Political Crossfire Forums

[Atlas Bergeron]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.6166:

A bill is being passed, I just heard about it.
The section that most concerns me is in "Sec. 948d. Jurisdiction of military commisions" b and c

"`(b) Lawful Enemy Combatants- Military commissions under this chapter shall not have jurisdiction over lawful enemy combatants. Lawful enemy combatants who violate the law of war are subject to chapter 47 of this title. Courts-martial established under that chapter shall have jurisdiction to try a lawful enemy combatant for any offense made punishable under this chapter.

`(c) Determination of Unlawful Enemy Combatant Status Dispositive- A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter."

Some things which are included in the bill include:
Sec. 949a. (2) '(B)Evidence shall not be excluded from trial by military commission on the grounds that the evidence was not seized pursuant to a search warrant or other authorization.

`(C) A statement of the accused that is otherwise admissible shall not be excluded from trial by military commission on grounds of alleged coercion or compulsory self-incrimination so long as the evidence complies with the provisions of section 948r of this title.

'(E)
`(ii) Hearsay evidence not otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence applicable in trial by general courts-martial shall not be admitted in a trial by military commission if the party opposing the admission of the evidence demonstrates that the evidence is unreliable or lacking in probative value.

`(F) The military judge shall exclude any evidence the probative value of which is substantially outweighed--

`(i) by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the commission; or

`(ii) by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence."

To me, this looks like a convienient way to take away all our rights--by giving the "Combatent Review Tribunal" (Which is set up not by congress, or the people, but by the president or secretary general) the power to declare any person an 'unlawful enemy combatent' they have effectively created a loophole by which to have secret millitary trials. I am not a legal scholar, so I needed your opinion.

*title edited by John Galt

[Atlas Bergeron]

oh, and if that is what it means, then

EVERYONE NEEDS TO BUY A GUN NOW!!!!

assault rifle preferably, and maybe some grenades.

[LostSoul3412]

I fail to see the problem here...

[justathought]

I see no problem, or constitutional question here if you are an American citizen.
But, if you are a professed American who wishes to become an enemy of America through joining known terrorist groups, and thereby assist any enemy of America in insurrection, or becoming a terrorist. Then, you have a problem.
Otherwise. As an American citizen. You keep, and maintain all protections granted to you under the Constitution, and you have all rights to a speedy, civil trial.
Recommendation. If you want to maintain your rights, and access to a trial by jury according to our constitution. STAY LEGAL.

[Medius]

justathought wrote: I see no problem, or constitutional question here if you are an American citizen.
But, if you are a professed American who wishes to become an enemy of America through joining known terrorist groups, and thereby assist any enemy of America in insurrection, or becoming a terrorist. Then, you have a problem.
Otherwise. As an American citizen. You keep, and maintain all protections granted to you under the Constitution, and you have all rights to a speedy, civil trial.
Recommendation. If you want to maintain your rights, and access to a trial by jury according to our constitution. STAY LEGAL.

When the difference between legal and illegal is a subjective opinion, you may find that your choices are limited.

Even a citizen of the United States who materially aids a terrorist in blowing up a building full of children should be given their full due process. The bill of rights aren't there to protect the guilty, they are there to protect the innocent. The problem is that to protect the innocent from abuses of power, you must protect the guilty as there is no way to differentiate between the two in a society of secrecy.

[bigstick61]

Quite right. In our judicial system, there is always a presumption of innocence. With the rules in this bill, one could be accused of aiding a terrorist with little real grounds for it. The rights to due process are inalienable, and are something which are possessed by all persons; being a right, the Constitution does not differentiate between citizens and other persons. Therefore, this law is illegal.

[Optimusdinkus]

I really want to film something, bassically printing for myself or a few friends false ids of terrorist origione, or documents, running around the town in a pickup with shaus on our heads screaming in aeribic a solgan of such, and see how fast we would be sacked, or killed because of the following, and show the gestapo of homeland for what it really is. s**t all I have to do is call the FBI on Supposed terms of a buisness in leu of terrorist activites to have someones rights questioned. LORD LOVE THE USA.

