Discuss.
[quote]grew7 wrote:
Discuss.[/quote]
Wow. Remind me never to become an unlawful combatant.
“Your under arrest.”
“What for?”
“None of your business.”
[quote]grew7 wrote:
Discuss.[/quote]
nothing to see here folks, no rights being eroded, no sir. And don’t worry, a US citizen would NEVER run afoul of the law, just worry about your evil immigrant neighbours. Remember, its to protect the children, terrorists hate us for our freedoms, think of the children!
wow, no neocons calling you names yet!!
Look, guys, it’s just not going to work if we have to give every scumbag a trial. Remember OJ? Guess what some scumbag lawyer would stack the jury with? Look at Saddam’s trial — its turning into a farce, and the guy is clearly a mass murderer, w/o question!
As for Americans who take up arms against this country — they have abnegated any rights whatsoever. They deserve worse than some ignorant Afghani.
HH
[quote]Petedacook wrote:
“Your under arrest.”
“What for?”
“None of your business.”[/quote]
“You’ll never take me alive you illiterate pig!”
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Look, guys, it’s just not going to work if we have to give every scumbag a trial. Remember OJ? Guess what some scumbag lawyer would stack the jury with?
HH[/quote]
Wow…thats just…WOW!
I guess a jury of your peers means nothing to you.
The fact of the matter is the police in LA screwed up with OJ’s evidence.
Much ado about nothing.
So, let me get this straight. Combatants can be tried by military commission? When hasn’t this been the case? Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt all used this. What exactly is new here?
Olbermann & Constitutional Law Prof Jonathan Turley On Military Commissions Act
OLBERMANN: Does this mean that under this law, ultimately the only thing keeping you, I, or the viewer out of Gitmo is the sanity and honesty of the president of the United States?
TURLEY: It does. And it’s a huge sea change for our democracy. The framers created a system where we did not have to rely on the good graces or good mood of the president. In fact, Madison said that he created a system essentially to be run by devils, where they could not do harm, because we didn’t rely on their good motivations.
Now we must. And people have no idea how significant this is. What, really, a time of shame this is for the American system. What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values.
It couldn’t be more significant. And the strange thing is, we’ve become sort of constitutional couch potatoes. I mean, the Congress just gave the president despotic powers, and you could hear the yawn across the country as people turned to, you know, “Dancing with the Stars.” I mean, it’s otherworldly…
…this is going to go down in history as one of our greatest self-inflicted wounds. And I think you can feel the judgment of history. It won’t be kind to President Bush.
But frankly, I don’t think that it will be kind to the rest of us. I think that history will ask, Where were you? What did you do when this thing was signed into law? There were people that protested the Japanese concentration camps, there were people that protested these other acts. But we are strangely silent in this national yawn as our rights evaporate…
Thoughts on the “Bringing Terrorists to Justice Act of 2006”
John Dean (former counsel to Nixon)
One of the most sweeping provisions of this proposed law takes the federal courts out of the business of providing any redress whatsoever, to anyone who becomes entangled - correctly or incorrectly - on the wrong side of the war on terror…
This proposal, however, is going to tell us a great deal about where we are as a nation, for as General Powell said, “The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts.”
I even heard one idiot say, “much ado about nothing”.
“Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.”
- James Madison
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, let me get this straight. Combatants can be tried by military commission? When hasn’t this been the case? Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt all used this. What exactly is new here?[/quote]
What is new is America has millions more lawyers than we used to.
This only applies to a handful of people and it is likely that the USSC will overturn it at some point if it goes beyond that.
It is unfortunate that guys like John Walker Lindh make it off the battlefield alive.
After interrogation they should die of battlefield wounds and be cremated.
I’ll say this again: No American citizen can be an “alien unlawful enemy combatant.”
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I’ll say this again: No American citizen can be an “alien unlawful enemy combatant.”
[/quote]
Don’t you dare inject common sense into this thread.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I’ll say this again: No American citizen can be an “alien unlawful enemy combatant.”[/quote]
Not if your citizenship is pre-emtively revoked…
That could be fought in court by ‘your’ lawyer.
‘Your’ lawyer or the court would have to locate you once citizenship was re-established.
Nothing to see here folks…move along…
I have a challenge. Can anyone give me one example of an enemy combatant during a war, captured and held outside of the US, who was allowed acces to habeas corpus and our courts? I can’t seem to find one instance.
Yet, lo and behold, this act actually grants them appeals to the DC circuit court of appeals. If that’s not good enough they can then petition the Supreme Court! What the hell? This gets played off as some step backwards in liberty, but actually introduces unprecedented appeals to our top courts? What?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Look, guys, it’s just not going to work if we have to give every scumbag a trial. Remember OJ? Guess what some scumbag lawyer would stack the jury with? Look at Saddam’s trial — its turning into a farce, and the guy is clearly a mass murderer, w/o question!
As for Americans who take up arms against this country — they have abnegated any rights whatsoever. They deserve worse than some ignorant Afghani.
HH[/quote]
Common Headhunter, you don’t really believe that shit, do you? Seriously, if you were to get arrested one day, and accused of being an unlawful combatant, with no judicial recourse, how would you prove otherwise?
This is exactly how free, liberal societies slip into despotism…and it is fucking scarry.
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Olbermann & Constitutional Law Prof Jonathan Turley On Military Commissions Act
OLBERMANN: Does this mean that under this law, ultimately the only thing keeping you, I, or the viewer out of Gitmo is the sanity and honesty of the president of the United States?
TURLEY: It does. And it’s a huge sea change for our democracy. [/quote]
False. It is explicity definded in the act who would fall under the Jurisdiction.
948d(a)“…when committed by an ALIEN UNLAWFUL COMBATANT…” Feel free to read the whole thing on your own.
Alien is further defined.
948a. Definitions
(3) "The term alien means a person who is not a citizen of the united states.
For further definitions of unlawful and lawful combatant go straight to the act itself. Don’t rely on pundits and their handpicked guests. It is explicit in who this act pertains to.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I’ll say this again: No American citizen can be an “alien unlawful enemy combatant.”
[/quote]
I don’t know all the details involved, so if I’m way off, please correct me; however, without access to courts how would one even prove one’s citizenship? Wouldn’t you be relying on the benevolence of those doing the arresting? As “conservatives” or classical liberals or libertarians, why trust the government in this regard when we don’t trust the government to spend our money?
Under the act, the detainess will be able to appeal to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Then they will be able to petition the Supreme Court. Folks, read the act itself.