Federal Court: Bush Can 'Indefinitely' Detain Civilians!

Not one single person should be surprised by this. This administration is just the beginning example of future administrations that will openly and blatantly disregard any protections afforded you by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Why do you think they do what they have been doing for years and will continue to do? The Globalists despise you and freedom!

Thought we had impeachment on the table. I say we need to get rid of the whole bunch of the idiots. Those judges are worthless. They have no idea of what judging is all about. Same as all the people that just happen to be "placed" in their positions there

well, we might as well start bending over right now

Thought we had impeachment on the table. I say we need to get rid of the whole bunch of the idiots. Those judges are worthless. They have no idea of what judging is all about. Same as all the people that just happen to be "placed" in their positions there

well, we might as well start bending over right now

Same "power" as any king from the middle ages. Congratulations you now have a "powerful" president

[edit on 16-7-2008 by pai mei]

Well we lost the 4th Amendment the other day why not just add the 5th Amendment to make it uniform. Hey at least we still have the 16th Amendment.

Uh, excuse me people.

This allows indefinite detention of NON-USA civilians on USA soil IF they have been determined to be "enemy combatants".

And this worries you why?

Are you an enemy combatant?

Are you a foreigner on USA soil?

Are you continuing to promote a fear mongering anti-USA agenda?

Do you have a suggestion to improve or are you also being a part of the problem?

If nothing else it serves as a pep rallye for disgruntled spoiled brat USA kids. IMHO.

reply to post by kerontehe

Thanks for presenting a little balance. I'm not sure how much it's called for -- I'm not going to fault the 'eternal vigilance' shown by some of the more outraged members on this thread.

But, to present some more balance, here's an excerpt from the opinion. So people, remember, there still are fair-minded judges out there:

Tellingly, the Deputy Solicitor General conceded at oral argument before the en banc court that the AUMF only authorizes detention of enemy combatants. Thus, the Government does not argue that the broad language of the AUMF authorizes the President to subject to indefinite military detention anyone he believes to have aided any "nation[ ], organization[ ], or person[ ]" related to the September 11th attacks. See § 2(a), 115 Stat. 224. Such an interpretation would lead to absurd results that Congress could not have intended.

Under that reading of the AUMF, the President would be able to subject to indefinite military detention anyone, including an American citizen, whom the President believed was associated with any organization that the President believed in some way "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" the September 11th attacks, so long as the President believed this to be "necessary and appropriate" to prevent future acts of terrorism.

Under such an interpretation of the AUMF, if some money from a nonprofit charity that feeds Afghan orphans made its way to al Qaeda, the President could subject to indefinite military detention anydonor to that charity. Similarly, this interpretation of the AUMF
would allow the President to detain indefinitely any employee or shareholder of an American corporation that built equipment used by the September 11th terrorists; or allow the President to order the military seizure and detention of an American-citizen physician who treated a member of al Qaeda.

Moreover, at oral argument, the Deputy Solicitor General also explicitly and properly acknowledged that exercise of power under the AUMF must be consistent with the Constitution. But to read the AUMF to provide the President with the unlimited power outlined above would present serious constitutional questions. For the Supreme Court has long recognized that the Due Process Clause "cannot be . . . construed as to leave Congress free to make any process ‘due process of law,’ by its mere will." See Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 59 U.S. (18 How.) 272, 276-77 (1855).

AUMF = Authorization of the Use of Military Force, passed by Congress.

reply to post by kerontehe


Ahh, and the same Bush and gov excusist shows up, as usual.

Guess what pal? This is NOT solely relegated to FOREIGN "enemy combatants", but is acclipable to people here on domestic soil, but I guess you skipped right over that part. As was already stated, you need to read the ever-fascist patriot act, and the "violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism act" before starting up with your dismissive, "there's nothing to see here" diatribe. Wake up man.



[edit on 16-7-2008 by DimensionalDetective]

reply to post by kerontehe


Nothing better than educating yourself of what is heading our way brought to us by our for the people elected governmnet.

link to H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

Is already approved by the house but is now waiting in the senate.

www.govtrack.us...

I think that a part of the new act was not quoted properly... should it not have the phrase "At His Majesty's pleasure" appear in it somewhere? You know, it's been a while since we have seen the divine right of kings in play... well now that I think of it, there is Robert Mugabe, Vladimir Putin... hmmm, maybe these guys all have a club and the US is the latest member.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective

Bye-bye habeas corpus...As the ever-changing definition of an "enemy combatant" seems to broaden in the eyes of our gov, this is just another nail in the coffin of the constitution...INDEFINITE detention without trial.

Another rawstory turdpie served up for consumption by the uneducated and shrill masses.

Dimensional Detective, don't you read articles? Or do you just jump on a sensational headline?

What this decision does is two things:

1. Affirms the right to detain anyone suspected as a terrorist, in this case, al-Marri

(sounds good to me)

2. Gives al-Marri the right to challenge his detention

(also sounds good to me)

From the article:

*We deny the Government’s motion to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. The Government relied on section 7 of the Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006

Well, don't you people remember what happened last month. Hint: Gitmo prisoners appealed to the Supreme Court:

On June 12, 2008, Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the 5-4 majority holding that the prisoners had a right to the habeas corpus under the United States Constitution and that the MCA was an unconstitutional suspension of that right.

en.wikipedia.org...

