[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Much ado about nothing.
Hilarious that Habeas=nothing to you.
Disgraceful and unamerican and you’re proud of it. F–king gross.
[/quote]
Your putting the Democratic party ahead of all else is what is gross.
So, let me see if I have this right. Enemy combatants shouldn’t be tried by the military, as they have since George Washington? The should be tried using the same courts and judicial system we do?
Also, do you support releasing enemy combatants while a war is still going? After all, we are still fighting Al Qaeda and it’s associated groups.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Sure. Timothy McVeigh.
Fred Hampton also comes to mind…but perhaps you weren’t referring to extrajudicial or summary executions of suspected terrorists, which the CIA has been doing for decades.
Sorry, I meant “extrajudicially” and since the 60’s. More specifically, anyone to which these laws have been applied?
BTW- Good examples of why the passing of this law doesn’t scare me. If ANY gov’t wants you dead or disappeared, It won’t pass a law.
[/quote]
Exactly. This is just trying to find a legal method of keeping our enemies from lawyering up like OJ.
It amazes me that so many are willing to put politics above reason.
[quote]100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
I’ll say this again: No American citizen can be an “alien unlawful enemy combatant.”
But obviously can be a “unlawful enemy combatant”.
[/quote]
The military commissions act doesn’t have Jurisdiction over unlawful enemy combatants. It has jurisdiction over alien unlawful combatant. Under the Jurisdiction heading in the act (read the act directly), that designation is the only one falling under it.
Our soldier should have to preemptively obtain search warrants, death warrants, and arrest warrants, each specific to a single enemy fighter. Otherwise kicking down doors, searching, and engaging the enemy without a judicial oversight is a violation of rights!
Oh wait, we’re not talking about criminals covered by the constitution. We’re talking about enemy combatants during a time of war. Anyone find an alien enemy combatant, anytime in our history, that was given access to our courts and habeas corpus?
Or, have we always held enemy combatants, at the military’s discretion, till the end of the war? And when we we’ve tried them, has it not always been under a military tribunal? Anyone? Anyone? George Washington? Lincoln? Roosevelt? Nuremberg? Military tribunals?
[quote]lucasa wrote:
100meters wrote:
The spineless un-americans who DID vote for it:
Tom Carper, Tim Johnson, Mary Landrieu, Frank Lautenberg, Joe Lieberman, Robert Menendez, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Mark Pryor, Jay Rockefeller, Ken Salazar and Debbie Stabenow.
All now disgraces.
You forgot the spineless un-american Sen. John McCain.[/quote]
Yes definitely him too. But I was referring to the democratic side.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, let me see if I have this right. Enemy combatants shouldn’t be tried by the military, as they have since George Washington? The should be tried using the same courts and judicial system we do?
Also, do you support releasing enemy combatants while a war is still going? After all, we are still fighting Al Qaeda and it’s associated groups. [/quote]
100 meters and some of these other libs want to serve them tea and cookies on the veranda. Maybe have conjugal visits…
I’m amazed that a law designed to clearly designate the steps to be taken against ALIEN enemy combatants is getting so much heat! If they’re armed and on the battlefield and they’re not in our country’s uniform, fucking cap 'em.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I’ll say this again: No American citizen can be an “alien unlawful enemy combatant.”
[/quote]
Where is this written? And can the president or a military tribunal decide otherwise?
This is how Roosevelt handled non-uniformed combatants.
"The eight were tried before a Military Commission, comprised of seven U.S. Army officers appointed by President Roosevelt, from July 8, to August 4, 1942. The trial was held in the Department of Justice Building, Washington, D.C. The prosecution was headed by Attorney General Frances Biddle and the Army Judge Advocate General, Major General Myron C. Cramer. Defense counsel included Colonel Kenneth C. Royall (later Secretary of War under President Truman) and Major Lausen H. Stone (son of Harlan Fiske Stone, the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court).
All eight were found guilty and sentenced to death. Attorney General Biddle and J. Edgar Hoover appealed to President Roosevelt to commute the sentences of Dasch and Burger. Dasch then received a 30-year sentence, and Burger received a life sentence, both to be served in a federal penitentiary. The remaining six were executed at the District of Columbia Jail on August 8, 1942."
[quote]Sloth wrote:
100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
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?
Again, if the president chooses to prosecute them. Otherwise they can be held forever…see that’s bad 
Only an ALIEN unlawful combatant can be held. And now, under the act, he must be charged by a Combatant Status Review. If the Combatant Status review finds him to be an “Alien unlawful combatant” then the detainee may appeal that to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. So no, the act is actually attempting to prevent what you’re claiming.
