So you disagree with the 5-4 decision by the US suprme Court allowing abortions?
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
NO PERSON SHALL...be deprived of liberty, without due process of LAW
- Thread starter Contumacious
- Start date
So you disagree with the 5-4 decision by the US suprme Court allowing abortions?
Contessa: I am going back to a "Founding Fathers" issue here, and as a matter of principle believe that the "illegal combatant" concept is not a legitimate term.
Our Founding Fathers were freedom fighters but also were terrorists, treason committing rebels against their legitimate government, until they won that war, and the other one in 1812, and considering who was helping the south in the Civil War, that war, too, and our sovereignty was fully recognised. If one could ask King George et al the answers would have been both unequivocal, and no doubt vituperative, no doubt full of invective. But, we won.
I believe that all people living in a country, no matter what country, have the right to try to push attackers into the nearest ocean, volcano caldera, or off a cliff, whatever it takes to get them gone. I do not believe that the US of A has any moral right to abritrarily and unilaterally decide that this country or that are all "illegal (unlawful) combatants." I find it terribly hypocritical that so many here in the US of A are out for blood for the WTC, and yet think that others have no right to oppose us when we attack them. It all seems to be based on them not having "uniforms." Did the Resistance and Partisans of WWII have uniforms?
We, along with various other Northwestern Europeans have been engaged in the worst sorts of abuses of the rest of the world for about a thousand years starting with the Crusades! Before that it was Romans, and Macedonians, and Darius of Troy, and then in the close Middle East, it was the descendants of Abraham committing the genocides, and there were littler wars in smaller places. We were real tail end charlies in Vietnam, their war with China started a hundred or so years before the birth of the Christian Jesus. They spent 2000 years trying to throw invaders out, and are finally their own people, running their own business. The Ottomans took over a lot of territory. No one leaves anyone else alone. I am worn out with the hypocrisy of it all. On all sides. I am tired of the Imperialism of religion, too.
Not so long ago the mujahideen (مجاهدين)were being called "freedom fighters." They were called that by us. And so on... it goes on.
You should read [ame="http://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/dp/0471265179"]All the Shah's Men by Kinzer[/ame], as well as some of the other history of that area.
Then Oil History in Iraq.
Over and over, same old thing. The problem for us now is that we overstepped. We made too many enemies thinking we could never be brought down.
No such thing as an illegal/unlawful combatant in the fight for freedom, ours, theirs, anyone's. And I don't care about whatever "convenient rules of the moment" any other comes up with.[/QUOTE]
An interesting perspective, yet, The Legal Term didn't exist back then. The Crusades were reactionary, something little spoken of in a PC Environment, but in truth They were Provoked.
The Revolutionary War Was a Declared War. We fought a type Guerrilla Warfare, hit and run, as Military Units, combating Military Units. We did not send Suicide Bombers to England. There was No Geneva Convention, there was no UN. We made Our best attempt at uniforms. Apples and Oranges.
The War of 1812 had more to do with the Freedom Of The Seas. Madison, My favorite President, Fought for the Ideal. The Civil War could have split Us, Nobody knows where that would have ended up, had it ended differently.
I agree with You in the Concept of Unalienable Rights, However, I believe We are in the Middle East to protect Them, and allow the Many, to establish, Just Government. We are not there to Conquer, and Enslave. We are there to better the quality of life, something too easily forgotten.
There are many issues here that You and I would probably be in agreement on. I have zero interest in converting Muslims to Christianity. I believe in Unalienable Rights. Many fail to recognize the Rights of Others, and in doing so, Offend God and Man. People need to be free to choose, in life. Yes there are consequences, yet God seems to have that so much better worked out than Us, all the time interfering. It is not okay to harm Those that convert, either way, as hard as that must be to handle.
There is a New Documentary on HBO called "Terror in Mumbai". I would ask You to watch it.
When We study World History, it is filled with Bloodshed. What Peoples that survived were not on both sides of the equation, at one time or another? That is part of why it is so important to use reason when given the opportunity. The Divine message has Always been Repentance and Forgiveness. Maybe that begins with refusing to fire the first shot.