[psholtz]

The best way to terrify the criminals who pass such "laws" and get them to back off is to RELENTLESSLY expose the crimes they have committed.

[LostSoul3412]

psholtz wrote: The best way to terrify the criminals who pass such "laws" and get them to back off is to RELENTLESSLY expose the crimes they have committed.

:tu:

Not only expose them, but also punish them as regular citizens.

[psholtz]

LostSoul3412 wrote: psholtz wrote: The best way to terrify the criminals who pass such "laws" and get them to back off is to RELENTLESSLY expose the crimes they have committed.

:tu:

Not only expose them, but also punish them as regular citizens.
Yes, exactly... :-D

[Medius]

psholtz wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: psholtz wrote: The best way to terrify the criminals who pass such "laws" and get them to back off is to RELENTLESSLY expose the crimes they have committed.

:tu:

Not only expose them, but also punish them as regular citizens.
Yes, exactly... :-D

I am in perfect agreement, but I must say that we are at a severe disadvantage. The people have very little in the way of investigative powers.

[LostSoul3412]

Medius wrote: psholtz wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: psholtz wrote: The best way to terrify the criminals who pass such "laws" and get them to back off is to RELENTLESSLY expose the crimes they have committed.

:tu:

Not only expose them, but also punish them as regular citizens.
Yes, exactly... :-D

I am in perfect agreement, but I must say that we are at a severe disadvantage. The people have very little in the way of investigative powers.

I'm not talking about the people, I'm talking about the police, FBI, CIA, Department of Homeland Security, and any other organization that has the power to investigate and charge individuals to the fullest extent of the law. Politicians should be instilled with the fear of God in the face of the law.

[Medius]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Medius wrote: psholtz wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: psholtz wrote: The best way to terrify the criminals who pass such "laws" and get them to back off is to RELENTLESSLY expose the crimes they have committed.

:tu:

Not only expose them, but also punish them as regular citizens.
Yes, exactly... :-D

I am in perfect agreement, but I must say that we are at a severe disadvantage. The people have very little in the way of investigative powers.

I'm not talking about the people, I'm talking about the police, FBI, CIA, Department of Homeland Security, and any other organization that has the power to investigate and charge individuals to the fullest extent of the law. Politicians should be instilled with the fear of God in the face of the law.

The police don't have jurisdiction. The FBI will not defend our constitution from the politicians. The CIA has no jurisdiction. The DHS has no motivation to defend the constitution as its very words preclude its existence.

When it comes to the constition the only check on the federal government is the states and the people respectively.

[LostSoul3412]

Medius wrote: The police don't have jurisdiction. The FBI will not defend our constitution from the politicians. The CIA has no jurisdiction. The DHS has no motivation to defend the constitution as its very words preclude its existence.

Then they should, or should be dismantled for failing to perform their duties.

Medius wrote: When it comes to the constition the only check on the federal government is the states and the people respectively.

Then we're in bigger trouble than I thought...

But I'm not talking about Constitution, I'm talking about any criminal activity.

[Erazmus]

I happened to come across Military Commissions Act of 2006 by accident, and I'm glad I did, although I had to do some digging, it wasn't on the forefront of the news. A few days ago I was searching the typical news sites when I found an interesting quote by George W. Bush.

Quote: Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, It's just a goddamned piece of paper!

Reported on December 5th, 2005.
source: Capitol Hill Blue.com
source: Prison Planet.com

Now, I've never been a Bush supporter. I've always found him a few cans short of a six pack, but that statement is simply the ridiculous ramblings of a power hungry hawk. Fascinated, I did a little more research. And here are some things that I’ve found.

Quote: When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers.
...
Quote: Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9, calling it ''a piece of legislation that's vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people." But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a ''signing statement," an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.

In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties."

