Good-bye Habeus Corpus

Yesterday, President Bush with the stroke of a pen undid more than 200-years of citizens being safe from wrongful or illegal imprisonment. With the signing of the Military Commissions act of 2006, we the people of the United States can be deemed Unlawful Enemy combatants. The president now has unilateral power to deem anyone or any organization and its members as "enemy's of the state" and under this new law said persons can be detained indefinitely or even tortured.


The devil is in the details. Here are the definitions of unlawful combatants as passed by the House of representatives and later the senate and the president.

Military Commisions act of 2006
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.

`(B) CO-BELLIGERENT- In this paragraph, the term `co-belligerent', with respect to the United States, means any State or armed force joining and directly engaged with the United States in hostilities or directly supporting hostilities against a common enemy.

Now you will notice that nowhere inside these definitions are US citizens protected from the over-reaching powers of the executive. This bill was touted as a bill with the tools needed by the intelligence community to protect and serve the American people. Here are some examples of the rules that DO NOT apply to military commissions.

d) Inapplicability of Certain Provisions- (1) The following provisions of this title shall not apply to trial by military commission under this chapter:

`(A) Section 810 (article 10 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), relating to speedy trial, including any rule of courts-martial relating to speedy trial.

`(B) Sections 831(a), (b), and (d) (articles 31(a), (b), and (d) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), relating to compulsory self-incrimination.

`(C) Section 832 (article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), relating to pretrial investigation.

So none of the usual laws apply if you are tried by a military commission. No fifth amendment rights, no right to see the evidence, no right to confront your accusers, no right to a speedy or fair trial. None of these things are enumerated in this and in several cases they are overtly removed or curtailed. How can this possibly be a good thing for the United states. Who are we Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia?

I will depart for just one moment from the actual bill. Here is a totally plausible example. I am a member of DFA, a left wing organizations dedicated to bringing the US back to what we believe is the right path. Now, under the current laws, if the president were to deam that DFA was a terrorist or enemy group, any person who participated in or donated money to DFA could be arrested and held as an enemy combatant.

The framers did not hedge their bets on the hope that politicians and presidents would be angels. The planned for them to try and abuse power. This military commissions act tells we the people that we have to rely on the good intentions and wisdom of whomever is in office regardless of how right or wrong they are.

If you believe that no US president would ever think of abusing his power, than you don't know American History. On both sides of the fence from FDR and his socialist programs to George W and his fascist ones, the pendulum swings from left to right but extremism and political abuse of power are on both sides.

`(e) Treatment of Rulings and Precedents- The findings, holdings, interpretations, and other precedents of military commissions under this chapter may not be introduced or considered in any hearing, trial, or other proceeding of a court-martial convened under chapter 47 of this title. The findings, holdings, interpretations, and other precedents of military commissions under this chapter may not form the basis of any holding, decision, or other determination of a court-martial convened under that chapter.

`(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.

According to the above, which again is not opinion the source for all this information is the Bill itself... there is no editing or removing... I use big quotes for just that reason. Context cannot be argued here. That being said... look at what the above say... the Geneva Conventions cannot be used during trials as a source for rights, meaning you cannot argue that the Geneva convention protects your rights. And then even better, you cannot bring up or argue the legality of the Military Commissions act of 2006 if you are being tried by one. HUH?!?!?!?!

Now you may notice that they have put the word "Alien" into the bill to designate that it can only affect non-citizens. However when signing statements are taken into account and the fact that a citizen can still be an unlawful enemy combatant... do you really feel that being a citizen will be enough to protect you? Do your really think that in a state where you can already receive a national security letter that forbids you from speaking about questions or interrogation that you suffered at the hands of the government that one little word will protect you.... I hope not.

There's more... not only does it retroactively protect all those who "may" have tortured it is also full of vague statements like the following

`(2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence

that was said in regards to information attained by less-than legal means.

My opinion on this bill is evident... but I strongly urge all of you to check out the bill for yourself, and form your own opinions either for or against.

[edit on 18-10-2006 by Elsenorpompom]

[edit on 18-10-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

This will not stand...either the (soon to be) new Democratic controlled congress will roll it back or the Supreme Court will...it would set too dangerous a presedent for them not to. The one thing about the three branches style of government and why it works as checks and balances is that each branch is so jealous of its power that it will only tolerate encroachment upon it for so long before fighting back. That is why American political history can be read as a three way tug-of-war...one branch becomes dominate for awhile and eventually the other ones reassert themselves...after all thats what hte impeachment of Andrew Jackson was all about.

Originally posted by grover
This will not stand...either the (soon to be) new Democratic controlled congress will roll it back or the Supreme Court will...i

Sorry, Grover, but I think you'll find that the GOP just maintain control in the November elrctions even if the polls say otherwise. Another rigged election will sail by without a fuss... and the Supreme Court won't help either. It's going to get ugly.

