Lest we forget...

[manu1959]

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?

no....they are all in double secrete prisons and all their family members and friends have been paid off....and the liberal media have been censured by skull and bones

 

[Bullypulpit]

It's truly disturbing to see just how few people truly understand what happend with Chimpy's signing of the Military Commissions Act into law.

With that single act, we went from a nation where our freedoms relied upon, and were protected by, the rule of law to a nation where the freedom of each and every one of us depends solely upon the good graces of one man, the President.

With the passage of the Military Commissions Act, Congress gave the President despotic powers, which he all too willingly and even cheerfully, accepted. As a result, we are no longer a nation of laws, but of men. And that is a repudiation of everything this nation has stood for for the last 200+ years.

If this law stands, the Republic will be in the gravest of peril, where men and women of good consicence can be imprisoned on the whim of the Chief, and now unitary, Executive simply for opposing that executive's misguided and/or malificent policies. The legal challenges to this pernicious, ill-concieved law stand at the ready, and the courts are our best hope to put it to rest.

Good night, and good luck.

 

[dilloduck]

It's truly disturbing to see just how few people truly understand what happend with Chimpy's signing of the Military Commissions Act into law.

With that single act, we went from a nation where our freedoms relied upon, and were protected by, the rule of law to a nation where the freedom of each and every one of us depends solely upon the good graces of one man, the President.

With the passage of the Military Commissions Act, Congress gave the President despotic powers, which he all too willingly and even cheerfully, accepted. As a result, we are no longer a nation of laws, but of men. And that is a repudiation of everything this nation has stood for for the last 200+ years.

If this law stands, the Republic will be in the gravest of peril, where men and women of good consicence can be imprisoned on the whim of the Chief, and now unitary, Executive simply for opposing that executive's misguided and/or malificent policies. The legal challenges to this pernicious, ill-concieved law stand at the ready, and the courts are our best hope to put it to rest.

Good night, and good luck.

How many chimpanzees do you see everyday? You'll be OK,Bully. Call me if you get busted for terrorism.

 

[Avatar4321]

You know, last weeks south park episode are right. 25% of people are just plain retarded.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Dillo, Avatar...Your responses were predictable, almost Pavlovian. Your failure to address the issue is a case of ignorance, either willful or native. I choose not to believe it to be the latter as your posts demonstrate you both to people of wit and intelligence. In this case, however both have fled you.

 

[dilloduck]

Dillo, Avatar...Your responses were predictable, almost Pavlovian. Your failure to address the issue is a case of ignorance, either willful or native. I choose not to believe it to be the latter as your posts demonstrate you both to people of wit and intelligence. In this case, however both have fled you.

Predictable ??:rotflmao:

This coming from a guy who posts can all be summed up by saying " I hate Bush".

arf arf drool drool

 

[theHawk]

Dillo, Avatar...Your responses were predictable, almost Pavlovian. Your failure to address the issue is a case of ignorance, either willful or native. I choose not to believe it to be the latter as your posts demonstrate you both to people of wit and intelligence. In this case, however both have fled you.

Pot, kettle? You failed to give us examples of them abusing this power? You have also failed to acknowledge that this bill was passed through Congress by the will of the people. Its pretty amazing how much you ignore these facts so that you are given no pause to your partisan way of thinking. But keep on truckin' Bully, or should I say Wile E., its so amusing to watch you libs come up with these hairbrained ideas only to see you fall flat on your face with them everytime. 10 days signing into law...lol, that was a good one Bully!

 

[Avatar4321]

Dillo, Avatar...Your responses were predictable, almost Pavlovian. Your failure to address the issue is a case of ignorance, either willful or native. I choose not to believe it to be the latter as your posts demonstrate you both to people of wit and intelligence. In this case, however both have fled you.

Ive already responded to you, to which you have yet to reply. The fact is you are a panoid lunatic who knows nothing about the law. I hope you dont engage in your profession in such a sloppy manner. Seriously you need help man.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Predictable ??:rotflmao:

This coming from a guy who posts can all be summed up by saying " I hate Bush".

arf arf drool drool

I don't "hate" Chimpy. He's simply not worthy of the emotion. I just don't like him so much. He makes me wrinkle my nose.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Ive already responded to you, to which you have yet to reply. The fact is you are a panoid lunatic who knows nothing about the law. I hope you dont engage in your profession in such a sloppy manner. Seriously you need help man.

