Real Name: Tom Webster Gender: male Member Since: August 14, 2006 Last Signed In: July 04, 2008 Profile Views: 10969 Blog Views: 12165 Not Yet Drinking Liberally Drinking Liberally? Bush Announces The End of the Surge McCain Breaks His Own Laws McCain's Idea of Love Unofficial "Bloggers' Brunch" at Dagny's Saturday Republican State Parties in Disarray Publican's Political Genius I did not have sexual relations with that woman! Amazing Obama Video August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 
RSS 2.0    |
|
|
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 Part II
I've gone on about this piece of legislation before. Last night, Keith Olbermann did another comment on it that you can watch here. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id...
I stayed up pretty late, going over the details with people and it seems we are walking very close to the edge of the abyss. The Military Commissions Act of 2006, besides making legal our reinterpretation of the Geneva Conventions, also creates a new class of criminals: unlawful enemy combatants. Anyone, including US citizens, may be declared unlawful enemy combatants under this law. The remainder of the law only deals with alien enemy combatants (AECs) or non-citizens. There is no procedure that details the process for a citizen that has been detained as a non-alien enemy combatant. Among the procedures for dealing with AECs is the suspension of Habeas Corpus, the law that requires that evidence used against you is presented. This, like the wiretapping bill, is going to be argued for using the premise that anyone who is detained will have actually broken the law and they will be presumed to be terrorists, despite the fact that hundreds of people who have been detained already have been released because no link to terrorism could be found. We cannot allow ourselves to believe that there is no reason for a trial of any person, no matter how vile that person may be. Last, here is the crux of the debate: How secure is your citizenship? If your citizenship is the only thing standing between yourself and the loss of all of your rights, how solid is that foundation? In World War II, the Japanese were forced to renounce their US citizenship (which can be done on US soil only during time of war) so that they could legally be interned. The Patriot Act II, which has not passed, strips citizenship from anyone who is involved with terrorist activities. It does not make clear how that determination is made. We stand now, one pen stroke away from ending the great experiment that is America. And I can think of no way to do a damn thing about it. 77 comments from 10 users
posted by
TomW
on Oct 19, 2006 at 09:30 AM
If someone has any idea of what to do, please let me know. If anyone believes I am wrong, please prove it. I would like nothing more than to be incorrect.
posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 19, 2006 at 09:38 AM
I also heard Jonathan Turley speak about it, he is a Constitutional Law Professor, at GWU I think. KO interviewed him a couple of nights ago on this. I can look for the link to the interview if you would like Tom. Good writeup, glad you posted on it :)
posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 19, 2006 at 09:51 AM
Here is part of the transcript from the Turley interview the other night. You can read the entire interview here.OLBERMANN: Does that not basically mean that if Mr. Bush or Mr. Rumsfeld say so, anybody in this country, citizen or not, innocent or not, can end up being an unlawful enemy combatant? TURLEY: It certainly does. In fact, later on, it says that if you even give material support to an organization that the president deems connected to one of these groups, you too can be an enemy combatant. And the fact that he appoints this tribunal is meaningless. You know, standing behind him at the signing ceremony was his attorney general, who signed a memo that said that you could torture people, that you could do harm to them to the point of organ failure or death. So if he appoints someone like that to be attorney general, you can imagine who he‘s going be putting on this board. 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. posted by
TomW
on Oct 19, 2006 at 09:54 AM
Thanks, Dusty. The link to the Turley video can be found at the page I posted as well. Here's a temporary link to it on the msnbc website. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/153...
posted by
anonymous
on Oct 19, 2006 at 09:54 AM
I recall writing letters to the editor in 2002 warning of the intention of the Bush /Cheny Administration, the Californian never printed them but the LA times did print two.
It was obvious even back in 2002 that eventually this governemtn was set on a course to curtain basic right for Americans and would use fear as the basis for these changes.Today the country is ruled by the use of fear and paraoia that everyone is trying to "get" us, the North Koreans, the Iranians, the Syrians, the Taliban remnants, Al Quaeda, Al Sharpton, Al Pacino, and Al Gore, they are all part of the axis of evil. Habeas Corpus, who needs Habeas Corpus, when we have a decider and will have many more in the future. Those who support the President on these draconian changes assume that we will never have another President as honest as Nixon , as caring as Hoover and as agressive as King George, but fear does many things including making fools of many well intentioned people. To give up our rights for a single moment in time is not only foolish but dangerous, but unfortunately that is what we have become a foolish and dangerous people! posted by
mattloch
on Oct 19, 2006 at 09:55 AM
I have a blog that I'm finishing up on this right now, and I should be posting tonight. I hope people take it personally. The last time I was accused to making things "personal", I asked someone to describe what "acceptable interrogation techniques" were, so that I could use them on the blogger. And then on the blogger's wife. And then on the blogger's children. I hope that the piece I'll be posting tonight will receive the same response. I think people's apathy is because they don't think it affect's them. And they're wrong. People like Anglo keep saying "show me, show me"; unfortunately for us, you can't prove a negative. And that's what this bill is- there is nothing in it to protect us. My only hope is that the next president that is elected gets rid of it as quickly as possible. After, perhaps, he uses it to imprison every last member of Congress that voted for it, and the Attorney General, and the President. Wouldn't that be the ultimate irony- to have the President locked up under his own law?
