Lest we forget...

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Jan 7, 2004
5,849
384
48
Columbus, OH
Since Rep. Mark Foley's (R-FL) hit the media on Friday, most everything eles has disappeared from the political radar scope. And one thing should not be forgotten...the Military Commissions Bill, S3930, passed by the Senate on September 28th.

The so called "rebellion" led by Senators John McCain, John Warner, and Lindsay Graham was a sham. It was nothing more than a piece of politcal kabuki designed to give this odious piece of legislation a whiff of legitimacy.

Let's review just what this piece of legislation does..

It re-establishes President Bush's military tribunals, which were rejected by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.

It shields from prosecution those individuals who violated both US and international law throught their use of interrogation techniques held to be torture before December 30, 2005.

It prevents any person harmed by the U.S., in violation of the Geneva Conventions, from filing a claim in U.S. court.

It strips legal residents of the U.S. of their right to challenge their detention in court if they're accused of being “enemy combatants”.

It abolishes the right of Guantanamo detainees to challenge their detention, which in effect pre-judges all of them as guilty.

It approves the “CIA program” that allows waterboarding and other forms of torture.

It gives the president the power to name any individual, including citizens, as an “unlawful enemy combatant” if they provide “material support". Just what constitutes such support remains undefined.

Given the overly broad definitions of "enemy combatant" that the Administration clings to, anyone who opposes the administration could, at some point, be deemed an "enemy combatant". It must also be noted that this bill effectively undercuts the right of <i>habeas corpus</i> not only for the GITMO detainees, but also for US citizens how might be caught up in its overly broad net. More than 900 years of legal precedent thrown on the trash heap in the pursuit of power. ANd with <i>habeas corpus</i> not just suspeneded, but done away with entirely, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights aren't worth the match it would take to burn them.

Once Chimpy signs this misbegotten, un-Constitutional and un-American piece of legislation into law, and he will, the executive branch will have unprecedented powers which it may exercise with no oversight from Congress. An history has shown us, repeatedly, that once governments gain such power, they waste no time in abusing it it. Given this Administration's well documented track record of abuses of power and its utter disdain for the rule of law, it will waste no time in abusing these powers.

<blockquote>"I would rather be exposed to the inconvenience attending too much Liberty than those attending too small degree of it." -Thomas Jefferson

"The Habeas Corpus secures every man here, alien or citizen, against everything which is not law, whatever shape it may assume." –Thomas Jefferson to A. H. Rowan, 1798. ME 10:61

“Of one thing we may be sure. The future will never have to ask, with misgiving, what could the Nazis have said in their favor. History will know that whatever could be said, they were allowed to say. They have been given the kind of a trial, which they, in the days of their pomp and power, never gave to any man.

But fairness is not weakness. The extraordinary fairness of these hearings is an attribute of our strength.” -Nuremburg lawyer Robert Jackson </blockquote>
 
What? No comment? Getting tired of defending the indefensible? That's understandable. Chimpy and Co have pretty much gone beyond the pale here.
 
What? No comment? Getting tired of defending the indefensible? That's understandable. Chimpy and Co have pretty much gone beyond the pale here.

Not tired of defending anything...just tired of listening to the same old rhetoric, vitrol and Bush bashing...in other words, we are all done playing with the troll for the moment. Time to get back to doing something productive that ensures the security and prosperity of this country...have to stay ahead of those like you who want to destroy it!
 
What? No comment? Getting tired of defending the indefensible? That's understandable. Chimpy and Co have pretty much gone beyond the pale here.

More like getting tired of your incessant whining and bitching in numerous threads on the same, damned topics. You continue to erode your own relevance by posting multiple threads (with non-descript titles) and covering the same "topics" which always seem to boil down to calling POTUS names.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: CSM
Not tired of anything. I just dont see the point of defending the common sense strengths of defining the extent of Presidential power in detaining and interrogating people who are trying to kill us when its only people who keep themselves willfully ignorant of the truth and a complete misunderstanding of the Constitution and international law.
 
god damn folly and the liberal press........this should have gotten some air time...................this is great news!:beer:
 
Let's review just what this piece of legislation does..

It re-establishes President Bush's military tribunals, which were rejected by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.
I thought the Supreme Court asked congress to make a law about it. So they did.

It shields from prosecution those individuals who violated both US and international law throught their use of interrogation techniques held to be torture before December 30, 2005.
Good. The American people have spoken, we don't want our own people who are on the front lines of this war against terrorists to be persecuted for doing whatever it takes to get all the information out of scumbag terrorists. I'm sure this practice of democracy just makes you sick Bully.

It prevents any person harmed by the U.S., in violation of the Geneva Conventions, from filing a claim in U.S. court.
Good. The American people have spoken, we don't want scumbag terrorists suing our country and getting our tax dollars. Somehow I'm not surprised a flamming liberal like yourself is upset about this.