I don't support Imperialism, One World Government, Oligarchy, Communism, Socialism, or Totalitarianism. Our best Tool is Constitutional Amendment that focuses on Empowering the Individual and Protecting The Individual from Predatory Schemes aimed at controlling Life. Our Government has much to account for, in what Entities it protects, and runs shotgun for. Entities that Weaken Us as Beings, yet Government, sometimes being the Silent Partner or Accomplice, with Selfish Motive, acts against It's Own People.
Still, We know better than To blame God, for what We do to Each Other with The Free Will He gave Us. Religion is more the Path, not to be confused with Your Senses, like Eyes for seeing, Ears for hearing, A Conscience for Discerning. A thought from Ayn Rand, the Almost, Atheist, Value for Value. Don't settle for Less. Any Society that does less is on a path of Self Destruction. Happy Thanksgiving Weekend.
Our Founding Fathers were freedom fighters but also were terrorists, treason committing rebels against their legitimate government, until they won that war, and the other one in 1812, and considering who was helping the south in the Civil War, that war, too, and our sovereignty was fully recognised. If one could ask King George et al the answers would have been both unequivocal, and no doubt vituperative, no doubt full of invective. But, we won.
I believe that all people living in a country, no matter what country, have the right to try to push attackers into the nearest ocean, volcano caldera, or off a cliff, whatever it takes to get them gone. I do not believe that the US of A has any moral right to abritrarily and unilaterally decide that this country or that are all "illegal (unlawful) combatants." I find it terribly hypocritical that so many here in the US of A are out for blood for the WTC, and yet think that others have no right to oppose us when we attack them. It all seems to be based on them not having "uniforms." Did the Resistance and Partisans of WWII have uniforms?
We, along with various other Northwestern Europeans have been engaged in the worst sorts of abuses of the rest of the world for about a thousand years starting with the Crusades! Before that it was Romans, and Macedonians, and Darius of Troy, and then in the close Middle East, it was the descendants of Abraham committing the genocides, and there were littler wars in smaller places. We were real tail end charlies in Vietnam, their war with China started a hundred or so years before the birth of the Christian Jesus. They spent 2000 years trying to throw invaders out, and are finally their own people, running their own business. The Ottomans took over a lot of territory. No one leaves anyone else alone. I am worn out with the hypocrisy of it all. On all sides. I am tired of the Imperialism of religion, too.
Not so long ago the mujahideen (مجاهدين)were being called "freedom fighters." They were called that by us. And so on... it goes on.
You should read [ame="http://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/dp/0471265179"]All the Shah's Men by Kinzer[/ame], as well as some of the other history of that area.
Then Oil History in Iraq.
Over and over, same old thing. The problem for us now is that we overstepped. We made too many enemies thinking we could never be brought down.
No such thing as an illegal/unlawful combatant in the fight for freedom, ours, theirs, anyone's. And I don't care about whatever "convenient rules of the moment" any other comes up with.[/QUOTE]
An interesting perspective, yet, The Legal Term didn't exist back then. The Crusades were reactionary, something little spoken of in a PC Environment, but in truth They were Provoked.
The Revolutionary War Was a Declared War. We fought a type Guerrilla Warfare, hit and run, as Military Units, combating Military Units. We did not send Suicide Bombers to England. There was No Geneva Convention, there was no UN. We made Our best attempt at uniforms. Apples and Oranges.
The War of 1812 had more to do with the Freedom Of The Seas. Madison, My favorite President, Fought for the Ideal. The Civil War could have split Us, Nobody knows where that would have ended up, had it ended differently.
I agree with You in the Concept of Unalienable Rights, However, I believe We are in the Middle East to protect Them, and allow the Many, to establish, Just Government. We are not there to Conquer, and Enslave. We are there to better the quality of life, something too easily forgotten.
There are many issues here that You and I would probably be in agreement on. I have zero interest in converting Muslims to Christianity. I believe in Unalienable Rights. Many fail to recognize the Rights of Others, and in doing so, Offend God and Man. People need to be free to choose, in life. Yes there are consequences, yet God seems to have that so much better worked out than Us, all the time interfering. It is not okay to harm Those that convert, either way, as hard as that must be to handle.
