Habeas Corpus (1215 - 2006)

[FightingForFreedom]

After a good almost 800 year run, habeas corpus is finally dead.
The killer? Congress.
The weapon? Military Commissions Act of 2006

Essentialy, this bill finally sets a definition for "enemy combatent" - basically whoever Bush decides is one. It also gives the Combatant Status Review Tribunal, an Executive organization (that Bush runs as a president), complete power over deciding whether or not the President is correct.

The implication is that much like that of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which allowed the president (at the time John Adams) the ability to detain prisoners indefinitely and without presenting any evidence.

The law also allows such actions to be carried out on both citizens and non-citizens of the United States. Oh, yea, and people who are detained this way aren't protected by the Geniva convention so torture of them is A-OK!

Seriously. They exist to protect us, but whose protecting us from them?

[LazyDrunk]

At 10/18/06 03:43 PM, FightingForFreedom wrote: Seriously. They exist to protect us, but whose protecting us from them?

I'll bet you a dollar to a donut hole it's not the apathetic voting block.

[EnragedSephiroth]

It is the apathetic voting block unfortunately. It's a bill right now, let's hope it doesn't become law.

[Neoptolemus]

At 10/18/06 04:01 PM, Grammer wrote: This bill does not endorse torture, don't give me that bollocks.

It endorses coerced "evidence" via cruel and inhuman means i.e. torture.

[FightingForFreedom]

At 10/18/06 04:01 PM, Grammer wrote: I am glad this bill passed. Enemy combatants don't have constitutional rights. As long as they are given trial when the war is over, I see no problem with this bill.

Right, but who decides who is a Enemy Combatant?

Is a protester of President Bush an enemy combatent?
What about someone who tries to assasinate him? If so, was Lee Harvey Oswald an enemy combatent?
What about someone who works for to impeaching the president - is he an attacker of America?
What about a disagreeing member of the Senate, a left wing comentator, a liberal judge... are they enemy combatents?

Its ridiculous, the line is so vague that anyone and everyone can be held or detained.

[EnragedSephiroth]

At 10/18/06 04:01 PM, Grammer wrote: I am glad this bill passed. Enemy combatants don't have constitutional rights. As long as they are given trial when the war is over, I see no problem with this bill.

Yes perhaps if the war were a quickie but mind you there are wars which last for decades and we're no exception. What if you spent 15-years in guantanamo bay on false accusations you were a possible enemy combatant? What if you had family? The only thing you can't get back in life is time, there is no monetary compensation for that, it goes beyond just money.

This bill does not endorse torture, don't give me that bollocks.

Even without the bill some prisoners had already been subjected to torture. What makes you think conditions are going to improve if it becomes legal to obtain information from them through other means?

[SirXVII]

Habeas Corpus has been having spotty backdrafts here and there. Always in a time of war the US gives up some civil liberties.

Licoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the civil war.

Anyway, this situation is more and more concuring and its the apathetic people who say, "Eh whatever they have to do to protect me" or "Eh, there's nothing we can do to stop it."

That's the majority of Americans too.

I could go on a long tanget on how our society itself has made us lazier, selfish, and spoiled, but that is a whole nother topic.

The fact is that, in the end, we ultimatly will be the ones to blame for our problems.

[SirXVII]

At 10/18/06 04:45 PM, Grammer wrote:
It's called coercive interrogation and it isn't torture.

Oh, so we've redefined the meaning of torture?

It's okay is some guy has to stand up for 24 hours and hold a rock over his head and can't sleep. Nope, thats not torture. It's "coercive interrogation".

Oh and it's also okay to blast loud music to them constantly. Cause its not torture.

It's "coercive interrogation".

Right.

[FightingForFreedom]

At 10/18/06 04:48 PM, Grammer wrote: Terrorists don't deserve the same constitutional rights afforded to American citizens, and we have no obligation to give them any.

You are missing the point. This definition can apply to ANYONE - not just terrorists. The only criteria that is specified to become an Enemy Combatent (Terrorist) is that you have to go against the American government.

Of course I believe that terrorists don't deserve the same rights, but that doesn't justify giving the President carte blanche power to tell us who is a terrorist and who isn't. Thats why we have a judicial system. If the Supreme Court were to declare a person an enemy combatent I would have no problem with this bill.

The problem is that this bill makes the President become the judge, jury and executioner when in reality the constitution only allows him to be the latter.

[Tancrisism]

And yes, they may not have constitutional rights, but they still should have the rights granted by the Geneva Convention.