I think not...the mood nationally is far more sour than in 94. Even if they JUST hold on...that just means that they will be unable to govern without the Democrats...man that will stick in the craw...but they won't be able to do anything about it. Besides that they can only win by 1 or 2% so many times before the scam is exposed....especially in races where the Demos have considerable leads.

[edit on 20-10-2006 by grover]

Originally posted by grover
This will not stand

How do you figure that, considering most Americans outside of sites such as this has no clue what is going on within the government? They may here about new laws as this, but only for the 30second slapshot in the mainstream media.

Citizens can't protest what they don't know exists.

Misfit

Reread what I said. It won't be about what the citizens protest...its about checks and balances. It has happened many times and the pendelum always swings back. I expect the next president will have to deal with a far more assertive congress....and if we are lucky this one will have to as well.

[edit on 20-10-2006 by grover]

Good summary, I'm north of the 49th parallel and the BS that's happening in the US now is unprecedented. Rigged elections (Diebold), detainment camps (enemy combatants, dissidents) assassination's. It seems there are some Americans in the know, but probably not enough to affect change ..

How many posters here are already on Govt watch lists, I maintain that a lot are. So who will be prepared when the knock comes? Just a thought.

SD

[edit on 20-10-2006 by SD-JH543]

GREAT post Elsenorpompom.

grover - You are banking on our system's checks and balances - and ignoring the fact that these checks and balances have been dismantled by the Bush administration.

Virtually any 'response' by cooler heads can be blocked with reference to a complex net of Executive Orders, emergency measures, acts, new laws, and so on.

imo - It ain't gonna happen without a public outcry. And as was stated above, people can't complain if they don't know what's happening.


.

I asked this in another thread pertaining to this act, but have as yet not found the answer. Part of this act reads:

``(3) ALIEN.--The term `alien' means a person who is not
a citizen of the United States.

...and another part specifies:

948c. Persons subject to military commissions
``Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by
military commission under this chapter.

My question is: does this mean that U.S. citizens are not subject to the military commissions this act establishes the authority to convene? I am very concerned by many of the laws created (and many changes to existing laws) since 9-11, and am staunchly opposed to any erosion of civil liberties that may possibly be occurring as a result. However, I feel that because there has been a great deal of media attention paid to these issues (as there should be, in my opinion,) it is at least possible that sometimes we interpret things without fully understanding them. As such, I would like to know if anyone with legal experience or expertise can interpret the above elements of this act and tell us whether, when taken together, they exempt U.S. citizens from these commissions. This act appears to grant authority, conceivably, to declare U.S. citizens to be unlawful enemy combatants, but it appears that there exists the possibility that it does not grant authority to declare U.S. citizens to be alien unlawful enemy combatants, and that it further specifies that only alien unlawful enemy combatants may be subject to these commissions. Anyone?

Personally, even if the above is true, I would still take issue with this act. Those are my personal feelings regarding how “alien” individuals should be treated legally, though. For the purposes of this post, I’m concerned only with specifying the scope of this act rather than espousing those feelings (which would be highly critical of this act, incidentally.) I say that only to point out that I’m in no way defending the act by posing this question.

Originally posted by soficrowAnd as was stated above, people can't complain if they don't know what's happening.

Or more likely, don't care. What I see is people just don't give a damn. Every time I bring the MCA2006 up with family members they look at me like I'm crazy or paranoid or both. "Nothing will happen to us... You need to quit visiting that conspiracy site." It's ridiculous that people are so willing to let this administration continually whittle away at our constitutional rights without so much even blinking an eye... it's almost like people are walking around hypnotized. It goes to show how affective 9/11 was.

Originally posted by AceWombat04
My question is: does this mean that U.S. citizens are not subject to the military commissions this act establishes the authority to convene?

I hear people arguing for the MCA2006 (not you necessarily) bring up the fact that it only applies to foreigners. If you, a US citizen, do something the administration deems as “terrorism”, whatever that may be, do you think for a minute that your “citizenship” will save you? To me that’s an awfully thin string to be holding on to.

Besides, who’s to say this isn’t the first step… that a couple months down the road Bush signs another one of his executive orders or they pass an amendment under the radar that makes the MCA2006 apply to anyone deemed a “terrorist” regardless of citizenship? It wouldn’t take much. If anything, I see it much easier and likely to go in that direction than for this thing to be changed by the Democrats a few years from now or ruled unlawful by the Supreme Courts.

[edit on 20-10-2006 by mecheng]

Originally posted by mecheng
If you, a US citizen, do something the administration deems as “terrorism”, whatever that may be, do you think for a minute that your “citizenship” will save you? To me that’s an awfully thin string to be holding on to.
...
Besides, who’s to say this isn’t the first step… that a couple months down the road Bush signs another one of his executive orders or they pass an amendment under the radar that makes the MCA2006 apply to anyone deemed a “terrorist” regardless of citizenship? [edit on 20-10-2006 by mecheng]

That is, indeed, my fear as well. I just feel it's important to clearly understand where we all stand legally - citizens and otherwise - at every step along the way as this process unfolds. From a purely technical and legal standpoint, I'm just curious as to whether this apparent limitation to "alien" persons truly is in place or not. I'm not a lawyer, and lack the experience and knowledge necessary to determine that by reading the act, which is why I'm posing the question. I agree that it may merely be a difference between now versus later and that concerns me greatly, but I think a full and comprehensive understanding of our laws is something worth having.