There is a New Documentary on HBO called "Terror in Mumbai". I would ask You to watch it.
When We study World History, it is filled with Bloodshed. What Peoples that survived were not on both sides of the equation, at one time or another? That is part of why it is so important to use reason when given the opportunity. The Divine message has Always been Repentance and Forgiveness. Maybe that begins with refusing to fire the first shot.
I don't support Imperialism, One World Government, Oligarchy, Communism, Socialism, or Totalitarianism. Our best Tool is Constitutional Amendment that focuses on Empowering the Individual and Protecting The Individual from Predatory Schemes aimed at controlling Life. Our Government has much to account for, in what Entities it protects, and runs shotgun for. Entities that Weaken Us as Beings, yet Government, sometimes being the Silent Partner or Accomplice, with Selfish Motive, acts against It's Own People.
Still, We know better than To blame God, for what We do to Each Other with The Free Will He gave Us. Religion is more the Path, not to be confused with Your Senses, like Eyes for seeing, Ears for hearing, A Conscience for Discerning. A thought from Ayn Rand, the Almost, Atheist, Value for Value. Don't settle for Less. Any Society that does less is on a path of Self Destruction. Happy Thanksgiving Weekend.
Contumacious
Radical Freedom
- Thread starter
- #183
Contessa: I am going back to a "Founding Fathers" issue here, and as a matter of principle believe that the "illegal combatant" concept is not a legitimate term.
"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed" was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, on March 1, 2003, by the Pakistani ISI, possibly in a joint action with agents of the American Diplomatic Security Service, and has been in U.S. custody since that time.
Hummmmmmmmmm
Was Rawalpindi, Pakistan a "foreign battlefield"? Are either the Pakistani ISI or the American Diplomatic Security Service, branches of the US armed forces ?
Please read Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S.Ct. 2749, 548 U.S. 557, 165 L.Ed.2d 723 (U.S. 06/29/2006) when you get a chance.
.
Facts of the Case:
Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's former chauffeur, was captured by Afghani forces and imprisoned by the U.S. military in Guantanamo Bay. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court to challenge his detention. Before the district court ruled on the petition, he received a hearing from a military tribunal, which designated him an enemy combatant.
A few months later, the district court granted Hamdan's habeas petition, ruling that he must first be given a hearing to determine whether he was a prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention before he could be tried by a military commission. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the decision, however, finding that the Geneva Convention could not be enforced in federal court and that the establishment of military tribunals had been authorized by Congress and was therefore not unconstitutional.
Question:
May the rights protected by the Geneva Convention be enforced in federal court through habeas corpus petitions? Was the military commission established to try Hamdan and others for alleged war crimes in the War on Terror authorized by the Congress or the inherent powers of the President?
Conclusion:
Yes and no. The Supreme Court, in a 5-to-3 decision authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, held that neither an act of Congress nor the inherent powers of the Executive laid out in the Constitution expressly authorized the sort of military commission at issue in this case. Absent that express authorization, the commission had to comply with the ordinary laws of the United States and the laws of war. The Geneva Convention, as a part of the ordinary laws of war, could therefore be enforced by the Supreme Court, along with the statutory Uniform Code of Military Justice. Hamdan's exclusion from certain parts of his trial deemed classified by the military commission violated both of these, and the trial was therefore illegal. Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented. Chief Justice John Roberts, who participated in the case while serving on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, did not take part in the decision.
Decisions
Decision: 5 votes for Hamdan, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Uniform Code of Military Justice
Sort by Ideology
Roberts
Stevens
Scalia
Kennedy
Souter
Thomas
Ginsburg
Breyer
Alito
Full Opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens
Please Visit the Link.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument
Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's former chauffeur, was captured by Afghani forces and imprisoned by the U.S. military in Guantanamo Bay. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court to challenge his detention. Before the district court ruled on the petition, he received a hearing from a military tribunal, which designated him an enemy combatant.