CSM already corrected the timeline, which does nothing to change the fact that this piece of legislation is an affront to the very principles this nation was founded upon and gives the President unprecedented power to suspend the civil rights of, even US citizens, on a whim.

Perhaps it is you who need help, given your naive, pollyanish faith in a corrupt and decadent administration.

 

[CockySOB]

It's truly disturbing to see just how few people truly understand what happend with Chimpy's signing of the Military Commissions Act into law.

With that single act, we went from a nation where our freedoms relied upon, and were protected by, the rule of law to a nation where the freedom of each and every one of us depends solely upon the good graces of one man, the President.

With the passage of the Military Commissions Act, Congress gave the President despotic powers, which he all too willingly and even cheerfully, accepted. As a result, we are no longer a nation of laws, but of men. And that is a repudiation of everything this nation has stood for for the last 200+ years.

If this law stands, the Republic will be in the gravest of peril, where men and women of good consicence can be imprisoned on the whim of the Chief, and now unitary, Executive simply for opposing that executive's misguided and/or malificent policies. The legal challenges to this pernicious, ill-concieved law stand at the ready, and the courts are our best hope to put it to rest.

Good night, and good luck.

OK, you want to talk about rhetoric, simpleton? Please cite the specific sections of the law and explain why you think it repudiates everything this nation has stood for for the last 200+ years. Or are you full of bluster and balderdash (and rheotric)?

Step up boy-o, you're getting called out. Don't try the cop-out of "just read the whole thing" either. Put up, or shut the hell up.

 

[CockySOB]

*chirp* *chirp* *chirp*

 

[Bullypulpit]

OK, you want to talk about rhetoric, simpleton? Please cite the specific sections of the law and explain why you think it repudiates everything this nation has stood for for the last 200+ years. Or are you full of bluster and balderdash (and rheotric)?

Step up boy-o, you're getting called out. Don't try the cop-out of "just read the whole thing" either. Put up, or shut the hell up.

Well golly...boyo...Why don'cha scoll up to the top of the thread and read the first post? Or is that too much effort for ya?

But for your further edification, I offer this:

<blockquote>-Strip the US courts of jurisdiction to hear or consider habeas corpus appeals challenging the lawfulness or conditions of detention of anyone held in US custody as an "enemy combatant". Judicial review of cases would be severely limited. The law would apply retroactively, and thus could result in more than 200 pending appeals filed on behalf of Guantánamo detainees being thrown out of court.
-Prohibit any person from invoking the Geneva Conventions or their protocols as a source of rights in any action in any US court.
-Permit the executive to convene military commissions to try "alien unlawful enemy combatants", as determined by the executive under a dangerously broad definition, in trials that would provide foreign nationals so labeled with a lower standard of justice than US citizens accused of the same crimes. This would violate the prohibition on the discriminatory application of fair trial rights.
-Permit civilians captured far from any battlefield to be tried by military commission rather than civilian courts, contradicting international standards and case law.
-Establish military commissions whose impartiality, independence and competence would be in doubt, due to the overarching role that the executive, primarily the Secretary of Defense, would play in their procedures and in the appointments of military judges and military officers to sit on the commissions.
-Permit, in violation of international law, the use of evidence extracted under cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or as a result of "outrages upon personal dignity, particularly humiliating or degrading treatment", as defined under international law.
-Permit the use of classified evidence against a defendant, without the defendant necessarily being able effectively to challenge the "sources, methods or activities" by which the government acquired the evidence. This is of particular concern in light of the high level of secrecy and resort to national security arguments employed by the administration in the "war on terror", which have been widely criticized, including by the UN Committee against Torture and the Human Rights Committee. Amnesty International is concerned that the administration appears on occasion to have resorted to classification to prevent independent scrutiny of human rights violations.
Give the military commissions the power to hand down death sentences, in contravention of international standards which only permit capital punishment after trials affording "all possible safeguards to ensure a fair trial". The clemency authority would be the President. President Bush has led a pattern of official public commentary on the presumed guilt of the detainees, and has overseen a system that has systematically denied the rights of detainees.
Limit the right of charged detainees to be represented by counsel of their choosing.
-Fail to provide any guarantee that trials will be conducted within a reasonable time.
-Permit the executive to determine who is an "enemy combatant" under any "competent tribunal" established by the executive, and endorse the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT), the wholly inadequate administrative procedure that has been employed in Guantánamo to review individual detentions.
-Narrow the scope of the War Crimes Act by not expressly criminalizing acts that constitute "outrages upon personal dignity, particularly humiliating and degrading treatment" banned under Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions. Amnesty International believes that the USA has routinely failed to respect the human dignity of detainees in the "war on terror".
Prohibit the US courts from using "foreign or international law" to inform their decisions in relation to the War Crimes Act. The President has the authority to "interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions". Under President Bush, the USA has shown a selective disregard for the Geneva Conventions and the absolute prohibition of torture or other ill-treatment.
Endorse the administration’s "war paradigm" – under which the USA has selectively applied the laws of war and rejected international human rights law. The legislation would backdate the "war on terror" to before the 11 September 2001 in order to be able to try individuals in front of military commissions for "war crimes" committed before that date. - <a href=http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR511542006>Amnesty International</a></blockquote>