[/quote]
The act gives the president the power to hold any detainee indefinitely without the right to see a tribunal, commission, or court.
“determination of unlawful enemy combatant status…is dispositive for jurisdiction for trial by military commission…”
If the president doesn’t want to charge anyone, they can be detained.
That’s why it is so alarming!
(By the way, the opposite of what you said)
[quote]100meters wrote:
You forgot the spineless un-american Sen. John McCain.
Yes definitely him too. But I was referring to the democratic side.[/quote]
I was being sarcastic (sorry I forgot the bracketed modifiers). But if you’re serious, IMO, you just relegated yourself to moonbat status.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So, let me see if I have this right. Enemy combatants shouldn’t be tried by the military, as they have since George Washington? The should be tried using the same courts and judicial system we do?
Also, do you support releasing enemy combatants while a war is still going? After all, we are still fighting Al Qaeda and it’s associated groups.
100 meters and some of these other libs want to serve them tea and cookies on the veranda. Maybe have conjugal visits…
I’m amazed that a law designed to clearly designate the steps to be taken against ALIEN enemy combatants is getting so much heat! If they’re armed and on the battlefield and they’re not in our country’s uniform, fucking cap 'em.
[/quote]
Uhmm again the issue is person X guilty?
It’s awfully hard to determine that when you can be detained indefinitely.
So a more accurate statement would be:
100meters wants terrorists killed if found guilty, those helping terrorists jailed/or killed, and those wrongly imprisoned quickly released.
You and you’re ilk are in favor of indefinite detainment (milk and cookies).
And obviously Bush isn’t capping anybody (another outrage)
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
I’ll say this again: No American citizen can be an “alien unlawful enemy combatant.”
Where is this written? And can the president or a military tribunal decide otherwise?[/quote]
948a section 3.
“the term alien means a person who is not a citizen of the united states.”
and…
no.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Much ado about nothing.
Hilarious that Habeas=nothing to you.
Disgraceful and unamerican and you’re proud of it. F–king gross.
Your putting the Democratic party ahead of all else is what is gross.[/quote]
Related how?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, let me see if I have this right. Enemy combatants shouldn’t be tried by the military, as they have since George Washington? The should be tried using the same courts and judicial system we do?
Also, do you support releasing enemy combatants while a war is still going? After all, we are still fighting Al Qaeda and it’s associated groups. [/quote]
They should have the right to not be detained indefinitely…Jail them, Execute them, or release them. Your problem with this is?
and those innocent should obviously be released (lots of them apparently)
[quote]lucasa wrote:
100meters wrote:
You forgot the spineless un-american Sen. John McCain.
Yes definitely him too. But I was referring to the democratic side.
I was being sarcastic (sorry I forgot the bracketed modifiers). But if you’re serious, IMO, you just relegated yourself to moonbat status.[/quote]
I wasn’t being sarcastic—he is by definition spineless.
Would you let someone degrade yourself, your wife, and your children?
McCain did in 2000 when Bush smeared him.
Did he protest the presidents signing statement on his torture bill?
Did he back down on this disgraceful bill?
Like I said spineless.
Obviously nothing “moonbat” about it.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The military commissions act doesn’t have Jurisdiction over unlawful enemy combatants. It has jurisdiction over alien unlawful combatant. Under the Jurisdiction heading in the act (read the act directly), that designation is the only one falling under it.
[/quote]
Obviously you missed my earlier reply that Bush is the undisputed KING of signing statements – as if we can all breath a sigh of relief that the word “alien” is protecting you from being labeled an “enemy combatant” anytime in the future.
How to Make a Power Grab ‘Mundane’
James Bovard
The Post neglects to mention that the bill codifies the president’s power to label anyone on Earth an “enemy combatant” – based on secret evidence which the government need not disclose…
Bush has added more than 800 “signing statements” to new laws since he took office. He is the first to use signing statements routinely to nullify key provisions of new laws. The American Bar Association recently declared that Bush’s signing statements are “contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers.” But the Washington Post portrays the signing statements as simply a gentlemanly difference of opinion between the president and congressmen. It neglects to mention that the president now claims boundless prerogative to what is the law…
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/shoptalk_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003284714
The Problem with Presidential Signing Statements: Their Use and Misuse by the Bush Administration
Bush challenges hundreds of laws
Boston Globe
April 30, 2006
Bruce Fein, a deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration, said the American system of government relies upon the leaders of each branch “to exercise some self-restraint.” But Bush has declared himself the sole judge of his own powers, he said, and then ruled for himself every time.