A few months later, the district court granted Hamdan's habeas petition, ruling that he must first be given a hearing to determine whether he was a prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention before he could be tried by a military commission. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the decision, however, finding that the Geneva Convention could not be enforced in federal court and that the establishment of military tribunals had been authorized by Congress and was therefore not unconstitutional.
Question:
May the rights protected by the Geneva Convention be enforced in federal court through habeas corpus petitions? Was the military commission established to try Hamdan and others for alleged war crimes in the War on Terror authorized by the Congress or the inherent powers of the President?
Conclusion:
Yes and no. The Supreme Court, in a 5-to-3 decision authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, held that neither an act of Congress nor the inherent powers of the Executive laid out in the Constitution expressly authorized the sort of military commission at issue in this case. Absent that express authorization, the commission had to comply with the ordinary laws of the United States and the laws of war. The Geneva Convention, as a part of the ordinary laws of war, could therefore be enforced by the Supreme Court, along with the statutory Uniform Code of Military Justice. Hamdan's exclusion from certain parts of his trial deemed classified by the military commission violated both of these, and the trial was therefore illegal. Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented. Chief Justice John Roberts, who participated in the case while serving on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, did not take part in the decision.
Decisions
Decision: 5 votes for Hamdan, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Uniform Code of Military Justice
Sort by Ideology
Roberts
Stevens
Scalia
Kennedy
Souter
Thomas
Ginsburg
Breyer
Alito
Full Opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens
Please Visit the Link.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument
Contessa: I am going back to a "Founding Fathers" issue here, and as a matter of principle believe that the "illegal combatant" concept is not a legitimate term.
"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed" was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, on March 1, 2003, by the Pakistani ISI, possibly in a joint action with agents of the American Diplomatic Security Service, and has been in U.S. custody since that time.
Hummmmmmmmmm
Was Rawalpindi, Pakistan a "foreign battlefield"? Are either the Pakistani ISI or the American Diplomatic Security Service, branches of the US armed forces ?
Please read Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S.Ct. 2749, 548 U.S. 557, 165 L.Ed.2d 723 (U.S. 06/29/2006) when you get a chance.
.
Yet We were not operating under Lawlessness at the time. Here is an Analysis (again) of the Bush Policy at the time of His arrest.
TERRORISTS AS ENEMY COMBATANTS
An Analysis of How the United States Applies the Law of Armed Conflict
in the Global War on Terrorism
By
Scott Reid
MAJ, U.S. Army
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA422754&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/reid.pdf
Contumacious
Radical Freedom
- Thread starter
- #186
Contessa: I am going back to a "Founding Fathers" issue here, and as a matter of principle believe that the "illegal combatant" concept is not a legitimate term.
"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed" was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, on March 1, 2003, by the Pakistani ISI, possibly in a joint action with agents of the American Diplomatic Security Service, and has been in U.S. custody since that time.
Hummmmmmmmmm
Was Rawalpindi, Pakistan a "foreign battlefield"? Are either the Pakistani ISI or the American Diplomatic Security Service, branches of the US armed forces ?
Please read Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S.Ct. 2749, 548 U.S. 557, 165 L.Ed.2d 723 (U.S. 06/29/2006) when you get a chance.
.
Yet We were not operating under Lawlessness at the time. Here is an Analysis (again) of the Bush Policy at the time of His arrest.
TERRORISTS AS ENEMY COMBATANTS
An Analysis of How the United States Applies the Law of Armed Conflict
in the Global War on Terrorism
By
Scott Reid
MAJ, U.S. Army
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA422754&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/reid.pdf
So do we agree then that "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed" is not an enemy combatant because he was not captured in the battlefield by the US armed forces ? That since he has not been captured in the battlefield he must be tried in a civilian court?
.
"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed" was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, on March 1, 2003, by the Pakistani ISI, possibly in a joint action with agents of the American Diplomatic Security Service, and has been in U.S. custody since that time.
Hummmmmmmmmm
Was Rawalpindi, Pakistan a "foreign battlefield"? Are either the Pakistani ISI or the American Diplomatic Security Service, branches of the US armed forces ?
