T Nation

This Can't Be a Good Thing.

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
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

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]

I don’t know if it will ever be used in a bad way, but I am not for the President (any President, not just dumbfuck in there now) having any more power than they already do.

The same as always, I ask, who gets to define these terms? What happens if they suspect I am a traitor, and so strip me of citizenship and don’t allow me habeas corpus?

What is to stop that? Citizenship can be revoked.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
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

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.

I don’t know if it will ever be used in a bad way, but I am not for the President (any President, not just dumbfuck in there now) having any more power than they already do.[/quote]

I couldn’t agree more.

[quote]
The same as always, I ask, who gets to define these terms? What happens if they suspect I am a traitor, and so strip me of citizenship and don’t allow me habeas corpus?

What is to stop that? Citizenship can be revoked. [/quote]

Good quetion…

[quote]SEC. 7. HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS.

`(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.[/quote]

How can anyone not find the above at least slightly disturbing?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
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. [/quote]

After the trial, correct? How long can the government hold an individual uncharged?

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
Sloth wrote:
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.

After the trial, correct? How long can the government hold an individual uncharged?

[/quote]

Nope, detainees can now appeal their status (pre-trial) through the DC Circuit Court of appeals. If not overturned, they can then petition the Supreme court.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I’ll say this again: No American citizen can be an “alien unlawful enemy combatant.”
[/quote]

Surely you jest – we’re not talking about the Mayor of Candyland here…

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
By JOHN W. DEAN
In this column, I’ll take a close look at President Bush’s use of signing statements. I find these signing statements are to Bush and Cheney’s presidency what steroids were to Arnold Schwarzenegger’s body building…

Suppose a new law requires the President to act in a certain manner - for instance, to report to Congress on how he is dealing with terrorism. Bush’s signing statement will flat out reject the law, and state that he will construe the law “in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional authority to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, the national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive’s constitutional duties.”

The upshot? It is as if no law had been passed on the matter at all.

Or suppose a new law suggests even the slightest intrusion into the President’s undefined “prerogative powers” under Article II of the Constitution, relating to national security, intelligence gathering, or law enforcement. Bush’s signing statement will claim that notwithstanding the clear intent of Congress, which has used mandatory language, the provision will be considered as “advisory.”

The upshot? It is as if Congress had acted as a mere advisor, with no more formal power than, say, Karl Rove - not as a coordinate and coequal branch of government, which in fact it is.

As Phillip Cooper observes, the President’s signing statements are, in some instances, effectively rewriting the laws by reinterpreting how the law will be implemented. Notably, Cooper finds some of Bush’s signing statements - and he has the benefit of judging them against his extensive knowledge of other President’s signing statements – “excessive, unhelpful, and needlessly confrontational.”…

It is remarkable that Bush believes he can ignore a law, and protect himself, through a signing statement. Despite the McCain Amendment’s clear anti-torture stance, the military may feel free to use torture anyway, based on the President’s attempt to use a signing statement to wholly undercut the bill…

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 if your lucky your wife, daughter, sister, niece, ect never becomes an “enemy combatant”…

Pentagon Monitoring Peace Activists’ E-Mails
October 19, 2006
Homeland Security is monitoring peace groups and even peering at their e-mails. “This information is being provided only to alert commanders and staff to potential terrorist activity or apprise them of other force protection issues.”

It then shares that information with Joint Terrorism Task Forces, which include the FBI and state and local law enforcement, as well as with the Pentagon’s notorious Talon (Threat and Local Observation Notice) program.
http://www.alternet.org/rights/43085/

Academia Signs Up to Track Down Dissent
October 2006
Why is the United States government spending millions of dollars to track down critics of George W. Bush in the press? And why have major American universities agreed to put this technology of tyranny into the state’s hands?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/101706A.shtml

Charles Schumer, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Teddy Kennedy and Hillary Clinton all voted for this Act, which I think is potentially more damaging to American Liberty than the Patriot Act, so the ultra-liberals will have nobody to blame but themselves if (when?) something goes horribly wrong.

