It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Legislation: American Citizens Can Be Tried In Military Tribunal (Op/Ed)

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   
New legislation will allow the president to seize US citizens and hold them in military prisons and try them in a Military Tribunal. Military Tribunals do not allow the accused a trial by their peers or "any other of the normal protections under the Bill of Rights."
 



www.latimes.com
This dangerous compromise not only authorizes the president to seize and hold terrorists who have fought against our troops "during an armed conflict," it also allows him to seize anybody who has "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States." This grants the president enormous power over citizens and legal residents. They can be designated as enemy combatants if they have contributed money to a Middle Eastern charity, and they can be held indefinitely in a military prison.

Not to worry, say the bill's defenders. The president can't detain somebody who has given money innocently, just those who contributed to terrorists on purpose.

But other provisions of the bill call even this limitation into question. What is worse, if the federal courts support the president's initial detention decision, ordinary Americans would be required to defend themselves before a military tribunal without the constitutional guarantees provided in criminal trials.

Legal residents who aren't citizens are treated even more harshly. The bill entirely cuts off their access to federal habeas corpus, leaving them at the mercy of the president's suspicions.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This is just getting out of hand. All the rights that the founding fathers believed in and that they they fought for are one by one being taken away from us.

How can the US government take away the rights of their citizens, they are their to protect our rights, not to allow, or cause us to lose our rights. What happened to the System of Checks and Balances that was supposed to prevent these sort of things from happening?

[edit on 1/10/06 by Keyhole]

[edit on 1-10-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Many people are comforted by the thought that "we have checks and balances to keep these things from happening". Unfortunately, this administration has been changing the playing field to arrange it such that the checks and balances once in place are either no longer there or they do not apply to them.

This administration is literally establishing provisions that go against the Constitution for their own use and protection. And we sit here and watch...

A PTS thread on this subject:

Are You an Unlawful Enemy Combatant?



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 04:09 PM
link   
As long as everyone held under these rules ARE enemy combantants, basically traitors, I support it. But if it is ever abused than the President, Attorney General, or whomeverelse was involved should be impeached then tried criminally for violating citizens' rights.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   
This is NOT OK. The WRit of Habeas Corpus has been taken away and by doing so, plunges the U.S. legal system back BEFORE 1215, when it was first written (in the Magna Carta). Once a law that is unConstituional becomes law, then the rest of our Constitutional rights can be obliterated, most often by circumvention. And it's already happened.

Habeas Corpus should never be abrdiged, period. What possible reason could anyone have for indefinitely detaining anyone? I do not want my tax dollars going to feed and house enemies of the U.S. indefinitely. But for what reason would anyone want to imprison someone indefinitely?? The only reason I can think of is to put them in a concentration/detention camp. Like Gitmo.

I just read an article yesterday entitled "R.I.P Habeas Corpus (1215-2006). I think that title summed the whole thing up.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
Habeas Corpus should never be abrdiged, period.


That statement is unconstitutional:



From The Constitution of the United States

Article I, Section 9:

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.




posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   
A bit like the UK in some ways. As those in power come up with more and more offences with which to charge or fine the citizenry, those same leaders continue to further teflon coat themselves to avoid any prosecution.

Laws should NOT be open to interpretation by slick lawyers and definitely not passed retroactively to protect high rolling lawbreakers.

If only the same could be done by us common folk



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   
So, how will we ever even know if someone has been detained indefinetly and brought into a military tribunal IF this law is ever brought into pass?

I am not to worried, I got the feeling something interesting is going to happen soon as a warning to our overzealous power hungry authoritarians



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 06:13 PM
link   


As long as everyone held under these rules ARE enemy combantants, basically traitors, I support it. But if it is ever abused than the President, Attorney General, or whomeverelse was involved should be impeached then tried criminally for violating citizens' rights.


How will you know?

They're not going to put out a press release stating, in so many words, that they've violated their own benchmark and broken the law.

Of the fourteen thousand or so people being held in semi-secret, legal-limbo right now, how many are non-combatants, sold up the river by a shady Afghan warlord, or due to some personal grudge?

We don't know, and we may never know, because there is a complete and utter lack of transparency in this government.

They deny FOIA requests as a matter of policy. They threaten, detain, and bring charges against journalists. How will you know?