[SkyCube]

At 10/18/06 04:49 PM, SirXVII wrote: Oh and it's also okay to blast loud music to them constantly. Cause its not torture.

From what I understand, they played them extreme metal and grindcore.

That's not torture, that's good!

[Elfer]

George Bush has got to be one of the best kings your country has ever had.

[LardLord]

At 10/18/06 06:10 PM, Elfer wrote: George Bush has got to be one of the best kings your country has ever had.

That quote is so awesome its going into my sig.

[wwwyzzerdd]

At 10/18/06 04:45 PM, Grammer wrote: It's called coercive interrogation and it isn't torture.

Is this the whole "it's not creationism, but 'intelligent design'" type of wording? In other words; they don't beat a confession out of you, they may result to physically obtaining information.

It saves lives:
http://en.wikipedia...wer#Terrorist_target

It even says in that article that those dates do not add up. Also, wide criticism was laid upon the validity of there actually being a plot against Los Angeles. LA mayor Antonio Villaraigosa even criticized Bush's speech, stating that he was never informed of any possible attack upon becoming mayor, as he would then work to secure downtown LA.

[EnragedSephiroth]

At 10/18/06 04:34 PM, SirXVII wrote: Anyway, this situation is more and more concuring and its the apathetic people who say, "Eh whatever they have to do to protect me" or "Eh, there's nothing we can do to stop it."

Thank you!

That's the majority of Americans too.

Yes!

I could go on a long tanget on how our society itself has made us lazier, selfish, and spoiled, but that is a whole nother topic.

You're right, it is.

The fact is that, in the end, we ultimatly will be the ones to blame for our problems.

We will, and no amount of "coercive action" is going to solve shit unless we learn to take action. Apparently the populous has forgotten they are responsible for shaping government and electing their leaders. That is not the responsibility of the government but of the educated and informed citizenry.

[Sir-S-Of-TURBO]

At 10/18/06 06:10 PM, Elfer wrote: George Bush has got to be one of the best kings your country has ever had.

Yeah the former George didnt manage to fool the public to think "Move along people everything is ok, nothing to see here" without him saying it.

[FightingForFreedom]

Torture.
Coercive Action.
Tough Interrogation.

Whatever you want to call it... John McCain said it best:

"I was once physically coerced to provide my enemies with the names of the members of my flight squadron, information that had little if any value to my enemies as actionable intelligence. But I did not refuse, or repeat my insistence that I was required under the Geneva Conventions to provide my captors only with my name, rank and serial number. Instead, I gave them the names of the Green Bay Packers' offensive line, knowing that providing them false information was sufficient to suspend the abuse."

More importantly...

"Obviously, to defeat our enemies we need intelligence, but intelligence that is reliable. We should not torture or treat inhumanely terrorists we have captured. The abuse of prisoners harms, not helps, our war effort. In my experience, abuse of prisoners often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to hear—whether it is true or false—if he believes it will relieve his suffering. "

[SirLebowski]

Seriously, sometimes I look at the government in general and see a bunch of old senile men who couldn't run a Dairy Queen let alone a country.

And times like these I see them as all these diabolical evil geniuses that just gradually slip in these horrible bills inbetween pointless and petty crap.

[EnragedSephiroth]

At 10/18/06 08:39 PM, FightingForFreedom wrote: "Obviously, to defeat our enemies we need intelligence, but intelligence that is reliable. We should not torture or treat inhumanely terrorists we have captured. The abuse of prisoners harms, not helps, our war effort. In my experience, abuse of prisoners often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to hear—whether it is true or false—if he believes it will relieve his suffering. "

Well said John McCain. So in effect, this bill won't accomplish much but to leave one of our freedoms in suspsense: the freedom to a trial and evidence than you in fact did something. Even if you can hold terrorrists, interrogate them, beat them and so on... it does not guarantee you will get accurate or even truthful information from them. So again, how did the military commissions bill of 2006 get passed by congress? Get on the phone and on your emails and contact your congress people!

[Proteas]

At 10/18/06 08:39 PM, FightingForFreedom wrote: Whatever you want to call it... John McCain said it best:

:"I was once physically coerced

Never mind the fact that he was beaten on a daily basis, starved, and forced to live in his own shit for 5 and a half years.... torture's torture, right?

Next time you see John McCain, wave at him for me. Make sure it's one of those over-the-head waves too, I'm sure he'll appreciate the gesture seeing as how he can't raise his arms above his shoulders anymore.

[EnragedSephiroth]

At 10/18/06 08:57 PM, Proteas wrote: Next time you see John McCain, wave at him for me. Make sure it's one of those over-the-head waves too, I'm sure he'll appreciate the gesture seeing as how he can't raise his arms above his shoulders anymore.

