|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
The Military Commissions Act of 2006
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| The Military Commissions Act of 2006
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| Stickman |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milita...ons_Act_of_2006
This one kind of flew under the radar, but Congress passed and Bush signed into law this act.
Those who support the act say that it gives the president a tool to fight terrorism.
Those who criticize it say that suspending habeas corpus is a dangerous precedent, and the language is vague enough that even US citizens can have their habeas rights suspended, a la Jose Padilla.
I'm no constitutional lawyer, but I find this fascinating. As a US citizen, who has studied the founding fathers and the constitution, I also find it sickening and a major blow to whatever shred of democracy we have left in this country. |
|
|
| kevin49er |
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milita...ons_Act_of_2006
This one kind of flew under the radar, but Congress passed and Bush signed into law this act.
Those who support the act say that it gives the president a tool to fight terrorism.
Those who criticize it say that suspending habeas corpus is a dangerous precedent, and the language is vague enough that even US citizens can have their habeas rights suspended, a la Jose Padilla.
I'm no constitutional lawyer, but I find this fascinating. As a US citizen, who has studied the founding fathers and the constitution, I also find it sickening and a major blow to whatever shred of democracy we have left in this country. |
Welcome to last week!!!!
Keep up... FW posted this over a week ago... and also posted about the controversy over the 10-day rule.
But thanks for the reminder...
And how do you figure it "flew in under the radar"??? It was only discussed on EVERY political themed talkshow in AMERICA!!!! |
|
|
| Stickman |
I did the search for military commissions act, nothing came up
now chill the fuck out
I read three newspapers a day, and check a lot of news websites and didn't see a whole lot about it. Did you hear about it when it was being debated in Congress, I didn't. |
|
|
| kevin49er |
Ummm... Yes...
Fates told us about it on a daily basis...
Kieth Olbermann did a bit on the BoR being reduced to 1, from 10... |
|
|
| kevin49er |
And while I'm at it...
What gives you the right to act like a complete asshole to people???
And I'm not talking about just this thread...
You and FW have the whole... "If they disagree with me, they are idiots!" thing going on... |
|
|
| Stickman |
Quote: Originally posted by kevin49er
And while I'm at it...
What gives you the right to act like a complete asshole to people???
And I'm not talking about just this thread...
You and FW have the whole... "If they disagree with me, they are idiots!" thing going on... |
quote me saying that.
Do I bust balls, you betcha. This is SFN, busting balls is a survival skill. Now go fuck yourself. |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
| You bust balls? Thats rich! |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Stickman,
There were hearings in Congress over this. Right after the Hamdan decision.
I disagree with your take on habeas rights for unlawful enemy combatants or POW's. It is unheard of in this nations entire history.
As far as an American citizen being held, thank the Supreme Court for that. They did not go with Scalia on that decision, instead they allowed American's to be held as enemy combatants. O'Connor wrote the majority opinion in Hamdi. They can be held but must have a hearing in front of a neutral decisionmaker. Thomas, Scalia, and Stevens dissented. Much like the Hamdan decision it was a plurality. |
|
|
| Stickman |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Stickman,
There were hearings in Congress over this. Right after the Hamdan decision.
I disagree with your take on habeas rights for unlawful enemy combatants or POW's. It is unheard of in this nations entire history.
As far as an American citizen being held, thank the Supreme Court for that. They did not go with Scalia on that decision, instead they allowed American's to be held as enemy combatants. O'Connor wrote the majority opinion in Hamdi. They can be held but must have a hearing in front of a neutral decisionmaker. Thomas, Scalia, and Stevens dissented. Much like the Hamdan decision it was a plurality. |
That's helpful, seriously. I really haven't researched the case that much. I still think the US is once again losing credibility in the world by holding people without charge, whether it's here or in Guantanamo.