That's what I want to know.

Frankly I think we should have just laws that apply to everyone, and we should enforce them fairly. But in the absence of that, we should have a measure of transparency so we can ensure that the power-hungry aren't becoming power-mad behind our backs. It wouldn't be the first time in history it has happened...



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 02:34 AM
link   
I think the biggest question here is this: What constitutes "purposefully and materially support[ing] hostilities against the United States?"

At what point does the government declare that someone has threatened them? And does that now give them the right to detain that person, and bring them before a military tribunal, for a crime that they did not commit?

Where does this line of thinking end you ask? It ends with the lack of any "free citizen" to be able to speak his/her mind, without fear that Big Brother is going to come and arrest them for saying something derogatory against it. This is just one more sign that this government, "of, by, and for the People" is no longer for us, by us, or made up of us. It should serve as no major surprise that the citizens no longer hold any power whatsoever, since they so willingly gave it up in the name of security.

Well, TheBorg, what shall we do, you ask? You should watch, and be mindful of the things happening around you, as they drastically affect the lives of not just you, but all those around you. We have walked, as a nation of people, right into the middle of this big ugly monster, and now we must deal with the thing however we can. I strongly urge everyone to watch for the stifling of free speech next, as that's just about the last thing they can take from us.

TheBorg



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 03:36 AM
link   
It seems to me that all the people that we elect into office are interested in is their own career and not what they were elected for, representing the people who elected them. They are more interested in their political parties interests because if they don't like what they are doing there campaign funds from the party won't be there.

I think, when new legislation is introduced, our representatives should have a poll taken in their area (and not only from the rich in their area) that would let them know what the people they are representing think about it. And then vote according to the majorities will. I'm not saying on everything that is voted on in congress or the senate, just the major issues. LIKE TAKING AWAY OUR RIGHTS.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBorg
I strongly urge everyone to watch for the stifling of free speech next, as that's just about the last thing they can take from us.

TheBorg


This is just me talking here, but for you to even HAVE to make that statement, don't you think things have escalated WAY too far?

I mean seriously, if that were the LAST thing they could take away from us, then there would need to be rioting in the streets! No, I propose there is a lot more they COULD take away from us, however, I see this as a jumpstart for us to get OFF our collective arses and DO SOMETHING.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
As long as everyone held under these rules ARE enemy combantants, basically traitors, I support it. But if it is ever abused than the President, Attorney General, or whomeverelse was involved should be impeached then tried criminally for violating citizens' rights.


And, of course, at the point when it WILL be abused (its not an if but a when and i think you know that as well as I do), then [sarcasm]clearly[/sarcasm] it will be equally as easy to just get them to reverse that right? Are you kidding me?



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:09 AM
link   
[sarcasm]This is a brilliant way to get rid of those pesky neighbors[/sarcasm], just walk the fine line and make sure everyone loves you, because if not your future is dubious.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:28 AM
link   
Going by what Bush himself has said and many of his administration. If you are not with us, you are against us. If you don't support us/this bill or this action then you are for the terrorists. If you don't do this/that you are allowing the terrorists to succeed. If you don't accept this/that you are helping Alqeuda to win. If you don't support Israel then you are with the terrorists. If you say Iran should be allowed nuclear energy you are working with them.

Whistle-blowing which was once encouraged and rewarded is now considered traiterous and discouraged. Something that was intended for our protection also taken away.


Of freeking course it gonna be abused. The word traitor has been used so much in the past few years towards so many people with differing POV, that its pitiful.




Pie



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   
More and more the U.S. is becoming a police state they just need the right time to really kick it off.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Ihave been doing alittle research into this i both the House and Senate versions of the bill heres what I have found:
Here is the bill: thomas.loc.gov

heres what I found in the bill; you guys can make up your own mind:


Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions

`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.
source: thomas.loc.gov



`Sec. 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.

`(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.

`(2) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- The term `lawful enemy combatant' means a person who is--

`(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;

`(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or

`(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.

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

source: thomas.loc.gov


Now I have read all the versions of this Bill and in nowhere can I find where it specifically mentions US citizens being able to be tried like this.... But, with the way the Administration has been spouting off as mentioned by others in this thread... you really have to wonder if they are just going to continue to make up their rules as they go...we will have to wait and see I guess. But all I can find is referring to NON US citizens.. aka...'aliens'.