Please read Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S.Ct. 2749, 548 U.S. 557, 165 L.Ed.2d 723 (U.S. 06/29/2006) when you get a chance.
.
Yet We were not operating under Lawlessness at the time. Here is an Analysis (again) of the Bush Policy at the time of His arrest.
TERRORISTS AS ENEMY COMBATANTS
An Analysis of How the United States Applies the Law of Armed Conflict
in the Global War on Terrorism
By
Scott Reid
MAJ, U.S. Army
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA422754&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/reid.pdf
So do we agree then that "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed" is not an enemy combatant because he was not captured in the battlefield by the US armed forces ? That since he has not been captured in the battlefield he must be tried in a civilian court?
.
I'm not convinced. Was He a Member of Al Qaeda?
Is He a Terrorist?
Surely He is not a Lawful Combatant?
Does He have Rights under The Uniform Code of Military Justice? Yes.
What Has He been designated as? Terrorist? Illegal Combatant? Legal Combatant? Criminal? Material Witness?
Is He presently being harmed in Any way?
Is He a Threat to The USA?
Contumacious
Radical Freedom
- Thread starter
- #188
Yet We were not operating under Lawlessness at the time. Here is an Analysis (again) of the Bush Policy at the time of His arrest.
TERRORISTS AS ENEMY COMBATANTS
An Analysis of How the United States Applies the Law of Armed Conflict
in the Global War on Terrorism
By
Scott Reid
MAJ, U.S. Army
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA422754&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/reid.pdf
So do we agree then that "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed" is not an enemy combatant because he was not captured in the battlefield by the US armed forces ? That since he has not been captured in the battlefield he must be tried in a civilian court?
.
I'm not convinced. Was He a Member of Al Qaeda?
Is He a Terrorist?
Surely He is not a Lawful Combatant?
Does He have Rights under The Uniform Code of Military Justice? Yes.
What Has He been designated as? Terrorist? Illegal Combatant? Legal Combatant? Criminal? Material Witness?
Is He presently being harmed in Any way?
Is He a Threat to The USA?
Those are ISSUES OF FACT for the Trial Court.
What we are discussing now is WHICH court has proper jurisdiction.
The JURISDICTIONAL FACTS show that the only court with subject matter jurisdiction is the civilian court.
Is not enough that you read Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, , but that you understand the ruling.
tri·al (trl, trl)
n.
1. Law Examination of evidence and applicable law by a competent tribunal to determine the issue of specified charges
Contessa: I am going back to a "Founding Fathers" issue here, and as a matter of principle believe that the "illegal combatant" concept is not a legitimate term.
"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed" was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, on March 1, 2003, by the Pakistani ISI, possibly in a joint action with agents of the American Diplomatic Security Service, and has been in U.S. custody since that time.
Hummmmmmmmmm
Was Rawalpindi, Pakistan a "foreign battlefield"? Are either the Pakistani ISI or the American Diplomatic Security Service, branches of the US armed forces ?
Please read Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S.Ct. 2749, 548 U.S. 557, 165 L.Ed.2d 723 (U.S. 06/29/2006) when you get a chance.
.
So do we agree then that "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed" is not an enemy combatant because he was not captured in the battlefield by the US armed forces ? That since he has not been captured in the battlefield he must be tried in a civilian court?
.
I'm not convinced. Was He a Member of Al Qaeda?
Is He a Terrorist?
Surely He is not a Lawful Combatant?
Does He have Rights under The Uniform Code of Military Justice? Yes.
What Has He been designated as? Terrorist? Illegal Combatant? Legal Combatant? Criminal? Material Witness?
Is He presently being harmed in Any way?
Is He a Threat to The USA?
Those are ISSUES OF FACT for the Trial Court.
What we are discussing now is WHICH court has proper jurisdiction.
The JURISDICTIONAL FACTS show that the only court with subject matter jurisdiction is the civilian court.
Is not enough that you read Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, , but that you understand the ruling.
tri·al (trl, trl)
n.