I mean, in the depths of my heart I’d kind of like to see all five of these Honorable Senators declared “illegal combatants”, shipped off to Guantanamo and waterboarded every once in a while, but that is beside the point.

Interesting to speculate what would happen to Jesus in the 21st Century United States, if the same baseless accusations of plotting against the Empire were brought against him by his political enemies. Would he fare better under the Military Commissions Act than he did under Roman law? Or would we torture and execute him too?

[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]

So stupid it’s hard to comprehend…
It would take a trial to determine if someone was a scumbag or not…

[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]
Uh, the right to said trial. If the president doesn’t want to prosecute you…you don’t get a trial.(That’s really bad, see?)

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Much ado about nothing.[/quote]
Hilarious that Habeas=nothing to you.
Disgraceful and unamerican and you’re proud of it. F–king gross.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I’ll say this again: No American citizen can be an “alien unlawful enemy combatant.”

[/quote]
But obviously can be a “unlawful enemy combatant”.

[quote]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?[/quote]

Again, if the president chooses to prosecute them. Otherwise they can be held forever…see that’s bad :frowning:

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
Sloth wrote:
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.

After the trial, correct? How long can the government hold an individual uncharged?

[/quote]
approximately forever.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Charles Schumer, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Teddy Kennedy and Hillary Clinton all voted for this Act, which I think is potentially more damaging to American Liberty than the Patriot Act, so the ultra-liberals will have nobody to blame but themselves if (when?) something goes horribly wrong.

I mean, in the depths of my heart I’d kind of like to see all five of these Honorable Senators declared “illegal combatants”, shipped off to Guantanamo and waterboarded every once in a while, but that is beside the point.

Interesting to speculate what would happen to Jesus in the 21st Century United States, if the same baseless accusations of plotting against the Empire were brought against him by his political enemies. Would he fare better under the Military Commissions Act than he did under Roman law? Or would we torture and execute him too?[/quote]

By voted for it, you mean voted against it?

Because none of the above voted for it.
(the opposite of what you said)

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.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Interesting to speculate what would happen to Jesus in the 21st Century United States, if the same baseless accusations of plotting against the Empire were brought against him by his political enemies. Would he fare better under the Military Commissions Act than he did under Roman law? Or would we torture and execute him too?[/quote]

Maybe I’m just not very imaginative, but it’s hard to picture Jesus getting picked up off the battlefield in Iraq armed with an AK-47 or as a Latin King gang member.

Other than Juan Charles de Menesez, has anyone suspected of terrorism in the Western World been executed?

EDIT: My mistake, Lindh and Co. were picked up in Afghanistan. I think it would be more correct to assume the Lord and Savior would be fighting with the Taliban there than the insurgents in Iraq.

[quote]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.[/quote]

You forgot the spineless un-american Sen. John McCain.

[quote]100meters wrote:

It would take a trial to determine if someone was a scumbag or not…[/quote]

Is it okay if it’s really quick? Al Zarqawi’s “trial” was anywhere from 2 to 5 min.

[quote]100meters wrote:

By voted for it, you mean voted against it?

Because none of the above voted for it.
(the opposite of what you said)[/quote]

Oh, shit, you’re right! I totally missed the second column header, “Voted Against”. How careless of me.

Fine, disregard my first paragraph.

It doesn’t change my opinion of those five Senators, though. :stuck_out_tongue:

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Varqanir wrote:

Maybe I’m just not very imaginative, but it’s hard to picture Jesus getting picked up off the battlefield in Iraq armed with an AK-47 or as a Latin King gang member.[/quote]

My point was that he wouldn’t have to be.

Based on his findings, the judge may introduce hearsay evidence [10 U.S.C. sec. 949a(b)(2)(E)(i)], evidence obtained without a search warrant [10 U.S.C. sec. 949a(b)(2)(B)], evidence obtained when the degree of coercion is disputed [10 U.S.C. sec. 948r(d)], or classified evidence not made available to the defense [10 U.S.C. sec. 949d(f)(2)(B)].

In other words, an anonymous tip from the Pharisees is all that would be needed to start the ball rolling.

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.

[quote]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.
[/quote]

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]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 :frowning: [/quote]

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.