[edit on 10/2/2006 by TONE23]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   
So the president totalitarian rule has been grated.

For those that think that this is just for the traitors of the nation I got one coming.

Our forefather once were traitors to their birth nation before they became patriots to this nation.

This is a shame to what our founding fathers fought for and stood for.

How naive can you be that political affiliation is blinding you from seem beyond the issue.

This can make anybody that opposes the president publicly and dangerously to his position a traitor.

This will encourage people to Think twice before voicing and exercising their freedom of speech publicly.

How naive can people be to see what is behind all this powers the president is been given.

Who is going to tell if you are Innocent or not onces you are taken away to a secret prison.

How naive can people be.

I saw it coming and have talked about it and so many others in ATS, we know where this is heading.

I have been warning to open your eyes to the signs.

Bush has all the markings of a totalitarian, my way or the highway. We will never be able to say who is guilty or not from been called or tagged an enemy combatant because the secrecy that this administration keeps on his dealings with the law since they created the patriot act and the re-definition of what an enemy combatant is.

In secrecy anybody can be taken and in secrecy that person no necessarily has to be Innocent or guilty because he will never be released to tell his or her story.

Amercan we are losing and losing bad, and very soon even talking about it will be tagged an enemy of the state.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Here is another article and some lines from it.

Article

On September 26, 2006, attorneys for the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) determined that what appears to be the final version of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 could allow the government to detain the attorneys themselves as 'enemy combatants.' CCR Legal Director Bill Goodman said: "This ominously broad definition of enemy combatants would mean that almost anyone who actively opposes the President or the government could be locked up indefinitely. This bill makes a mockery of the rule of law."



The current version of the Military Commissions redefines an "unlawful enemy combatant" (UEC) so broadly that it could include anyone who organizes a march against the war in Iraq. The bill defines a UEC as "a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" or anyone who "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 of the United States." The definition makes no reference to citizenship and therefore could be read to include any number of individuals, including



[edit on 2/10/06 by Keyhole]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
This is just me talking here, but for you to even HAVE to make that statement, don't you think things have escalated WAY too far?


I do think they have gone too far already. Does that mean that I'm no longer a patriot? Hell no. All it means is that I am observing the dissintegration of the nation that our brave founders founded. It's just sad to see the most priceless thing in the world, freedom, be stifled so easily, just because people don't seem to care. Well, not enough do anyway.



I mean seriously, if that were the LAST thing they could take away from us, then there would need to be rioting in the streets! No, I propose there is a lot more they COULD take away from us, however, I see this as a jumpstart for us to get OFF our collective arses and DO SOMETHING.


Such as? What can we do now that doesn't fall under the provisions of the act that was passed? Simply to disagree with the President and/or his ideas makes us what he calls "an enamy combatant". Even the mods and admins here I'm sure understand the imminent dangers in this kind of thinking.

This world is becoming very dangerous for the basic leyman. I fear that in about 10 years, if a miracle doesn't happen, that the people will have given up all hope of a solution, and simply acquiesced into whatever state those at the top want them to be in.

In the grand battle between good and evil, evil seems to have a huge foothold. Everyone claims to fight for the good side, and yet the actions speak to the contrary. Sorry if I seem so depressed by this, but I don't see any other reaction to have about something as bad as this. The statements that I've made in this post here, and many before, by myself and about 70% of the rest of ATS, could technically be classified as being in disagreement with the President.

Are we now to assume that the government sees all of us that simply disagree with them as enemies of the state? And if so, then what does that mean for the future of this very troubled country?

I'd like to hear any and all responses to this, by anyone in the ATS community, since it affects all of us.

TheBorg



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Mix this debacle in with the War on Terror and The War on Drugs and now I see a whole lot of people being put away. The use and sale of drugs in the U.S. has been tied by the Gov't to funding "terrorists" for a number of years, now anyone charged with a simple possession crime could possibly be held under this new law.

This would affect many different walks of life, but it could be argued that it would hit the inner cities hardest. What better way to finally be done with "undesirables" then to by-pass the revolving door of the justice system; just put them away indefinitely.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join