Bush wrote: ''The executive branch shall construe the provisions . . . that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch . . . in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information . . . "

The statement represented the latest in a string of high-profile instances in which Bush has cited his constitutional authority to bypass a law.

Reported on March 24, 2006.
source: Boston.com
source: Buzzflash.com

In my searches, I also found this YouTube link that is a recording of a MSNBC news broadcast interviewing Jonathan Turley, a Constitutional Law expert and a teacher at The George Washington University Law School. He talks about the laws that the Bush Administration violates and the type of people he puts into power.

source: YouTube.com

Now, it was at this point where I discovered the Military Commissions Act of 2006. And I was aghast at what it meant, the removal of Habeas Corpus.

Quote: On 29 September 2006, the U.S. House and Senate approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006, a bill which would suspend habeas corpus for any alien determined to be an "unlawful enemy combatant engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States"[2], [1] by a vote of 65-34. (This was the result on the bill to approve the military trials for detainees; an amendment to remove the suspension of habeas corpus failed 48-51.) President Bush signed the Military Commissons Act of 2006 into law on October 17, 2006.

According to the ACLU, this bill "removes important checks on the president by: failing to protect due process, eliminating habeas corpus for many detainees, undermining enforcement of the Geneva Conventions, and giving a "get out of jail free card" to senior officials who authorized or ordered illegal torture and abuse." According to Christopher Anders, an ACLU Legislative Counsel, "nothing could be less American than a government that can indefinitely hold people in secret torture cells, take away their protections against horrific and cruel abuse, put them on trial based on evidence that they cannot see, sentence them to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and then slam shut the courthouse door for any habeas petition, but that’s exactly what Congress just approved."

source: WikiPedia.org

It was at this point that I needed more information, so I did some searching specifically on the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Quote: The Act authorizes the President or the Secretary of Defense, via a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or a competent tribunal, to designate any person - including an American citizen - as an unlawful enemy combatant, without guidelines for making that designation. [See part ii of the definition below.] These tribunals are distinct from the military commissions which this Act defines. These tribunals determine whether or not a person is an unlawful enemy combatant, but the military commissions try persons held under this Act if charges are ever brought.

§ 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.

The Act also permits the President to determine which conduct violates the Geneva Conventions except in the case of grave breaches (see Section 6(a)(3) of the bill), while removing the ability of any person to invoke the Geneva Conventions in court (see Section 5(a) of the bill)[4].

source: WikiPedia.org

Knowing now that an amendment to try and revoke the suspension of habeas corpus failed 48-51, I found this clip of Senator Barack Obama promoting the removal of the suspension before the vote that failed.

source: Senator Barack Obama (Part 1) - Youtube
source: Senator Barack Obama (Part 2) - Youtube

I also found a news report from MSNBC on this Military Act. It kind of puts things into perspective.

Countdown Report on Habeas Corpus - Youtube

Just to top everything off. I want to include a clip of former Nixon aide, John Dean who explains how the bush administration uses fear and terrorism as a tool to push their agendas. It's very interesting.

source: John Dean - Youtube

I hope the research I've done will help you guys, and also help people see how disturbing this new act is. If you guys want more links and such, just ask. I have them. I'm still reading up on everything.

[bigstick61]

It would also appear, based upon what is written in the act, that the right to due process could theoretically be denied in cases of treason as well, as an American declared as an enemy combatant could be charged with it.

[evilWombat]

I've read through some of the act, and I'm horrified. The act does make frequent use of the term "alien" but it is conspicuously absent from the definition of "lawful enemy combatant". This is an outright assault on civil liberties, the kind of radical change that can only be legally accomplished by a constitutional amendment. If they think they can ram one of those down our throats, they should try it instead of working around the constitution.

Hopefully, Justices Roberts and Alito have some kind of constitutional conscience. This law will almost certainly go to the Supreme Court, where it deserves to be struck down. With the new Bush appointees, however, we may not get the justice we deserve.