Military Commissions Act of 2006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaQuote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
They just call you an enemy combatant, throw you in prison forever with no trial and never tell you what you are accused of...
Printable View
Military Commissions Act of 2006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaQuote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
They just call you an enemy combatant, throw you in prison forever with no trial and never tell you what you are accused of...
Sorry but if that's it, it's not much of an argument to stand on. I read the entire thing over and to feel that this applies to "Joe civilian" walking down the streets in the U.S. is crazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by melodious fellow
Have a good one!:s4:
Here ya go, bro!Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
"The Act may apply to U.S. citizens
In the House debate, Representative David Wu of Oregon offered this scenario:
Let us say that my wife, who is here in the gallery with us tonight, a sixth generation Oregonian, is walking by the friendly, local military base and is picked up as an unlawful enemy combatant. What is her recourse? She says, ??I am a U.S. citizen?. That is a jurisdictional fact under this statute, and she will not have recourse to the courts? She can take it to Donald Rumsfeld, but she cannot take it across the street to an article 3 court.[25]
One has described the Act as "the legalization of the José Padilla treatment"??referring to the American citizen who was declared an unlawful enemy combatant and then imprisoned for three years before finally being charged with a lesser crime than was originally alleged.[26] A legal brief filed on Padilla's behalf alleges that during his imprisonment Padilla was subjected to sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, and enforced stress positions.[27] He continues to be held by the United States.
According to Bill Goodman, Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Joanne Mariner, from FindLaw, this bill redefines unlawful enemy combatant in such a broad way that it refers to any person who is
engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.
This makes it possible for US citizens to be designated unlawful enemy combatant because
it could be read to include anyone who has donated money to a charity for orphans in Afghanistan that turns out to have some connection to the Taliban or a person organizing an anti-war protest in Washington, D.C.
As such habeas corpus may be denied to US citizens.[28] Jennifer Van Bergen, a journalist with a law degree, responds to the comment that habeas corpus has never been afforded to foreign combatants with the suggestion that, using the current sweeping definition of war on terror and unlawful combatant, it is impossible to know where the battlefield is and who combatants are. Also, she notes that most of the detentions are already unlawful.[29]
The Act also suggests that unlawful enemy combatant refers to any 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.
Some commentators have interpreted this to mean that if the President says you are an enemy combatant, then you effectively are.[30]
* Patrick Leahy, United States Senator:
Passing laws that remove the few checks against mistreatment of prisoners will not help us win the battle for the hearts and minds of the generation of young people around the world being recruited by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Authorizing indefinite detention of anybody the Government designates, without any proceeding and without any recourse??is what our worst critics claim the United States would do, not what American values, traditions and our rule of law would have us do. This is not just a bad bill, this is a dangerous bill. [31].
I agree with you 100%. This is not about the rights of terrorists, this is about the rights of me and you. When other countries do what we are doing, we call it a violation of basic human rights. We need to restore our constitutional rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by thecurious1
It may be apropriate to suspend Habaeus Corpus in times of extreme emergency, but we are more than six years past 9/11! We may still have a so-called "War on Terror" under way, but the emergency is over! The government has created a state of perpetual emergency. It reminds me of something you hear of happening in Cuba or some other communist or fascist state --- "You'll get your rights back when the Revolution is complete, when the emergency is over, when the danger has passed." They want to use our fear to extend these extraordinary powers indefinitely. Is it necessary to destroy our country in order to save it? I do not buy the conspiracy theories that we are coming under some kind of a fascist regime, but some of the aparatus of fascism is now in place. Whether you think our government is abusing that aparatus or not --- it is in place and avaialble for abuse. That's dangerous.
In regards to the rights of non-citizens, it may be that American constitutional protections do not legally apply to foreigners. But they must come under some jurisdiction. The government argues that they are not Americans, so Habaeus Corpus does not apply. And they say they are not truly members of a foreign army, so the Geneva conventions do not apply. Their status is undetermined, so no rights apply whatsoever. It's been six years --- their status should be determined by now! I don't want to see these people set free any more than anyone else if they really are terrorists, but we can't just declare that they are terrorists and lock them up for their whole lives. This country used to stand for freedom and liberty and basic human dignity. We are losing that.
Padilla was convicted in August, along with Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifadh Wael Jayyousi [profiles], of conspiracy to commit illegal violent acts outside the US, conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists, and providing material support to terrorists. Padilla, a US citizen, was arrested in 2002 at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport and subsequently detained as an "enemy combatant" [JURIST news archive] at a Navy military brig in Charleston, South Carolina. Initially alleged to have planned the explosion of a "dirty bomb" in the United States, Padilla went from enemy combatant to criminal defendant when he was finally charged with other offenses in November 2005.
JURIST - Paper Chase: Federal judge refuses to rule out life sentence for Padilla, co-conspirators
This is NOT "Joe Citizen".........sorry but I could really give a shit less about these types of peoples rights.
Have a good one!:s4:
The point is that he was finally charged, tried, and convicted. Now it's OK to lock him up. Everyone agrees with that --- may he rot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
But there was a huge legal fight to get him his trial. The Constitution does not allow the government to lock a US citizen up for three years without charging them with a crime --- this isn't fucking North Korea. We don't just call someone an enemy of the state and toss them in prison without access to the legal system. If they had evidence he was going to blow up a dirty bomb, then that's clearly a crime, and we should get about the business of trying him and putting him away. But if they don't have evidence to try him, then why should we trust that he really committed a crime? "Trust us, we can't prove it in court, but believe us, he was gonna do something bad." That's not good enough.
Don't be so fast to throw away your rights. Go very far down that path, and soon you'll have the cops kicking down your door and tossing you in prison for trafficing weed. Yeah, I'm talking about YOU. They might not be able to prove it, and it might not even be true, but I think it could be argued that there's a good chance you're somehow involved in something illegal if you're so involved with this site. "Can't prove it, but can we take a chance with this guy? Believe us, he was up to something. Better not let him talk to a lawyer, or they'll pull some kind of "technicality" like Habaeus Corpus on us. A few days of waterboarding, and he'll admit he gets his shit from the Taliban."
I like my rights. I don't want to give up mine just so we can take away Jose Padilla's.
This is a new age of terrorism.....unfortunately this type of thing is a must. IF we give these people the sames rights as us they'll bleed the system dry.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
The ONLY ones that'll come out ahead are the lawyers. They don't give a rats ass about me, you, or Jose'........just about their fat pockets.
Have a good one!:s4:
"If you are willing to sacrifice freedom for security, you will lose both and deserve neither"
"If you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water, he will jump right out. But if you slowly turn up the heat, you will boil the frog."
The great words of Ben Franklin. Damn, what a crazy cool place this would be if we still gave a shit about the way the founders intended this country to work.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The Founding Fathers lived in a time where there were no missiles, dirty bombs, suicide attacks, etc.. The one sentence in our Preamble that is highlighted makes a statement. "Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". IF the Founding Fathers had the same set of circumstances that we live in today, I think that the security of the nation would be first and foremost on their minds.
Have a good one!:s4:
I'll go out on a limb and postulate that the Founding Fathers wouldn't have needed to restrict the rights of American citizens if our country had been threatened by these jihadistic baboons. They would have destroyed every last remnant of their religious extremist worlds before it got to the point of having to enforce new laws aimed at the general population of America.