posted by
mattloch
on Oct 19, 2006 at 09:59 AM
BTW: does anybody know where I can find a "final" version of this bill, including "signing statements"? I'm still having difficulties locating it.....
posted by
TomW
on Oct 19, 2006 at 10:02 AM
Mattloch, this was exactly what Keith talked about. There is nothing in this law to prevent a future president from using it to detain and torture Bush.
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Oct 19, 2006 at 10:08 AM
Yes, but there's no way they could find him in his new South American compound.
posted by
TomW
on Oct 19, 2006 at 10:11 AM
I can't track it down either. When I find it, I'll post it.
posted by
TomW
on Oct 19, 2006 at 10:26 AM
It's Paraguy, Pete. How much money would it cost to send Blackwater down there? It would look like a rounding error in their billing.
posted by
anglo1
on Oct 19, 2006 at 10:36 AM
I read part of the new 2006 Act concerning habeaus corpus and it realates to "alien" enemy combatants, not law abiding US citizens. Don't you guys really think this is just more liberal media hype aimed at people that are salivating over anything they can through at Bush? I wonder if KO is one of the MSNBC getting canned.
posted by
TomW
on Oct 19, 2006 at 10:48 AM
Anglo, you're right about the part of the bill only pertaining to alien enemy combatants. I tried to make this abundantly clear in the blog above, which is why I wrote this:The Military Commissions Act of 2006, besides making legal our reinterpretation of the Geneva Conventions, also creates a new class of criminals: unlawful enemy combatants. Anyone, including US citizens, may be declared unlawful enemy combatants under this law. The remainder of the law only deals with alien enemy combatants (AECs) or non-citizens. There is no procedure that details the process for a citizen that has been detained as a non-alien enemy combatant. Among the procedures for dealing with AECs is the suspension of Habeas Corpus, the law that requires that evidence used against you is presented. While this is still horrible, the point is being made here that you can be detained and once you are detained, how are you going to prove your citizenship? What if you renounce it under torture or threat of torture? There is a precedent for this case in the guy who was in a foreign country who was put on a no fly list. It is illegal to deny a US citizen entry to the United States. But if you cannot board a plane to get here to access that right, what recourse do you have? As for KO getting canned, it's just him, Scarborough and Hardball on the network now. The purge is over. posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Oct 19, 2006 at 10:49 AM
Don't count on it anglo. His ratings are climbing, but not as fast as Bill "loofa" O'Riley's are falling. Honestly, I hope it is all just hype. To think Congress and the POTUS would actually do something so against what America is all about would truly be vile.
posted by
TomW
on Oct 19, 2006 at 10:55 AM
Anglo, here is the part of the law that details who is and how you can be designated an unlwful enemy combatant:http://frwebgate.access.gpo... (pdf) ‘‘§ 948a. Definitions ‘‘In this chapter: ‘‘(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. ‘‘(B) CO-BELLIGERENT.—In this paragraph, the term ‘cobelligerent’, with respect to the United States, means any State or armed force joining and directly engaged with the United States in hostilities or directly supporting hostilities against a common enemy. There is no reference to nationality here. posted by
TomW
on Oct 19, 2006 at 10:58 AM
Pete, this is why I am asking, begging, for someone to prove me wrong. It is about your citizenship, and if you renounce that or have it stripped, you will be subject to the tribunal law.
posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Oct 19, 2006 at 11:29 AM
"Loofa?" "Falafel?". Could someone please explain all these seemingly disjointed, meaningless, and irrelevant nicknames that get applied to O'Reilly? . I don't understand any of them. posted by
tkozy
on Oct 19, 2006 at 11:37 AM
White House Statement http://www.whitehouse.gov/n...
Report http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/M...
Summary
http://www.gop.gov/Committe...
THE ACT…
House Congressional Record
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/M...