 

[CockySOB]

Cite the speicifc sections of the bill, bullshitter. I read your postings and frankly you NEVER cite specifics.

Let's review - stating opinion without citations which specifically support your position is making a rhetorical argument. If you care to step into the real world, try citing specific sections from the bill and not simply making generalities which you fail to provide specific cites for.

Until you can do so, you are full of nothing but rhetoric, and tired rhetoric at that.

Again, step up or shut up!

 

[trobinett]

Cite the speicifc sections of the bill, bullshitter. I read your postings and frankly you NEVER cite specifics.

Let's review - stating opinion without citations which specifically support your position is making a rhetorical argument. If you care to step into the real world, try citing specific sections from the bill and not simply making generalities which you fail to provide specific cites for.

Until you can do so, you are full of nothing but rhetoric, and tired rhetoric at that.

Again, step up or shut up!

Good for ya CockySOB, bout time someone called that BS'er out.

Hammer that MF'er.:spank3:

 

[Bullypulpit]

Cite the speicifc sections of the bill, bullshitter. I read your postings and frankly you NEVER cite specifics.

Let's review - stating opinion without citations which specifically support your position is making a rhetorical argument. If you care to step into the real world, try citing specific sections from the bill and not simply making generalities which you fail to provide specific cites for.

Until you can do so, you are full of nothing but rhetoric, and tired rhetoric at that.

Again, step up or shut up!

SUBCHAPTER III--PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURE:Section 948r states that:
<blockquote>(b) Statements Obtained by Torture- A statement obtained by use of torture shall not be admissible in a military commission under this chapter, except against a person accused of torture as evidence the statement was made.</blockquote>

This is problematic in that Secretary Rumsfeld, and others, have stated that the interrogation methods used are "classified". As such, there can be no determination made by the counsel for the defendant as to whether or not the evidence was obtained through coercive measures.

SEC. 6. HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS: This section specifically forbids US courts from hearing <i>habeas corpus</i> suits brought by aliens, including resident aliens declared to be "unlawful enemy combatants" by the POTUS or Secretary of Defense. This means those aliens at GITMO, or any other US detention facility abroad or within the US cannot file a case in US courts to question the validity of their imprisonment. <i>Habeas corpus</i> is the recognition of the fundamental right of persons, citizen or alien, to be free of fear from arbitrary and indefinite imprisonment by the government. Also, Article 1, Sect. 9, Para.2 of the US Constitution unequivocally states:

<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>

Neither the President nor Congress have declared there to be a state of rebellion or invasion, therefore, neither Congress...in passing the bill...or the President...in signing the bill...possessed the authority to suspend <i>habeas corpus</i>.

This section alone clearly turns more than two centuries of our nation's history and committment to liberty on its head.

