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.
Originally posted by Vitchilo
Darkbluesky, you didn't answered me...
Not quite - you need to read the first section of the Act - Definitions, Applicability, Purpose etc. The entire Act is Applicable only to "Alien Unlawful Enemy Combatants" see Subchapter 1, section 948b.
You're right that this chapter only refer ``officialy`` to Alien Unlawful Enemy Combattants, but why do they say this:
``(26) WRONGFULLY AIDING THE ENEMY.--Any person(alien, why don't they just say alien if they are the only targeted?) subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.
See, aliens can't breach allegiance nor duty to the US because they are ALIENS, this is pure NON-SENS. Allegiance and duty to the US is strictly for US citizens, it's just evident. So why they use the words ALLEGIANCE and DUTY if it's not aimed at US citizens? Anyway, if they want to declare someone an alien enemy combattant, nobody will stop them.
Also, I found this...
``(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.
So they can take anything against you, even if when they did it, it was illegal.
Also...
(a) IN GENERAL.--No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in
any court of the United States or its States or territories.
NO PERSON. Alien, US citizens, the pope or Bugs Bunny, NO PERSON. And it's not under chapter X, it's under chapter 5: Treaty obligations not establishing grounds for certain claims.
[edit on 18-10-2006 by Vitchilo]
You're right that this chapter only refer ``officialy`` to Alien Unlawful Enemy Combattants, but why do they say this:
``(26) WRONGFULLY AIDING THE ENEMY.--Any person(alien, why don't they just say alien if they are the only targeted?) subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.
Originally posted by Vitchilo
But why do they use the words allegiance and duty to the US? Is it an error? Anyway, Bush has signed a signing statement, so he can say which part of this law he likes or not. So he can say anyone can be suspended their right of Habeas Corpus. And the Supreme Court is ruled by the people Bush placed himself there, so I wouldn't count much on them.
It is amazing - Earlier, in this very thread, someone (I forget who) cited Jose Padilla as an example of a US Citizen being unlawfully detained. I alerted him that the SC ruled on it, found it uncostitutional and forced the Bush Admin. to formally charge him give him a trial with Full Constitutional Rights afforded him as a US citizen.
"The president can now - with the approval of Congress - indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions. Nothing could be further from the American values we all hold in our hearts than the Military Commissions Act."
According to Jonathan Turley, Law Professor at George Washington University, "anyone" in America can be deemed an enemy combatant by Pres. Bush or someone that he appoints to a certain tribunal.
"The second point: H.R. 6166 and S. 3930 cast a wide net, in defining unlawful enemy combatants, that would include any American supporter of a national liberation movement which is seeking to overthrow a US Government-supported despot. For instance, with such a loose definition, the thousands of Americans, many of whom are church clergy, who provided support to the armed and unarmed opposition to the deposed dictatorships of El Salvador and Nicaragua, could have been designated as unlawful enemy combatants.
When the Supreme Court declined to hear the Padilla case Monday, the decision was widely reported as a win for the Bush Administration. The reporting was only half right. To be sure, the government sidestepped immediate Supreme Court scrutiny of one of the most extreme legal tactics in the war on terror: the indefinite imprisonment, without charge or trial, of American citizens suspected of associating with enemies of the state. But in a carefully worded paragraph near the end of a brief concurrence, Justice Kennedy, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Stevens, warned the government that its grace period is over.
June 28, 2004: In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court rules that Padilla should have filed his appeal in federal court in Charleston, S.C., because he is being held at a Navy brig there, rather than in New York.
en.wikipedia.org...
Sept. 9, 2005: A panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules that the government can continue to hold Padilla indefinitely.
Originally posted by etshrtslr
So the supreme court never settled this matter because the bush admin never wanted it challenged in the supreme court.....that is why H.R. 6166: Military Commissions Act of 2006 was introduced and passed as law to either an unsuspecting congress or a complicit congress....because GWB and his admin knew it would never pass constitutional muster in the supreme court.