Congressional Record - Senate
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Oct 19, 2006 at 11:48 AM
Don't you remember a while back when one of his producers accused him of sexually harassing her with nasty phonecalls and inappropriate com-ons? Read all the nasty details at the following link.PROOF from the smoking Gun I really hate to post this right before lunch. Surely it will ruin someone's appetite. posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Oct 19, 2006 at 11:54 AM
Okay, after lengthy reading, that explains "falafel"... Still way obscure.. One mysterious nickname down, one to go. posted by
ki6amd
on Oct 19, 2006 at 12:06 PM
READ THE ACTUAL BILL YOURSELF(all 95 pages) If you still think enemy combatant is just someone who opposes the war, you're WAY off. Enemy combatant is defined lossely as someone who is fighting our troops, not just protesting a war. S-3930 [PDF] "To Authorize trial by military commision for violations of the law of war and other reasons." You might find subchapter 3 interesting, as it deals with charges and specifications. Subchapter 4, Trial procedure. posted by
tkozy
on Oct 19, 2006 at 12:11 PM
There is absolutely no reason that any type of search should go without review. The submission of information pertaining to the warrant less search. MUST be required within a reasonable period. America should not be a part of the erasing of a moment in time, from history.. Are we such miserable failures that we can not clear a set of Judges for secret clearances. Are we in fear of our Judges turning treasonous? Are we expected to believe that the terrorists are idiots. And are unaware of attempts to surveil them?? Unaware of phone taps? Unaware of cell phone taps. If indeed our intelligence units believe the above boulder-dash. Then it is our intelligence units that are idiots.. America MUST NEVER put in writing ANY form of endorsement for even the slightest idea of torture.. Perhaps at the highest levels. Torture could lead to MUST HAVE information.. In such cases. Field decisions should be in the slightest whisper. Allowed.. A Presidential pardon is available in justified cases. For acts that for some reason have leaked out.. posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 19, 2006 at 12:47 PM
Excuse me, but a Professor of Constitutional law states very clearly, in my comment above that the bill is written to encompass all people on the face of the earth, including Americans..why is it so hard for individuals to understand this? Its a blank check plus it provides a retro clause so that the goverment employees who have been torturing people can't be tried for it any time down the road..by anyone. At least we won't deport anyone of them to put on trial..they have that get out of jail free card known as the Military Commissions Act.
posted by
anonymous
on Oct 19, 2006 at 12:52 PM
Hey I've got a liberal idea... let's disband our military, and surrender to the terrorists. That'll show them who's boss!
posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 19, 2006 at 12:58 PM
Anon has an idea..but its not liberal..it's incredibly stupid. Such simplistic comments to deal with an issue that has many layers..only an anonymous commenter could be so stupid. Why, its one of the Shrub's sheeple! Next we will hear..why do you hate america..go live in the Middle East.
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Oct 19, 2006 at 01:03 PM
Wow anon, You're ignorant. You must have been:1. Listening to Dick Cheney 2. Watching Fox News 3. Listening to Rush Limbaugh posted by
tkozy
on Oct 19, 2006 at 01:05 PM
Anon
What a disrespectful comment…. There are dozens of our troops that have already or are at this time facing courts martial. The commissions act does nothing to help these troopers decide on what actions are acceptable. It does nothing to protect the troops if they become captured. It does nothing but protect the Butts locked up in the pentagon and the white house.. Do you understand the desperation required to pass such a act? If I were to be provided verifiable evidence. That our troops were overwhelmed by the war experience. And that urges of revenge began to dominate their lives. I would call for the immediate return of our troops. No questions asked. No remorse….
Do you understand That in just a short time.. What were great American young men. Will be housed in the jail cell next to Saddam himself. posted by
anonymous
on Oct 19, 2006 at 01:14 PM
Saddam himself...he did many bad things, but he will be punished for only one....He will suffer the wrath of the Bush dynasty!
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Oct 19, 2006 at 01:22 PM
conveniently 2 days before the election. If this is Rove's October suprise, it's the lamest one ever.
posted by
tkozy
on Oct 19, 2006 at 01:28 PM
October surprise = Rummy’s resignation…. posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 19, 2006 at 01:35 PM
Rummy won't resign and the Shrub keeps patting him on the back publicly. The October surprise is something with Iran perhaps?Or perhaps its Nancy Pelosi in a compromising position..the surprise has to be something that will lift the wings of the Republican party to victory in November. posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Oct 19, 2006 at 01:40 PM
This is my day to sound really dumb.. What is this "october surprise" talk? I thought we already had it?? . And I, like Pete, hate the new type-in characters. Lose 'em. How can a spammer spam without registering first? If a spammer gets in , just delete the spammer's ID. posted by
tkozy
on Oct 19, 2006 at 01:46 PM
The October Surprise
|