SEC. 7. TREATY OBLIGATIONS NOT ESTABLISHING GROUNDS FOR CERTAIN CLAIMS: This section of the measure bars US courts from hearing any cases brought by detainees, or their representatives, brought on the basis of violations of the Geneva Conventions. But since the US is a signatory to the Geenva COnventions, these conventions have the force of law in the US. This provision is then little more than a bill of attainder shielding a certain class of individuals from prosecution under US law. But the issue is moot because of the habeas restrictions posed in section 6 of the measure.

These are just a few of the highlights of this pernicious, unconstitutional and fundamentally un-American piece of legislation. There are many more...more than I have time to go into, and the courts will be years sorting it out.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Good for ya CockySOB, bout time someone called that BS'er out.

Hammer that MF'er.:spank3:

 

[CockySOB]

Thank you, Bullypulpit. Now that you'v egiven some specific cites supporting your assertion we can continue sans rhetoric, no?

Well, I'll continue it tommorrow when I'm sober. But I do want to thank you for picking up your game and giving me something worthwhile to discuss with you. Until tommorrow then....

 

[CockySOB]

§ 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.​

Fairly explicit as to who can be tried under a military commission, especially in light of the following definitions from the same document. Note that I included the definition of a lawful enemy combatant primarily because it fell between the definitions of "unlawful enemy combatant" and "alien" which are the key components identifying who can come under the jurisdiction of a convened military commission as laid out in this legislation.

§ 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.
(2) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.—The term ‘lawful enemy combatant’ means a person who is—
(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.
(3) ALIEN.—The term ‘alien’ means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.
​

So anyone who is a citizen of the USA must be tried under the US criminal codes (or under the UCMJ if a member of the USA Armed Forces).

SUBCHAPTER III--PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURE:Section 948r states that:
(b) Statements Obtained by Torture- A statement obtained by use of torture shall not be admissible in a military commission under this chapter, except against a person accused of torture as evidence the statement was made.

This is problematic in that Secretary Rumsfeld, and others, have stated that the interrogation methods used are "classified". As such, there can be no determination made by the counsel for the defendant as to whether or not the evidence was obtained through coercive measures.

Two problems with your thought here, although I do understand why you might be nervous of such a statement - provided you neglected to read the remainder of the section.

(d) STATEMENTS OBTAINED AFTER ENACTMENT OF DETAINEE TREATMENT ACT OF 2005.—A statement obtained on or after December 30, 2005 (the date of the enactment of the Defense Treatment Act of 2005) in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the military judge finds that—
(1) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value;
(2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence; and
(3) the interrogation methods used to obtain the statement do not amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment prohibited by section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.​

The burden is on the prosecution to prove that evidence was not obtained through torture or other cruel and inhuman methods. The only time such "evidence" may be presented is against someone who is charged with committing the crime of torture (per your citation). BTW, this document provides an explicit definition of both TORTURE and CRUEL AND INHUMAN TREATMENT (§ 950v. Crimes triable by military commissions - (b) offenses - (11)/(12) ) which means that they can be used by defense counsel with regards to prisoner treatment.

Next up, your assertions regarding the suspension of habeas corpus. POTUS and the SOD have to abide by the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" per the definitions in this legislation, which should effectively knock the wind right out of that argument. Moreover, this legislation specifically applies only to "alien" "unlawful enemy combatants" per 948c. Your concern about suspension of habeas corpus would have more weight if the wording wasn't specific that the convened military commission was THE authority on determining whether the accused was properly detained or not per this very legislation. As such, no other US court, justice or judge can over-rule the finding of a properly convened military commission as to the legality of the accused detention. SCOTUS could hear the case of course, but the wording of the law is clear - if the military commission finds that "John Doe (accused)" was properly detained as an alien unlawful enemy combatant, no other US venue can override that decision. (The possible exception would be if the case went to SCOTUS and they determined that under this portion of the Act failed to meet Constitutional muster - which could happen).

And as to the Geneva Conventions, this Act specifically delineates the definitions of lawful enemy combatant and unlawful enemy combatant using the wording of the Conventions themselves as framework. Moreover, since the actions available to the US under this Act only apply to alien unlawful enemy combatants, it would seem that this would be the question which might need validation (or refutation) from SCOTUS.

BTW, I appreciate your detailed response and your avoidance of inflamatory/derogatory comments about the administration. Thank you.