Such limitation by no means causes me to embrace this act or other similar laws; on the contrary, I personally oppose any action which separates treatment of citizens from treatment of non-citizens (I firmly believe in equality of treatment for all human beings.) That's a personal conviction though, whereas my post was an attempt to ascertain the technical scope of this act in its present form. I concur that concern is by no means unreasonable, however, even if that limitation is present, be it merely implied or emphatic.

(Edit to shorten quote.)

[edit on 20-10-2006 by AceWombat04]

Yes Grover the Supreme COurt will... Do nothing. They are republican controlled and even before Bush put two members in they illegally voted Bush into office. Nowhere in the constitution does it say the Supreme COurt can vote who becomes president yet they did. So I don't think any republican worries about the law.

It's illegal to molest children yet look at Foley...
It's illegal to take bribes and how ever many thousands extra in contributions yet look at Abramoff...
It's illegal to torture so Bush and Co changed the definition of torture then said it was ok becuase the GC didn't apply to anyone Bush said it didn't apply to...
It's illegal to restrict freedom of speech minus death threat or fire in a place with no fire yet Bush since he got into office has forced anyone who doesn't sign a contract that says they support him into "free speech zones" sometimes miles away from where he is speaking...
It's illegal to invade a country because you feel like it yet look at Iraq, is it any different then Hitler's BS excuse to invade Poland?(Unite the German Speaking People)
It was illegal to hire druggies and other non-qualified people into the army but the army fell short of numbers so they changed the standards to let druggies and crippled people in to fill numbers...
Heck, doing drugs are illegal yet Bush was caught on tape admitting to smoking pot a lot and did community service for coke...
It's illegal to have state sponsored propaganda but Bush and Co got caught putting out fake news reports and fake experts to spout propaganda on TV and on Fox News...

Do you think these people care about the law? Dang, give me CLinton and Slick Willy Scandal any day over this. At least with Willy only a few sperm get killed but Bush? What was the Iraq death count up to, 655,000?

[edit on 20-10-2006 by HoorahUSMC]

The supreme court justices have always been the most unpredictable branch of government. Despite their records before appointment, once sitting, the majority of justices have a habit of thinking for themselves, party affiliation aside. very few have been so partisan as Scalia or Thomas. And I think in the long run you will see the same in this court...it will most certianly tilt right but not to the degree the idiotlogues who pushed for them think.

Ha ha ha!

We here at ATS know a lot and are educated as to whats what.

I'd like to have a microphone and a camera rolling and stand downtown and ask people what they think this means, this latest edict by our president.

For one thing, they wouldnt know Habeus Corpus if it bit them on the leg, much less what any of this implies.

No wonder people are still running around, with a smile on their faces.

Ha ha ha.

The supreme court justices have always been the most unpredictable branch of government.

The majority of the supreme court is in Bush's hands. Also, the supreme court don't have anymore the power to judge against the MCA2006, it's even stated in the same document.

Also, this MCA2006 is also applicable in Canada, I learned this today... So any canadian ``terrorist`` won't have any trial, will go in jail and be subject to torture.

And as Olbermann said,

If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an “unlawful enemy combatant”—exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not? Do you think this attorney general is going to help you?

Originally posted by Vitchilo

The supreme court justices have always been the most unpredictable branch of government.

The majority of the supreme court is in Bush's hands. Also, the supreme court don't have anymore the power to judge against the MCA2006, it's even stated in the same document.

Also, this MCA2006 is also applicable in Canada, I learned this today... So any canadian ``terrorist`` won't have any trial, will go in jail and be subject to torture.

HMMM...I don't think that either of those clauses would stand....the first would be blatantly unconstitutional. No law is above review or repeal and no law that I know of has ever been declared inviolate. As for the second, the Canadian parliement would have to sign off on it and would have to relinquish some of its sovereignity to the United States and I know of no government (accept perhaps Iraq as it stands right now) that would be willing to do that. Also if the US just went ahead and put that in of its own accord, it still wouldn't have force unless Canada went along with it.

The thing about the American form of government is as I have said before, checks and balances and those checks and balances are maintained because each branch is protective of its own power...it has always worked as a 3 way tug-of-war. Even FDR, a far more powerful president than Bush ever dreamed of being could not stack the court to his liking and he actually tried. After all presidents come and go but the Justices are there for 20 or 30 years, and that very fact prevents them from being too ideological. I do not doubt that Bush has tried to stack the court in his favor...but hey even if he succeeded, it would only be temporary.