It strips legal residents of the U.S. of their right to challenge their detention in court if they're accused of being “enemy combatants”.
Good. The American people have spoken, we will treat anyone who betrays our country and joins the enemy we are fighting as our enemy. Boohoo.


It abolishes the right of Guantanamo detainees to challenge their detention, which in effect pre-judges all of them as guilty.
Good. The American people have spoken, Detainees at Gitmo are not citizens and don't have any rights except what we give them. And by the why, war is about pre-judging a group of people as guilty. Only assinine liberals think of our war against Islamic fanatics as a police action....they're not terrorists they're "suspects", and of course they're not guilty until proven guilty in a court of liberal law.


It approves the “CIA program” that allows waterboarding and other forms of torture.
Good. The American people have spoken, we want our men and women on the front lines of this war to do whatever is necessary to make life miserable for scumbag terrorists. Only an anti-american lib would side with terrorist over the CIA.

It gives the president the power to name any individual, including citizens, as an “unlawful enemy combatant” if they provide “material support". Just what constitutes such support remains undefined.
Good. The American people have spoken, we want our commander-n-chief to actually have the power of one. I'm sure that just crawls under your skin Bully.

Given the overly broad definitions of "enemy combatant" that the Administration clings to, anyone who opposes the administration could, at some point, be deemed an "enemy combatant".
You are so fucking delusional Bully. Yea...Bush is going to start naming DEMS as "enemy combatants"! Get a grip Bully.

It must also be noted that this bill effectively undercuts the right of <i>habeas corpus</i> not only for the GITMO detainees, but also for US citizens how might be caught up in its overly broad net. More than 900 years of legal precedent thrown on the trash heap in the pursuit of power. ANd with <i>habeas corpus</i> not just suspeneded, but done away with entirely, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights aren't worth the match it would take to burn them.
Once again you seem to forget, detainees are NOT american citizens and are not afforded ANY rights of a US citizens. This is NOT a police action whereby "suspects" will be given rights and a trial. It is WAR, all have been pre-judged guilty already, thats what WAR is!


Once Chimpy signs this misbegotten, un-Constitutional and un-American piece of legislation into law, and he will, the executive branch will have unprecedented powers which it may exercise with no oversight from Congress.
Here you go again Bully, everything is about the President. He is a dictator, blah blah blah.
When are you going to accept that you don't hate the President, you hate the AMERICAN people that overwhelmingly supported this great bill. Yes, the people of this country have spoken and we passed this bill through the HOUSE, and SENATE, yet you are still obsessed with blamming it all on Bush. You are a rabid Bush-hating liberal that has been blinded to the truth that the democratic process has been used. You are in the minority, yet you believe your beliefs on this subject should be imposed on the rest of the country. I have no doubts that deep down, now more than ever, you despise freedom and democracy. You want a few elite people to run this country, not its citizens.
 
Today, George W. Bush, a.k.a. <i><b>Chimpy McPresident</b></i>, signed the Military Commissions Act...<b>20 DAYS</b> after it was passed by Congress, and <b>18 DAYS</b> after Congress was adjourned.

Why the emphasis on the timeline here? It's a matter of how the Constitution provides for the handling of bills once they are passed by Congress and sent to the President's desk.

Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, states:

<blockquote>If any Bill shall not be returned by the President <b>within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless <i>the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.</i></b></blockquote>

Only two days passed between the passage of the Bill for signing and the adjournment of Congress. Eighteen days passed between the time Congress adjourned and Bush's signing of the Bill. Under the provisions outlined in Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution, this Bill was effectively vetoed, and cannot become law. Whether this was a deliberate calculation on the part of the Administration, or just another screw-up is moot. The law was null and void before Bush ever signed it.

Had this bill actually become law, it has the additional difficulty as outlined in Article 1, Section 9, Para 2:

<blockquote>The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.</blockquote>

To my knowledge, no rebellion or invasion has been demonstrated as grounds for suspending <i>habeas corpus</i>, which is the foundation for many other rights outlined in the Bill of Rights. Congress passed a bill which was unconstitutional from its inception, and exceeded its authority in this matter.

No matter how you slice it or dice it, this Bill is dead, and Bush, again, exceeded his authority by signing it into law today. If it is allowed to stand, despite these grossly unconstitutional provisions and circumstances regarding its signing, we can safely put the republic to rest, for it will be well and truly dead.
 
Today, George W. Bush, a.k.a. <i><b>Chimpy McPresident</b></i>, signed the Military Commissions Act...<b>20 DAYS</b> after it was passed by Congress, and <b>18 DAYS</b> after Congress was adjourned.

Why the emphasis on the timeline here? It's a matter of how the Constitution provides for the handling of bills once they are passed by Congress and sent to the President's desk.

Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, states:

<blockquote>If any Bill shall not be returned by the President <b>within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless <i>the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.</i></b></blockquote>

Only two days passed between the passage of the Bill for signing and the adjournment of Congress. Eighteen days passed between the time Congress adjourned and Bush's signing of the Bill. Under the provisions outlined in Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution, this Bill was effectively vetoed, and cannot become law. Whether this was a deliberate calculation on the part of the Administration, or just another screw-up is moot. The law was null and void before Bush ever signed it.

Had this bill actually become law, it has the additional difficulty as outlined in Article 1, Section 9, Para 2:

<blockquote>The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.</blockquote>

To my knowledge, no rebellion or invasion has been demonstrated as grounds for suspending <i>habeas corpus</i>, which is the foundation for many other rights outlined in the Bill of Rights. Congress passed a bill which was unconstitutional from its inception, and exceeded its authority in this matter.

No matter how you slice it or dice it, this Bill is dead, and Bush, again, exceeded his authority by signing it into law today. If it is allowed to stand, despite these grossly unconstitutional provisions and circumstances regarding its signing, we can safely put the republic to rest, for it will be well and truly dead.

Well, since the republic is now dead, there isn't much point in holding elections in Novemebr is there. Too bad the rest of the country doesn't quite see it your way.

SO, now that you are no longer a citizen (can't be a citizen of a nation that doesn't exist) just which entitiy are you proposing we should swear allegiance to? or should we all be anarchists?
 
By the way, the bill was presented to the President on Oct 10th for signing.
Also, if you read the bill it says:

"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."

This is a subtle but very important difference, I would think.
 
Bully, You seem to be misunderstanding the clause so ill try to educate you.

What the clause is that if the law isnt signed by the President within ten days its law.

However, if it cant be returned in ten days because Congress is out of session, that doesnt prevent the President from signing the law and sending it back when Congress is back in session. All its saying is that it doesnt automatically become law after 10 days.

But please continue to emphasize this law. it can only help Republicans in the upcoming election.
 
By the way, the bill was presented to the President on Oct 10th for signing.
Also, if you read the bill it says:

"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."

This is a subtle but very important difference, I would think.

<blockquote>"The Habeas Corpus secures every man here, alien or citizen, against everything which is not law, whatever shape it may assume." --Thomas Jefferson to A. H. Rowan, 1798. ME 10:61</blockquote>
 
<blockquote>"The Habeas Corpus secures every man here, alien or citizen, against everything which is not law, whatever shape it may assume." --Thomas Jefferson to A. H. Rowan, 1798. ME 10:61</blockquote>

Yeah, well too bad he didn't get that little gem worded that way into the Constitution. There are lots of quotes from the Founding Fathers that provide insight into what they were thinking but are not necessarily law. I can think of a few that would make a lib's hair curl just thinking about them!
 
<blockquote>"The Habeas Corpus secures every man here, alien or citizen, against everything which is not law, whatever shape it may assume." --Thomas Jefferson to A. H. Rowan, 1798. ME 10:61</blockquote>

Here is one for ya:

"The circumstances that endanger the safety of nations are infinite, and for this reason no constitutional shackles can wisely be imposed on the power to which the care of it is committed."

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 23, December 17, 1787
 
Yeah, well too bad he didn't get that little gem worded that way into the Constitution. There are lots of quotes from the Founding Fathers that provide insight into what they were thinking but are not necessarily law. I can think of a few that would make a lib's hair curl just thinking about them!

It should also be noted that, given the over-broad definition of "unlawful enemy combatant", the POTUS and Secretary of Defense are granted the unrestricted power to deem <b><i>anyone</i></b> an unlawful enemy combatant. And this definition does not just apply to aliens. It also applies to US citizens.
 
It should also be noted that, given the over-broad definition of "unlawful enemy combatant", the POTUS and Secretary of Defense are granted the unrestricted power to deem <b><i>anyone</i></b> an unlawful enemy combatant. And this definition does not just apply to aliens. It also applies to US citizens.

It's a tough job but somebody has to do it or we would be up to our asses in unlawful combatants while we were consulting with our lawyers and PR people what to do with them.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: CSM
It should also be noted that, given the over-broad definition of "unlawful enemy combatant", the POTUS and Secretary of Defense are granted the unrestricted power to deem <b><i>anyone</i></b> an unlawful enemy combatant. And this definition does not just apply to aliens. It also applies to US citizens.

Which is why we need conservatives in the executive branch. Secular socialist/communists(Democrats) with such power would be a scary thing.

Can you name innocent US civilians that have been labled unlawful combatants?
 
It should also be noted that, given the over-broad definition of "unlawful enemy combatant", the POTUS and Secretary of Defense are granted the unrestricted power to deem <b><i>anyone</i></b> an unlawful enemy combatant. And this definition does not just apply to aliens. It also applies to US citizens.

Seems like a good thing to me....
Are you planning something the government and the rest of us should know about?
 

Forum List

Back
Top