Don't you people read anything? Or do you just assume that DD knows what he is talking about? Because in this case, as others he is totally wrong. You all just react like lemmings and wail that your rights are being taken away.

Honestly, blindly believing what someone says is a big disappointment to your teachers, your parents, and will hurt you and your children down the road.

All the stars and flags here prove that there is a lot of blind kool-aid drinking going on.

[edit on 16-7-2008 by jsobecky]

Do any of you actually read the articles or do you just get excited by the headline? I don't know, maybe some of you have trouble with comprehension.

A federal court has issued two rulings, the New York Times reports: One favoring President Bush's indefinite detentions of "enemy combatants," and another granting one of said "enemy combatants" the opportunity to challenge his detention in court.

How on Earth do you equate this to Bush being able to detain U.S. civilians forever without a trial?

Oh, I know how. You believe Mr. Hafetz who is the counsel for al-Marri because it was he who said:

The court effectively ruled that President Bush has the same right to indefinitely detain a civilian on American soil as he does an enemy soldier on a battlefield.

Do you get it yet? You are believing the council for the terrorist. That was his line about detaining citizens and NOT the ruling of the court. Plus, al-marri is NOT a U.S. citizen. This is what happens when you read liberal articles with obvious bias.

All the pieces are being formed, first the Bush and Congress allow for the FBI and other law agencies to open criminal investigation on citizen with or without proof, next Bush waves any blame on telecommunications for helping out in there spying program, and now this.

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective

Federal Court: Bush Can 'Indefinitely' Detain Civilians!

rawstory.com

The court effectively ruled that President Bush has the same right to indefinitely detain a civilian on American soil as he does an enemy soldier on a battlefield.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 15-7-2008 by DimensionalDetective]

Does this apply to only President Bush??? Will that mean future presidents will also have the same powers or will those powers end after Mr Bush leaves office.

Originally posted by WhatTheory
Do any of you actually read the articles or do you just get excited by the headline?

I don't know, maybe some of you have trouble with comprehension.

A federal court has issued two rulings, the New York Times reports: One favoring President Bush's indefinite detentions of "enemy combatants," and another granting one of said "enemy combatants" the opportunity to challenge his detention in court.

How on Earth do you equate this to Bush being able to detain U.S. civilians forever without a trial?

Oh, I know how. You believe Mr. Hafetz who is the counsel for al-Marri because it was he who said:

The court effectively ruled that President Bush has the same right to indefinitely detain a civilian on American soil as he does an enemy soldier on a battlefield.

Do you get it yet? You are believing the council for the terrorist. That was his line about detaining citizens and NOT the ruling of the court. Plus, al-marri is NOT a U.S. citizen. This is what happens when you read liberal articles with obvious bias.

I am agreeing Just more liberal pink propaganda It sounds like just you love terrorists. Why do you even care at all? These man are all animals, if it makes us safe I don't care if put um all on a iland to fight for their life like the animals they are! With out people like what theory and me you people would be eating diner with these roaches!

reply to post by WhatTheory



Want to get depressed? After what you said (which was immediately after I had said pretty much the same thing) people keep on showing ignorance. Just read the two posts after yours.:shk:

The reputation of ATS is rapidly sliding downward from any respectability it might have ever had.

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by WhatTheory

 

Want to get depressed? After what you said (which was immediately after I had said pretty much the same thing) people keep on showing ignorance. Just read the two posts after yours.:shk:

The reputation of ATS is rapidly sliding downward from any respectability it might have ever had.

I can't tell what you mean, but I'm sure it is another ingnerent terrorist loving liberal!
You don't think at all maybe president Bush should concider you liberals terrorists because you hate the red, white and blue! I hope you are rite liberals, and I think my conservative friends don't have the guts to say the same! Well I think your hate speach is just as bad as a terrorist shame on you all!

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me...

[edit on 16-7-2008 by applebiter]

reply to post by winged patriot


I think the liberals here are trying to shut me down. I'm allowed to say what I think
I'm an American dammit. If I think a person is an animal I will say it! Sinse when is it a crime to speak the truth? This may be my last post. To my conservative brothers we will not stop ever, even if we have to kill every late one, we will never forget! Death to terrorists and prison for traitors!

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


I seriously wonder what you will do with yourself once Bush is finished his term. It seems like everytime that I sign on here lately, I find an anti-Bush or anti-American thread that you've started. Now, I'm not discounting your right to post relevant and factual information just because it suits your personal beliefs and agenda. I just think it would help to see more balance on this site, especially from particular members who choose to constantly create threads of a particular theme.

As for the topic itself, it is disturbing. But, and I know that I will get bashed for this, I will really start to worry if and when I see a single American citizen without any ties to terrorism held indefinitely. Because regardless of the intentions you think our "evil government" has, I'm going to sit back and let things play out. If this law is truly unconstitutional and not a necessary act during dangerous times (remember that Lincoln, FDR, and many other presidents have suspended certain constitutional rights during times of war, whether justified or not), then I have enough confidence in our legal system to do the right thing.

Now I'm going to go finish drinking the rest of my Kool Aid!