Habeas Corpus R.I.P.

[0=]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5517942312906824233&q=october+17+the+day+america+died&hl=en

Mmm this is wonderful, all hail, King George VII. Congress handed the president ultimate power and everyone sat by. Our rights are being taken away, please feel free to comment, no flames.

[Phantom]

You are getting fed leftist propaganda.
For your sake please stop.
----------------------
Didn't this bill not pass?
I also don't agree with taking away Habeas Corpus.
I don't even think its that.
If you are a terrorist you can be held without a trial.
So don't worry if you are not planing to kill americans and blow up infidels you have nothing to fear.
So popo please stop with the leftist bullshit its ruining debates.

[0=]

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.

[Phantom]

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.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but isnt this the bill that DIDN'T pass.
Even if it did I am against it on some aspects.
But the goverment can't imprison you for protesting and then torture you.
If it can please cite the section that says that instead of showing your BS propaganda video that is hosted by a fucktard.
Thank you
If you CAN cite the section that says you can be picked up off the street labeled a combatant and tortured I will be with you on this one.

[0=]

In case you didn't notice, that fucktard quoted the exact wording of the bill.

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.

They just have to declare you an enemy combatant and you're screwed.

It is also unconstitutional.

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.

We haven't been invaded by an opposing army, but there sure as hell better be a rebellion if they take away more rights.

An unlawful enemy combatant is defined as one who

has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States

The bill permits any interrogation techniques that do not involve serious pain, which is defined as bodily injury that involves extreme physical pain.

They are permitted to call anyone in the world an enemy combatant; you have the right to respond to evidence against you, but not to examine it. They have the right to torture you in any manner that does not cause "serious pain", meaning you may be tied up in an uncomfortable position in a cold room while being starved and subjected to extreme noise and light conditions.

[Phantom]

Sooo don't go around trying to kill infidels and you will be fine.

has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a combatant status review tribunal or another competent tribunal
Sure looks like the president or King george the second can capture you at will.

I do not agree with torture unless we are under dire circumstances.

popo just so you know there are people out there and some IN the US that want to KILL you. They will KILL themselves just to kill you.
Does that mean anything to you?

[0=]

How about the guy who was arrested for selling a satellite tv package that included The Hezbolla Network?

[Whisper]

How about the guy who was arrested for selling a satellite tv package that included The Hezbolla Network?
Hezbolla is a major terrorist organization
they use that network to recruit soliders
you fuckin rights he should be arrested
hes a terrorist recruiter
aka a terrorist
aka do not pass go, do not collect $200

Chronicle ----> debate

[0=]

What is the evidence against him? He's not even allowed to see it, nor is he going to be given a trial.

[Hyper]

GO USA!!!!!!! I am just amazed how millions of people are unable to understand that in reality we have barely any rights. And the only thing keeping us away from total monarhy is 80% of the population who dont favour it and who could 'rebel'

[cmpcmp]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006#Scope_of_the_Act

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
-senate
Republicans 53 1 0
Democrats 12 33 1
-house
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.
2.
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....

[Phantom]

GO USA!!!!!!! I am just amazed how millions of people are unable to understand that in reality we have barely any rights. And the only thing keeping us away from total monarhy is 80% of the population who dont favour it and who could 'rebel'YOU have almost no right to talk because YOU don't live here.
Incase you havn't noticed NOTHING has changed after these bills were passed.
I am not saying I agree with them or not.
I am just showing that we are not a fascist nation.
INFACT we are or were the freest nation in the world because we have a constitution which is the law of the land. I GUARANTEES our rights.
My favorite right which barely any other country's get is the right to bear arms :D which I will be exercising in a few hours :D

[Phantom]

Good job cmpcmp.
How are you so good at finding this stuff?
Well you certainly owned myself and the rest of us.

[cmpcmp]

o, I forgot,
-"torture" is not allowed in any way at anytime during the trial/confinement of an enemy combatant.

--The working definition of torture still prevents people from doing "severe" physical or mental harm. this banns things like
-water withholding
-beating
-and other such things.

One thing that is important to remember is that if you go strictly by the Geneva rules for a POW you can't interrogate them at all, and "degrading" treatment is also illegal. SO for example we would no longer be able to use female CIA interrogators because it is an unnecessary humiliation of most terrorists religions.

[Hyper]

Do you guys actualy think the nations who do interrigate terrorists.. And individuals who they well lets say dont favour, do you actualy think they follow the 'laws' ?

[Phantom]

Do you guys actualy think the nations who do interrigate terrorists.. And individuals who they well lets say dont favour, do you actualy think they follow the 'laws' ?Well even if this bill didn't pass they could just break the law anyway :rolleyes: