizens of the United States;
- are engaged in material hostile action against the United States; and
- are not operating under sanction of or allegiance to any national government, even those national governments not recognised by the United States.
Click to expand...

But who determines that you are an alien unlawful enemy combatant?

It's them, isn't it.

We're boned.
 
So, this basically means that if you got caught lobbing grenades at US soldiers in Iraq, you're ****ed.
 
Well, you were ****ed already. But now you're officially ****ed, which is slightly worse.

No, I'm just seeing whether the Government can call you whatever they want then lob this on you.
 
If i were world president, i'd colonise saturn with a race of morally correct, affluent people :D

I seriously believe that at some point the oncept of 'nations' has to be abolished in favour of a continental/world administration. every person should have the same rights, whether they move to other regions or not. World citizenship ftw. And regional languages have to go. In with the universal language!
 
too bad saturn is gas.

the only way i see the world uniting is if aliens attacked earth or something and we all unite because a common enemy, but that wont happen.
 
D: -- Why condemn us morally righteous to to the icy, gaseous, low density world of Saturn? DAMN YOU!
 
Ænema said:
Lincoln did the same thing.
Click to expand...

Lincoln did this during time of war where war was declared by the united states congress. This was a war that was going to end eventually.

In contrast the united states congress never gave Bush a declaration of war and as Bush has said over and over this current war on terror will never end and the Iraq war will go on until after he leaves office.

There is absolutely no need for what he has done.

Regarding the fact that democrats voted for this also, they are simply pussies. Elections are coming up and these cowards didn't want to be accused of being weak on terror. This is the same thing that happened in 2002 with the authorization for Bush to go to war with Iraq. Republicans scheduled the vote just before elections so the Democrats would be forced to vote yes or be removed from office by their constituants. Everyone is guilty in this. The Republicans especially, the democrats for being pussies, and the american voter that will fall for bullshit talking points. This entire country is ****ed up at this point.
 
Jintor said:
But who determines that you are an alien unlawful enemy combatant?
Click to expand...
Alien unlawful enemy combatants are defined by law as those people who:
- are not citizens of the United States;
- are engaged in material hostile action against the United States; and
- are not operating under sanction of or allegiance to any national government, even those national governments not recognised by the United States.

If you're a US citizen, then you cannot be declared an alien unlawful enemy combatant. It is logically impossible. If you're serving under any foreign government that recognises itself as a national power (as opposed to a militia et al), then you cannot be declared an alien unlawful enemy combatant. The only requisite that is up to any interpretation at all is the second one.

0mar said:
damn Raeven0, are you a lawyer or something? Reading that shit is harder than anything I've ever read, and I have an MS in bioengineering.
Click to expand...
I haven't even enrolled at a university yet. I just love law. ;)
 
Raeven0 said:
Alien unlawful enemy combatants are defined by law as those people who:
- are not citizens of the United States;
- are engaged in material hostile action against the United States; and
- are not operating under sanction of or allegiance to any national government, even those national governments not recognised by the United States.

If you're a US citizen, then you cannot be declared an alien unlawful enemy combatant. It is logically impossible. If you're serving under any foreign government that recognises itself as a national power (as opposed to a militia et al), then you cannot be declared an alien unlawful enemy combatant. The only requisite that is up to any interpretation at all is the second one.
Click to expand...

That used to be the case until this new law came out. Currently the president can legally label any US citizen as an unlawful enemy combatant.
 
Raeven0 said:
Where is that in the text of this legislation? (I haven't perused the entire bill.)
Click to expand...

I will try to get that for you when I have a sec, I know for a fact they changed the definition of an enemy combatant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
From Warren Spector to Arkane Studios: Half-Life 2's cancelled Ravenholm episode
Replies
2
Views
10K
Clan Wolf 2
Clan Wolf 2
B
Marc Laidlaw releases Half-Life 2: Episode Three's plot
Replies
32
Views
39K
BabyHeadCrab
BabyHeadCrab
B
Hostile Takeover, the lost Half-Life expansion pack
Replies
6
Views
16K
Ennui
Ennui
Omnomnick
Examining The Files Of "SteamVR Performance Test" & "Aperture Robot Repair"
Replies
27
Views
91K
MFL
MFL
Back
Top