Why are people so against charging these guys? How do we know we don't have a bunch of goatherders in Gitmo? I should just believe Cheney when he says they went through a review process? |
|
|
| Stickman |
Quote: Originally posted by Billyfromsphily
You bust balls? Thats rich! |
No, not yours, that was a beat down. There is a difference. |
|
|
| salafibrigades |
| Supreme Leader Bush must have the power to imprison and torture whomever he wishes. This power will thwart future terror operations. I just hope the massive FEMA camps are ready for us to inhabit. |
|
|
| FatesWebb |
I find it funny, how kevin seems to think that stickman bringing up week old news is bad, when you consider that habaes corpus predates "the 4th of july"
so we can only talk about the big X on the magna carta one time, one week, then it must be dropped.
You know kevin, only responds to things that he thinks he can attack, and ignores the facts. like a horse with blinders on.
THIS POST CONTAINS GRAPHIC LANGUAGE!
THE FOLLING LINKS SHOW THAT THE TERM ENEMY, AND LAWS GOVERNING IT ARE INDEED FOR AMERICANS. NOT JUST ILLEGALS, OR ALIENS...... OR TERRORISTS FOR THAT MATTER...
http://www.gregpalast.com/palast-ch...he-first-degree
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/s.../110410819.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story...1236288,00.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/artic...30/ai_n14800117
http://www.infowars.com/print/misc/blackbox.htm
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/cha...&contentid=1436
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...meland_security
http://grep.law.harvard.edu/article...247&mode=thread
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...1259EDT0480.DTL
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5090900772.html
http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-21-03.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...inion-rightrail
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/09/...d-rumsfeld.html
What it all boils down to is this, the evidence shows that they DO, and intend on CONTINUING TO use these acts against the us citizens. When they use it against you, and they claim that your not a US Citizen, and they lock you up without a lawyer. When they dont allow you any rights, to even see thier evidence, or defend yourself. When will you be allowed to say "Hey this is some sort of mix-up"? When they are waterboarding you?
I mean really the majority that they have held for the last 5 years, something like 70 were released or tried, almost all were let go innocent, only about 13 yere even tried, of those only 3 were islamic.
Some of us on SFN are from Canada, thorald for instance, imagine if they picked up a canadian, or picked you up, and said you were canadian. UH OH!!!! you dont get a lawyer, which means you cannot even prove your american.... uh oh they can hold you for secret evidence, and not even let you defend yourself... UH OH, they can torture you OR EVE SODOMIZE YOUR CHILD IN FRONT OF YOU. UH OH even though your innocent, you just admitted to bombing the statue of liberty, even though nobody has ever even bombed that....
do you see my point?
now let me ask you one thing, THAT NOBODY SEEMS TO BE ASKING!!!
why would they need this? if they truly have evidence wouldnt they use the evidence to prove the people were guilty without the suspension of habaes corpus, or the torture?
fact is its all fake, imagine this, what if they told you, either go cut off this guys head, on video, or we will again sodomize your child in front of you, and torture you even more.... what if you didnt even like the guy whos head they asked you to cut off? would you kill him, or watch them fuck your child again?????? |
|
|
| Stickman |
Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
do you see my point?
now let me ask you one thing, THAT NOBODY SEEMS TO BE ASKING!!!
why would they need this? if they truly have evidence wouldnt they use the evidence to prove the people were guilty without the suspension of habaes corpus, or the torture?
|
Your point is as clear as day for me. Like I said, I haven't had a lot of time to research this one. Thanks for those links and a great post. I'm very curious about this Act.
What is all the reference to the child sodomy? Is that a documented form of torture? Not that I put anything past any of these people. They're not kidding when they call it torture, I'm just asking if that's in one of the links. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
That's helpful, seriously. I really haven't researched the case that much. I still think the US is once again losing credibility in the world by holding people without charge, whether it's here or in Guantanamo.
Why are people so against charging these guys? How do we know we don't have a bunch of goatherders in Gitmo? I should just believe Cheney when he says they went through a review process? |
There is no reason to charge every enemy combatant that is caught. We have done that in no war this country has ever fought. I don't see a loss of credibility. There is a lot of misunderstanding about how wars are fought and all that goes along with it. The U.S. held over a million POW's during WWII and no one thought that habeas corpus should be an option for any of them.