1. Law Examination of evidence and applicable law by a competent tribunal to determine the issue of specified charges
As I noted in post 128 of this thread Hamden VS Rumsfeld no longer applies to this case.
"The United States Military Commissions Act of 2006, also known as HR-6166, was an Act of Congress signed by President George W. Bush on October 17, 2006. Drafted in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Act's stated purpose was "To authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes."
So do we agree then that "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed" is not an enemy combatant because he was not captured in the battlefield by the US armed forces ? That since he has not been captured in the battlefield he must be tried in a civilian court?
.
I'm not convinced. Was He a Member of Al Qaeda?
Is He a Terrorist?
Surely He is not a Lawful Combatant?
Does He have Rights under The Uniform Code of Military Justice? Yes.
What Has He been designated as? Terrorist? Illegal Combatant? Legal Combatant? Criminal? Material Witness?
Is He presently being harmed in Any way?
Is He a Threat to The USA?
Those are ISSUES OF FACT for the Trial Court.
What we are discussing now is WHICH court has proper jurisdiction.
The JURISDICTIONAL FACTS show that the only court with subject matter jurisdiction is the civilian court.
Is not enough that you read Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, , but that you understand the ruling.
tri·al (trl, trl)
n.
1. Law Examination of evidence and applicable law by a competent tribunal to determine the issue of specified charges
I also understand the 5 to 3 split, and that it reversed the Ruling from the Lower Court. I understand that the Ruling was Controversial, Yet I do accept it for what it is. Not because of the Vote, but because of The Argument. Here is the Strongest reason Why, that I have seen so far. I believe Congresses Intent was clear.
"The power to make the necessary laws is in Congress; the power to execute in the President. Both powers imply many subordinate and auxiliary powers. Each includes all authorities essential to its due exercise. But neither can the President, in war more than in peace, intrude upon the proper authority of Congress, nor Congress upon the proper authority of the President... . Congress cannot direct the conduct of campaigns, nor can the President, or any commander under him, without the sanction of Congress, institute tribunals for the trial and punishment of offences, either of soldiers or civilians, unless in cases of a controlling necessity, which justifies what it compels, or at least insures acts of indemnity from the justice of the legislature." 4 Wall., at 139-140.21
FindLaw | Cases and Codes
The United States Military Commissions Act of 2006[1], also known as HR-6166, was an Act of Congress[2] signed by President George W. Bush on October 17, 2006. Drafted in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld,[3] the Act's stated purpose was "To authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes."[4]
Following the filing of Al Odah v. United States, section 7 of the MCA was found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on June 12, 2008 but the Court left the remainder of the MCA in effect.[5]
Military Commissions Act of 2006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Following the filing of Al Odah v. United States, section 7 of the MCA was found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on June 12, 2008 but the Court left the remainder of the MCA in effect.[5]
Military Commissions Act of 2006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Most Current????
H. R. 2647—385
TITLE XVIII—MILITARY COMMISSIONS
Sec. 1801. Short title.
Sec. 1802. Military commissions.
Sec. 1803. Conforming amendments.
Sec. 1804. Proceedings under prior statute.
Sec. 1805. Submittal to Congress of revised rules for military commissions.
Sec. 1806. Annual reports to Congress on trials by military commission.
Sec. 1807. Sense of Congress on military commission system.
SEC. 1801. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ‘‘Military Commissions Act of
2009’’.
SEC. 1802. MILITARY COMMISSIONS.
Chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
‘‘CHAPTER 47A—MILITARY COMMISSIONS
‘‘SUBCHAPTER Sec.
‘‘I. General Provisions ............................................................................................ 948a.
‘‘II. Composition of Military Commissions ........................................................... 948h.
‘‘III. Pre-Trial Procedure ........................................................................................ 948q.
‘‘IV. Trial Procedure ............................................................................................... 949a.
‘‘V. Classified Information Procedures .................................................................949p–1.
‘‘VI. Sentences ......................................................................................................... 949s.
‘‘VII. Post-Trial Procedures and Review of Military Commissions ..................... 950a.
‘‘VIII. Punitive Matters .......................................................................................... 950p.