“This is an attempt by the president to have the final word on his own constitutional powers, which eliminates the checks and balances that keep the country a democracy,” Fein said. “There is no way for an independent judiciary to check his assertions of power, and Congress isn’t doing it, either. So this is moving us toward an unlimited executive power.”
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws?mode=PF
And this just in…
Court Told It Lacks Power in Detainee Cases
Washington Post
October 20, 2006
Moving quickly to implement the bill signed by President Bush this week that authorizes military trials of enemy combatants, the administration has formally notified the U.S. District Court here that it no longer has jurisdiction to consider hundreds of habeas corpus petitions filed by inmates at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.
In a notice dated Wednesday, the Justice Department listed 196 pending habeas cases, some of which cover groups of detainees. The new Military Commissions Act (MCA), it said, provides that “no court, justice, or judge” can consider those petitions or other actions related to treatment or imprisonment filed by anyone designated as an enemy combatant, now or in the future…
Oh, cry me a fucking river, liberals. This kind of thing has been around forever:
Gen. George Washington tried Major John Andre, Benedict Arnold’s British co-conspirator, by military tribunal and ordered Andre hanged within 10 days of his capture. Nazi saboteurs, including an American citizen, captured on U.S. soil during World War II were tried in secret by military commission and promptly executed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Did this touch off a wave of arrest and persecution of Americans who were NOT engaged in war against…uh…AMERICA? Don’t tell me. It did but the Illuminati had it erased from the history books.
Fucking crackpots.
What do we have to do? Let all of our enemies kill us at will in order to FULLY protect your rights? Fucking wise up, dipshits.
What exactly are all you fuckhead liberals up to that you are so concerned that one of your conversations might be overheard or someone might look in your carry-on bag?
Why don’t you assholes tell us what we SHOULD do instead of just crying about everything that we DO? It’s very Clinonesque, you know. Bitch and talk about what NOT to do, while you do nothing yourself. Nothing aside from wagging a finger whenever the shit hits the fan.
does nobody read what 100meters is saying?
Try the bastards then put a bullet in their head if they are guilty. Just don’t dump them in a cell for 5 years and release them after that cos it turns out they were innocent
[quote]Sloth wrote:
100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
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?
Again, if the president chooses to prosecute them. Otherwise they can be held forever…see that’s bad
Only an ALIEN unlawful combatant can be held. And now, under the act, he must be charged by a Combatant Status Review. If the Combatant Status review finds him to be an “Alien unlawful combatant” then the detainee may appeal that to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. So no, the act is actually attempting to prevent what you’re claiming.
[/quote]
I’m not a legal expert, I’ve read the act and I think I understand it, but who knows…I could be totally off. However, I keep reading things that seem to contradict your position.
According to Briefing Room | The White House,
“convicted detainees would also be entitled to an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, regardless of the length of their sentence. The Supreme Court could review decisions of the D.C. Circuit.”
Convicted detainees. I want to know what recourse detainees have prior to being charged. Because according to everything I’ve read on the subject, those arrested as alien unlawful combatants (the administration being the sole arbiters of who is and isn’t an unlawful combatant), cannot, because of this act, file a writ of habeas corpus.
And then, on the same site, I read this,
“The Bill Addresses Hamdan’s Holding That The DTA’s Judicial Review Provisions Do Not Apply To The Hundreds Of Habeas Petitions Now Pending In Federal Courts. The Bill makes clear that the DTA does govern all challenges by detainees to their detention or trial before a military commission, allowing review only of final Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) determinations and military commission judgments. The Administration believes this was Congress’s intent under the DTA, that it makes sense to restrict the accused’s ability to pursue appellate remedies until after the CSRT or military commission trial has been completed, and that our courts should not be misused to hear all manner of other challenges by terrorists lawfully held as enemy combatants in wartime.”
Furthermore, “The accused has a right to know the charges against him as soon as practicable.”
Convenient. The admin. gets to arrest someone, charge them when they find it “practicable,” all the while the prisoner gets to sit there and rot, with no ability to file a writ of habeas corpus. The detainee is presumed innocent until proven guilty (according to the Whitehouse); however, the “courts should not be misused to hear all manner of other challenges by terrorists lawfully held as enemy combatants in wartime.” Considering this entire paragraph outlines the act’s provions with regards to appeals made prior to trial, who decided he/she is a terrorist? Who decided he/she is being lawfully held? The administration?
I couldn’t care less if this applies only to noncitizens; habeas corpus is, as far as I am concerned, a basic human right, and I don’t want my government, supposedly founded on liberal principles, taking that right away from anyone–regardless of citizenship.