As far as "goatherders" go I would imagine that all of these detainees could claim some occupation besides military. We would have to be pretty stupid I would think to release people based on information they told us about any job they might hold. However, the military does review yearly and people have been released based on whatever. Some have returned to fighting.
I don't know why people would not want to try these people. I'm not sure who or what people you are talking about. Hamdan was charged and was going through a process when he appealed. Having won that appeal now the response by Congress is the very act we are discussing. Perhaps now things will be on track. When a trial is complete it will be appealed to the D.C. Circuit and then the U.S. Supreme Court. |
|
|
| FatesWebb |
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
Your point is as clear as day for me. Like I said, I haven't had a lot of time to research this one. Thanks for those links and a great post. I'm very curious about this Act.
What is all the reference to the child sodomy? Is that a documented form of torture? Not that I put anything past any of these people. They're not kidding when they call it torture, I'm just asking if that's in one of the links. |
Child sodomy was one of the torture tecniques that was approved by donald rumsfeld, BUT WHATS WORSE, it was also one of the torture tecniques THAT "WE" DID AT ABU GHRAIB! Where "we" videotaped it. Abu Ghraib prison guards, who according to Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba's official US Army report [1] and subsequent videos seen by reporter Seymour Hersh, [2] raped children in front of their mothers. But all you will hear about is waterboarding. I think waterboarding is a diversion to the more sadistic acts like CHILD RAPE, and MURDER.
[1] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4894001/
[2] http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/14/193750/666 |
|
|
| FatesWebb |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
There is no reason to charge every enemy combatant that is caught. We have done that in no war this country has ever fought. I don't see a loss of credibility. There is a lot of misunderstanding about how wars are fought and all that goes along with it. The U.S. held over a million POW's during WWII and no one thought that habeas corpus should be an option for any of them.
As far as "goatherders" go I would imagine that all of these detainees could claim some occupation besides military. We would have to be pretty stupid I would think to release people based on information they told us about any job they might hold. However, the military does review yearly and people have been released based on whatever. Some have returned to fighting.
I don't know why people would not want to try these people. I'm not sure who or what people you are talking about. Hamdan was charged and was going through a process when he appealed. Having won that appeal now the response by Congress is the very act we are discussing. Perhaps now things will be on track. When a trial is complete it will be appealed to the D.C. Circuit and then the U.S. Supreme Court. |
HEY!!! if what you say is true then WHY HAVE 90+ PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE DETAINED BEEN LET GO AS INNOCENT!!!!
CLEARLY THEY DO DESERVE A TRIAL IF THEY ARE INNOCENT! |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
HEY!!! if what you say is true then WHY HAVE 90+ PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE DETAINED BEEN LET GO AS INNOCENT!!!!
CLEARLY THEY DO DESERVE A TRIAL IF THEY ARE INNOCENT! |
I'm not sure the reasons for letting them go. There were some Chinese Muslims who were innocent it seems but no country would have them and I'm not sure if they are still there or not. When let go they are returned to their home countries.
During war an enemy combatant is normally "innocent". Fighting in a war is not illegal per say. Detaining POW's is not punishment but a normal thing during war to deprive the enemy of fighters. Instead of killing them you detain them till the end of the conflict or for medical reasons or for whatever. The only ones normally tried are those who engaged in war crimes. Spies, unlawful enemy combatants. Like the 9/11 hijackers. Now, I know you believe they did nothing, but just for arguments sake lets say they did. Had another group of hijackers after Sept. 11th been caught in the U.S. then they could have been tried, convicted, and hung or shot, all by Military Tribunal/Commission. Spies and unlawful enemy combatants are the stuff of executions during war. In past wars, tried one day and shot the next. It is people like that that caused 'laws of war' to be thought of. |
|
|
|
|
|