‘‘SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL PROVISIONS
‘‘Sec.
‘‘948a. Definitions.
‘‘948b. Military commissions generally.
‘‘948c. Persons subject to military commissions.
‘‘948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions.
‘‘§ 948a. Definitions
‘‘In this chapter:
‘‘(1) ALIEN.—The term ‘alien’ means an individual who
is not a citizen of the United States.
‘‘(2) CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.—The term ‘classified
information’ means the following:
‘‘(A) Any information or material that has been determined
by the United States Government pursuant to
statute, Executive order, or regulation to require protection
against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national
security.
‘‘(B) Any restricted data, as that term is defined in
section 11 y. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2014(y)).
H. R. 2647—386
‘‘(3) COALITION PARTNER.—The term ‘coalition partner’, with
respect to hostilities engaged in by the United States, means
any State or armed force directly engaged along with the United
States in such hostilities or providing direct operational support
to the United States in connection with such hostilities.
‘‘(4) GENEVA CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE TREATMENT OF
PRISONERS OF WAR.—The term ‘Geneva Convention Relative
to the Treatment of Prisoners of War’ means the Convention
Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, done at Geneva
August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316).
‘‘(5) GENEVA CONVENTIONS.—The term ‘Geneva Conventions’
means the international conventions signed at Geneva
on August 12, 1949.
‘‘(6) PRIVILEGED BELLIGERENT.—The term ‘privileged belligerent’
means an individual belonging to one of the eight categories
enumerated in Article 4 of the Geneva Convention
Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.
‘‘(7) UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENT.—The term
‘unprivileged enemy belligerent’ means an individual (other
than a privileged belligerent) who—
‘‘(A) has engaged in hostilities against the United
States or its coalition partners;
‘‘(B) has purposefully and materially supported hostilities
against the United States or its coalition partners;
or
‘‘(C) was a part of al Qaeda at the time of the alleged
offense under this chapter.
‘‘(8) NATIONAL SECURITY.—The term ‘national security’
means the national defense and foreign relations of the United
States.
‘‘(9) HOSTILITIES.—The term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict
subject to the laws of war.
‘‘§ 948b. Military commissions generally
‘‘(a) PURPOSE.—This chapter establishes procedures governing
the use of military commissions to try alien unprivileged enemy
belligerents for violations of the law of war and other offenses
triable by military commission.
‘‘(b) AUTHORITY FOR MILITARY COMMISSIONS UNDER THIS
CHAPTER.—The President is authorized to establish military
commissions under this chapter for offenses triable by military
commission as provided in this chapter.
‘‘(c) CONSTRUCTION OF PROVISIONS.—The procedures for military
commissions set forth in this chapter are based upon the
procedures for trial by general courts-martial under chapter 47
of this title (the Uniform Code of Military Justice). Chapter 47
of this title does not, by its terms, apply to trial by military commission
except as specifically provided therein or in this chapter, and
many of the provisions of chapter 47 of this title are by their
terms inapplicable to military commissions. The judicial construction
and application of chapter 47 of this title, while instructive,
is therefore not of its own force binding on military commissions
established under this chapter.
‘‘(d) INAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS.—(1) The following
provisions of this title shall not apply to trial by military
commission under this chapter:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/2009 MCA Pub Law 111-84.pdf
H. R. 2647—385
TITLE XVIII—MILITARY COMMISSIONS
Sec. 1801. Short title.
Sec. 1802. Military commissions.
Sec. 1803. Conforming amendments.
Sec. 1804. Proceedings under prior statute.
Sec. 1805. Submittal to Congress of revised rules for military commissions.
Sec. 1806. Annual reports to Congress on trials by military commission.
Sec. 1807. Sense of Congress on military commission system.
SEC. 1801. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ‘‘Military Commissions Act of
2009’’.
SEC. 1802. MILITARY COMMISSIONS.
Chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
‘‘CHAPTER 47A—MILITARY COMMISSIONS
‘‘SUBCHAPTER Sec.
‘‘I. General Provisions ............................................................................................ 948a.
