View Single Post
Old October 28th, 2006, 04:37 AM  
Join Date: July 14, 2006
Age: 26
Default Re: Habeas Corpus R.I.P.

I also don't agree with taking away Habeas Corpus.
-Habeas Corpus wasn't taken away a few days ago, it's still here, live and well.
-If you read the bill, you would know that the no charges/indefinite imprisonment only applies to non US citizens deemed Enemy combatants. We are able to make Americans enemy combatants to, this is because there are documented case(s) where US citizen(s) have gone to Iraq/Afghanistan and engaged in war with us, what are we to do with them if we capture them? they aren't POW's (by definition), they aren't criminals (in a technical law sense), so they are enemy combatants, but the supreme court has held that their basic constitutional rights must still stand if they are a US citizen.

While formally opposed to the Act, Human Rights Watch has also concluded that the new law limits the scope of trials by military commissions to non-U.S. citizens including all legal aliens. [10] CBS Legal expert Andrew Cohen has commented on this question and writes that the "suspension of the writ of habeas corpus – the ability of an imprisoned person to challenge their confinement in court—applies only to resident aliens within the United States as well as other foreign nationals captured here and abroad" and that "it does not restrict the rights and freedoms and liberties of U.S. citizens anymore than they already have been restricted". [11]
To try and say that Habeas Corpus has only been suspended the 2 described times is ridiculous. Consider...
-Japanese internment camps
-Marshal law (recently in the Katrina hurricane)
-We have held many "special" prisoners without habeas corpus like... Mob members who would use witness intimidation (making it necessary that there was a secretish trial with no plaintiff)
for against Absent
Republicans 53 1 0
Democrats 12 33 1
Republicans 218 7 5
Democrats 32 162 7
Section 948a of title 10 of the United States Code, as added by the Act, defines an "unlawful enemy combatant" as:

`(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.

Section 948c of title 10 U.S.C., as added by the Act, states, "Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter" - with "alien" defined in section 948a(3) as "a person who is not a citizen of the United States".

A "competent tribunal" is defined in the US Army field Manual, section 27-10, for the purpose of determining whether a person is or is not entitled to prisoner-of-war status and consists of a board of not less than three officers. It is also a term defined in Article five of the third Geneva Convention. However, the rights guaranteed by the Third Geneva Convention to lawful military combatants are expressly denied to unlawful military combatants for the purposes of this Act by Section 948b:

`(g) Geneva Conventions Not Establishing Source of Rights- No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights.

The criteria by which a Combatant Status Review Tribunal might determine someone to be an unlawful enemy combatant under section ii of the definition are provided by the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, and referenced in section 10 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. [6] The Combatant Status Review Tribunal is be composed of three neutral officers, none of whom was involved with the detainee. One serves as a judge advocate, and the senior ranking officer serves as the president of the tribunal. Detainees may testify before the tribunal, call witnesses and introduce any other evidence. Following the hearing the tribunal will determine in a closed-door session whether the detainee is properly held as an enemy combatant.[7] The criteria by which "another competent tribunal" might do so are specified Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.[8]

An unlawful enemy combatant is defined as one who

has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States
No, ur wrong, it is defined as it is above from the actual bill. You kinda left out some important stuff there.
PS. Kieth Oberman is obviously biased, like one would expect O'Reilly to be, but perhaps with more facts then Kieth. It is notable to say that In Kieth's various count downs O'Reilly has beaten out Osama for the worlds worst person, you be the judge of that great impartiality.
Our rights are being taken away
-not if ur an american, not if ur not deemed a terrorist by a military tribunal.
-so basically only if ur a terrorist.
If you do anything against the government, such as protest, it is now legal for the president to declare you an enemy and jail you without a trial and torture you.
not unless ur attacking people while protesting, notice the word "hostile" in the actual bill.
hos·til·i·ty Pronunciation (h-stl-t)
n. pl. hos·til·i·ties
1. The state of being hostile; antagonism or enmity. See Synonyms at enmity.
a. A hostile act.
b. hostilities Acts of war; overt warfare.

I'm not a lawyer (yet) but when i read it it said that the president could appoint commissions, which means that he doesn't directly decide what happens.
-I think that saying that him being able to appoint a commission is too much power is a little strange, considering... that he could just suspend habeas Corpus altogether, plus war time powers plus executive orders plus.... thats a lot of power, at least untill the senate stops you....
cmpcmp is offline   Reply With Quote