Is it just me or does McCain look kind of like a chipmunk? Anyway, I don't think the news is giving the military commissions bill enough attention. I see FOX and CNN talking about upcoming elections but hello? Does anyone notice this shit got passed? They talk about it briefly but never go into detail. Am I missing something?

[Freemind]

At 10/18/06 04:45 PM, Grammer wrote: It's called coercive interrogation and it isn't torture.

Yeah, I don't fart, I break wind.

[troubles1]

At 10/18/06 03:43 PM, FightingForFreedom wrote:
Seriously. They exist to protect us, but whose protecting us from them?

LOOK as long as you don't want to bomb the American people or be involved in some extremist movement you will be OK. the only people this bill will effect is pieces of crap who don't care about human rights in the first place so it just gives our interrogator's some teeth witch will allow them to do there job better, because now the enemy knows that if they don't cooperate with us we can and will, make there lives very uncomfortable.

[FightingForFreedom]

At 10/18/06 08:57 PM, Proteas wrote: Never mind the fact that he was beaten on a daily basis, starved, and forced to live in his own shit for 5 and a half years.... torture's torture, right?

Next time you see John McCain, wave at him for me. Make sure it's one of those over-the-head waves too, I'm sure he'll appreciate the gesture seeing as how he can't raise his arms above his shoulders anymore.

Did you even read the post? I'm against torture. Im using John McCain as proof because he was tortured and did not give reliable information, thus showing how those tortured will say anything to end the pain. Got it?

[MoralLibertarian]

At 10/18/06 03:43 PM, FightingForFreedom wrote: After a good almost 800 year run, habeas corpus is finally dead.
The killer? Congress.
The weapon? Military Commissions Act of 2006

Essentialy, this bill finally sets a definition for "enemy combatent" - basically whoever Bush decides is one. It also gives the Combatant Status Review Tribunal, an Executive organization (that Bush runs as a president), complete power over deciding whether or not the President is correct.

Lies. It cannot be a citizen. It can only be an alien. Under the law, if a Mexican immigrant came over to this country legally, she could be taken and called an "enemy combatant," but her daughter who was born here could not be because she's a citizen.

Whether it will be upheld is another question entirely. Maybe you should learn about the bill you talk about before you noob it up here.

[SirXVII]

At 10/18/06 06:02 PM, ClottedCreamFudge wrote:
From what I understand, they played them extreme metal and grindcore.

That's not torture, that's good!

You have to understand the culture and the undoubtable fact that they are playing loud music at full volume so they CAN'T get any sleep and are obviously going to have hearing problems.

Top it off with the fact that some of these people haven't even heard this kind of music and you got a nice dandy torture method.

It's okay though because it's not PHYSICAL abuse, but whatever, we gotta find someway to get our enemies to cooperate.

[FightingForFreedom]

At 10/18/06 11:40 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Lies. It cannot be a citizen. It can only be an alien.

Here is the defnition that the Military Commissions Act sets:

--------------------

(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.

--------------------

That is a direct excerpt of the entire definition.

Full text is available here:
Source Text 1 (Library of Congress) and Source Text 2 (George Washinton University) and

When the United States Congress defines UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT this is the only definition it now goes by. Nowhere in the definition of UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT does it include the word ALIEN.

The word ALIEN by itself defined later on, but the definition of UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT never includes the word ALIEN. Period.

Whether it will be upheld is another question entirely. Maybe you should learn about the bill you talk about before you noob it up here.

I appreciate your concern, but you're wrong.

[JMHX]

It's like standing between two walls and shouting. They're not going to come away with anything, and your head is just going to hurt from the echo.

Those who are for this bill will be uncompromising in their support for it and all of its provisions as the only just and proper way to follow through with the war on terror. Its opponents will see it as nothing more than an infringement on civil liberties, a threat to justice, a dangerous precedent ripe for abuse by future leaders.

Both are right.

Please fightingforfreedom why are you so damn weak?

[Elfer]

At 10/18/06 10:51 PM, troubles1 wrote:

At 10/18/06 03:43 PM, FightingForFreedom wrote:
Seriously. They exist to protect us, but whose protecting us from them?

LOOK as long as you don't want to bomb the American people or be involved in some extremist movement you will be OK.

Unless you have a name that's pretty close to the name of a terrorist, or you say a word that sounds kind of like "airplane" while you talk to someone on the phone.

Then you might be held and tortured in a foreign black site for months or years without ever being charged with anything.