‘‘II. Composition of Military Commissions ........................................................... 948h.
‘‘III. Pre-Trial Procedure ........................................................................................ 948q.
‘‘IV. Trial Procedure ............................................................................................... 949a.
‘‘V. Classified Information Procedures .................................................................949p–1.
‘‘VI. Sentences ......................................................................................................... 949s.
‘‘VII. Post-Trial Procedures and Review of Military Commissions ..................... 950a.
‘‘VIII. Punitive Matters .......................................................................................... 950p.
‘‘SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL PROVISIONS
‘‘Sec.
‘‘948a. Definitions.
‘‘948b. Military commissions generally.
‘‘948c. Persons subject to military commissions.
‘‘948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions.
‘‘§ 948a. Definitions
‘‘In this chapter:
‘‘(1) ALIEN.—The term ‘alien’ means an individual who
is not a citizen of the United States.
‘‘(2) CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.—The term ‘classified
information’ means the following:
‘‘(A) Any information or material that has been determined
by the United States Government pursuant to
statute, Executive order, or regulation to require protection
against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national
security.
‘‘(B) Any restricted data, as that term is defined in
section 11 y. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2014(y)).
H. R. 2647—386
‘‘(3) COALITION PARTNER.—The term ‘coalition partner’, with
respect to hostilities engaged in by the United States, means
any State or armed force directly engaged along with the United
States in such hostilities or providing direct operational support
to the United States in connection with such hostilities.
‘‘(4) GENEVA CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE TREATMENT OF
PRISONERS OF WAR.—The term ‘Geneva Convention Relative
to the Treatment of Prisoners of War’ means the Convention
Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, done at Geneva
August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316).
‘‘(5) GENEVA CONVENTIONS.—The term ‘Geneva Conventions’
means the international conventions signed at Geneva
on August 12, 1949.
‘‘(6) PRIVILEGED BELLIGERENT.—The term ‘privileged belligerent’
means an individual belonging to one of the eight categories
enumerated in Article 4 of the Geneva Convention
Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.
‘‘(7) UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENT.—The term
‘unprivileged enemy belligerent’ means an individual (other
than a privileged belligerent) who—
‘‘(A) has engaged in hostilities against the United
States or its coalition partners;
‘‘(B) has purposefully and materially supported hostilities
against the United States or its coalition partners;
or
‘‘(C) was a part of al Qaeda at the time of the alleged
offense under this chapter.
‘‘(8) NATIONAL SECURITY.—The term ‘national security’
means the national defense and foreign relations of the United
States.
‘‘(9) HOSTILITIES.—The term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict
subject to the laws of war.
‘‘§ 948b. Military commissions generally
‘‘(a) PURPOSE.—This chapter establishes procedures governing
the use of military commissions to try alien unprivileged enemy
belligerents for violations of the law of war and other offenses
triable by military commission.
‘‘(b) AUTHORITY FOR MILITARY COMMISSIONS UNDER THIS
CHAPTER.—The President is authorized to establish military
commissions under this chapter for offenses triable by military
commission as provided in this chapter.
‘‘(c) CONSTRUCTION OF PROVISIONS.—The procedures for military
commissions set forth in this chapter are based upon the
procedures for trial by general courts-martial under chapter 47
of this title (the Uniform Code of Military Justice). Chapter 47
of this title does not, by its terms, apply to trial by military commission
except as specifically provided therein or in this chapter, and
many of the provisions of chapter 47 of this title are by their
terms inapplicable to military commissions. The judicial construction
and application of chapter 47 of this title, while instructive,
is therefore not of its own force binding on military commissions
established under this chapter.
‘‘(d) INAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS.—(1) The following
provisions of this title shall not apply to trial by military
commission under this chapter:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/2009 MCA Pub Law 111-84.pdf
Similar threads
- Replies
- 51
- Views
- 893
- Replies
- 170
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 22
- Views
- 293
- Poll
- Replies
- 495
- Views
- 10K
- Poll
- Replies
- 32
- Views
- 668
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 239
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 246
- Views
- 1K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8005
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 466
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-