RIP Habeas Corpus

[Raeven0]

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.

Oh, they did include a definition in the act; that's what I was quoting

As passed by the Senate, measure number S.3930.ES.

Looking at it again, I think you may be referring to the amended portion of §10-47-948a:

(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.

--which does carry the connotation that the President and DoD can declare anyone an unlawful enemy combatant; and I'll say that this would eliminate the second requirement (material anti-US hostilities) altogether, but it would take an unreasonable stretch for the executive tribunals to convert a lawful combatant's status to unlawful, which would be necessary to meet the third requisite (no national employment).

The first requisite (noncitizenship) is totally unaffected, though: these new military commissions are explicitly established for alien unlawful enemy combatants; so even if, by some voodoo magic, the President were to declare us all unlawful enemy combatants, his new military commissions couldn't try the American citizens among us.

Assume for the sake of argument, though, that the executive branch also possesses the arcane power to declare people noncitizens. What could then result would be, if the executive bureaucracy could get off its ass long enough, that anyone in the nation could technically be declared an alien unlawful enemy combatant operating under a foreign militant power. Such a process, however, would be incredibly inefficient and wasteful even for this administration.

Essentially, if I take issue with any part of the bill, it's that one paragraph. The President shouldn't have that power.

 

[0mar]

Where is that in the text of this legislation? (I haven't perused the entire bill.)

It's not in that legislation. However, the President has the ability to call anyone an enemy combatant (Jose Padilla is a great example).

This bill makes it so that any non-citizen can be held without habeas corpus and citizens without habeas corpus, if they've been declared an enemy combatant by the Pres or Secretary of Defense.

 

[CookieCuttah]

Fortunately Saturn has such a strong gravitational force that you would die playing hopscotch if you didn't die on the initial landing. Farewell Liberals! The Earth can breathe a sigh of relief.

 

[kirovman]

Fortunately Saturn has such a strong gravitational force that you would die playing hopscotch if you didn't die on the initial landing. Farewell Liberals! The Earth can breathe a sigh of relief.

Well, they'd better just be careful not to play hopscotch then.

 

[efter]

No Limit is correct. They have changed the definitions, it's ultimately up to the president. He can label any US citizen an enemy combatant now, after all if we're not with him we're with Al'Quada remember???. You should check out HR6166 as well. That legislation was passed before the Military Commissions Act, and unlike that act, has already been signed into law, Bush is hesitating for some unknown reason on signing the Military Commissions Act. But HR6166 ultimately says that the President has the final say-so on what constitutes torture, and who it can be used on, it also gives him and his cronies retroactive immunity for any war-crimes they may have committed after 9-11. That's right, he can't be tried for anything he's done now. He got a blank ticket from the senate to keep up with the torture, even congressman Westmoreland after voting for the bill said "I voted for torture."
Now, when you give one man the authority to decide what's legal and what's illegal, there is only one word for that...DICTATORSHIP. Couple this with the elimination of Habeous Corpus, and America is now a fascist dictatorship, Hannitized rhetoric notwithstanding.
Well, one thing you can't say is that the 9-11 conspiridroids didn't warn you. All along they have maintained the conclusion that 9-11 was an inside job ultimately about the elimination of the Bill of Rights, and making Bush a dictator. Well, it has finally happened. And there is absolutely NOTHING that says they can't detain and torture any one of us, citizen or not.

other links of interest on this...
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/10/olbermann-why-does-habeas-corpus-hate-america/

Ashcroft says we should "trust" Bush to not abuse his new powers.
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/171006_b_Ashcroft.htm

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.6166:

looks like only 16% still believe it was "towelheads with boxcutters".
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13469

EDIT: Military Commissions Act was signed tuesday the 18th.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/181006Olbermann.htm

 

[clarky003]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK40f6E8XQ8&mode=related&search=

D: Best wishes go out to peace loving American's right now.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Oh god, not again.

Bush might be amoral and stupid, but 9/11 was not an inside job. Try getting some facts before you make spurious accusations, or else you're no better.

 

[Aenama]

meh...of course this sucks.I can't wait for that dick to get out of office.

 

[Nemesis6]

One thing I think we can all agree on is that anyone who mentions "inside job" and "9/11" in a sentence is an idiot.

 

[repiV]

One thing I think we can all agree on is that anyone who mentions "inside job" and "9/11" in a sentence is an idiot.

But you just did that. Idiot! :E

 

[Nemesis6]

Doesn't count! It was in a quote!

Oh wait, a quote in a sentence... Damn it.

 

[repiV]

One thing I think we can all agree on is that anyone who mentions "inside job". Sorry, just had to catch my breath. That and "9/11" in a sentence is an idiot.

There ya go. :thumbs:

 

[kirovman]

But Mecha isn't an idiot!

Au contraire, he's a genius.

 

[clarky003]

Why did he bring that up? the videos focus was clearing up whats happened to american rights. Alright while we are at the 'facts' you may want to educate yourself with this mainstream news source which shows there is actually hard evidence that suggest there was a hand in 911 that goes far beyond what we where told about the perpatrators. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1266317,00.html

and on that note lets not forget that the comission report on where the funding came from for 911 says in all its obsurdity that the source of the money is 'of little significance' which is a wtf comment. So I suggest people research it themselves and stop blerting the governments version of events as 'all of the facts'.

 

[0mar]

One thing I think we can all agree on is that anyone who mentions "inside job" and "9/11" in a sentence is an idiot.

false. The circumstantial evidence is pretty damning that 9-11 was an inside job.

http://911research.wtc7.net/guide.html

 

[kirovman]

false. The circumstantial evidence is pretty damning that 9-11 was an inside job.

http://911research.wtc7.net/guide.html

And all these sheeple will never know the half of it!

 

[repiV]

Am I the only one who finds drawing a conclusion based on "damning circumstantial evidence" to be highly amusing and rather contradictory?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Alright while we are at the 'facts' you may want to educate yourself with this mainstream news source which shows there is actually hard evidence that suggest there was a hand in 911 that goes far beyond what we where told about the perpatrators. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...266317,00.html

Uh, that's a speculative op-ed piece. Not a news article.
It's based entirely on a lack of knowledge. "I can't read this file! The file contains the world-shattering secret!"
And it concludes, shakily, that the US might've been inept and that Pakistanis might have had a role in 9/11.
Shocking allegations from four years ago!

The circumstantial evidence is pretty damning that 9-11 was an inside job.

Every claim on that site has been rather comprehensively debunked at http://www.911myths.com/ and several others.

Surely you can do better than sub-circumstantial evidence.
Even the worst evidence has the advantage of actually being factual.
Now talk smart.

 

[kirovman]

Now talk smart.

Duh, but Mecha, why should I talk smart?

I've already shown you the link to the damning evidence that Jet fuel does not burn at high enough temperatures to melt steel

 

[DEATH eVADER]

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.

Because 98% of them don't actually read the bill before signing it.

 

[Nemesis6]

I recommend this to all stupid people who can't get their basic historical facts about 9/11 right - http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

Let me just quote one thing that talks about steel melting -

For anyone interested in a point-by-point debunking of some of the most popular conspiracy theories out there (like the fact that steel melts at 1525° C, and although jet fuel burns only at 825° C, it doesn't have to burn hot enough to melt to cause the buildings to collapse, since steel loses 50% of its strength at 648 ° C)