So instead of giving your opinions of what H.R. 6166 states give us some opinions of someone with a legal backround.
Originally posted by marg6043
darkbluesky
I will like to ask you a question, but before I am going to agree that the bill will be scrutinized and certain provision will be made to safeguard American citizens.
Just like congress did with the patriot act, at least I hope so.
Do you believe that the bill and many other laws that have been passed by the president with congress approval are in the best interest of the American people?
And why.
Originally posted by etshrtslr
Umm....that would be me darkbluesky......those of you you still believe this law is benign are deluding yourselves.....if anyone of you are attorney's or legal scholars I would give more wieght to what you assert...but if your not an attorney or legal scholar then anyone would logically conclude that someone with a legal backround regarding legal matters opinion is worth more than someone who has no legal backround. So your interpretation of the law are worthless when compared to someone who is an attorney or legal scholar. Unless you can prove your an attorney.
The ACLU:
"The president can now - with the approval of Congress - indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions. Nothing could be further from the American values we all hold in our hearts than the Military Commissions Act."
Law Professor:
According to Jonathan Turley, Law Professor at George Washington University, "anyone" in America can be deemed an enemy combatant by Pres. Bush or someone that he appoints to a certain tribunal.
Congressman Dennis Kucinich:
"The second point: H.R. 6166 and S. 3930 cast a wide net, in defining unlawful enemy combatants, that would include any American supporter of a national liberation movement which is seeking to overthrow a US Government-supported despot. For instance, with such a loose definition, the thousands of Americans, many of whom are church clergy, who provided support to the armed and unarmed opposition to the deposed dictatorships of El Salvador and Nicaragua, could have been designated as unlawful enemy combatants.
And as far as Jose Padilla here is what another law professor stated:
When the Supreme Court declined to hear the Padilla case Monday, the decision was widely reported as a win for the Bush Administration. The reporting was only half right. To be sure, the government sidestepped immediate Supreme Court scrutiny of one of the most extreme legal tactics in the war on terror: the indefinite imprisonment, without charge or trial, of American citizens suspected of associating with enemies of the state. But in a carefully worded paragraph near the end of a brief concurrence, Justice Kennedy, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Stevens, warned the government that its grace period is over.
Originally posted by LoneGunMan
This law can and will one day be used by a federal prosecutor to put away someone they want badly enough. For now that is the main goal of the law. Ther was nothing in our laws that needed to be changed to fight the war on terror. We have always been able to deal with that problem.
Originally posted by darkbluesky
We didnt seem to be able to deal w/ it 9/11/01
Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Originally posted by darkbluesky
We didnt seem to be able to deal w/ it 9/11/01
We chose not to deal with it on 9/11. After all that has happened, after the way we have been misled, you still believe this governement did not have its hand in 9/11.
[edit on 18-10-2006 by LoneGunMan]
This already happened in the US in the past years, take someone during the night, flew them to secret prisons or in their country of origin where they were tortured and persecuted.
dragged from their homes in the middle of the night never to be seen, or heard from again.
Originally posted by darkbluesky
The reason I argue the point is to counter those who are convinced this is the begining of a facist police state where citizens will be dragged from their homes in the middle of the night never to be seen, or heard from again.
Originally posted by Vitchilo
I'm convinced that in less than 6 months, you'll change you're views towards the good old government.
[edit on 18-10-2006 by Vitchilo]
Originally posted by darkbluesky
You and I will never agree on this point. As I stated before, I think the Act is not up to US standards of moral and ethical behavior and it will be modified or struck down by the Supreme Court.
Originally posted by LoneGunMan
You mean like when some people were experimented on with '___' until they lost their minds? Or operation Northwoods? How about waco texas? Moral standards? Only what they think they can get away with. Who do you think killed the Kennedy's? I think they justify whatever they want.
Keep taking that blue pill and I am sure you will be fine.
Originally posted by darkbluesky
Dude! Where is the angst coming from? We just don't agree. Why the sarcasm and bitterness?