the death of habeus corpus

[omarthefish]

The law clearly states that it is applicable to "alien unlawful enemy combatants"

The language is very similar to that in the Geneva Convention as to the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" and additionally stipulates "alien"

No. That's a lie.

It ALSO includes American citizens. I cite George Washington University Constitutional Law professor, Jonathan Turley in his interview on MSNBC:

Does that not basically mean that if Mr. Bush or Mr. Rumsfeld say so, anybody in this country, citizen or not, innocent or not, can end up being an unlawful enemy combatant?

JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR: It certainly does. In fact, later on, it says that if you even give material support to an organization that the president deems connected to one of these groups, you too can be an enemy combatant.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15318240/

[omarthefish]

Here is a link to the text of the actual bill:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...930enr.txt.pdf

"Unlawfull Enemy Combatants" are defined as:

"The term 'unlawful enemy combatant means--

(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposely 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 assocaiated forces); or

(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Miliatary 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 Presedent of the Secretary of Defense.

It's in Subchapter I - GENERAL PROVISIONS

The Wikepedia mainpage on the bill says that it does not apply to citizens but also notes that the page is under dispute. It additionally comments:

... Prior to the enactment, the phrase "unlawful enemy combatant" was applied by the Bush administration to at least 3 American citizens. See John Walker Lindh, José Padilla, Yaser Hamdi.

Death of Habeas Corpus from Oberman:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5jGLgkn5HSo

Another source clearly showing how this applies to US citizens just like anyone else. This time from www.freepressinternational.com:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hs37gfuqaj0

An another point raised in that last clip that I didn't notice before is that any US militia member is also defined as a "lawful enemy combatant" and therefore included in the bill. So kiss your 2nd amendment goodbye.....twice.

[GLW]

no...the insult was directed straight at Alberto Gonzalez.... his record of interpretation of the law - if you can call it that...and other 'services' to Bush put him in the class of sleaziest of the sleazy lawyers.

As in The Geneva Convention being "quaint" his words....not mine.

[omarthefish]

The New York Times also reports:

Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of ''illegal enemy combatant'' in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.

They'll know that in 2006, Congress passed a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation's version of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Lot's more for anyone with a membership:

http://select.nytimes.com/search/res...A00894DE404482

[FuXnDajenariht]

That's nice. Is everyone who doesn't hold your political views an a$$hole, or just those in public service?

no i prefer the ploy of calling someone hysterical when you disagree with their argument, but you have absolutely no reply to it

[BoulderDawg]

Pres Bush has declared a holiday!

So I would like to wish everyone a happy "Character Counts Week"!

[splinter]

"The Bush administration is sacrificing the American way of life" itself is an empty comment based entirely on extreme political bias. You are of course welcome to any bias you like, but there is nothing in that comment to take seriously.

It requires extreme political bias to say that giving up the right to a fair trial goes against the american way of life?



BTW. I did a quick check through the thread, and couldn't find a link to the bill that was in question. Can someone post it? I'd like to see the passages that mention non american citizens (or aliens, or however they're specified.)

[unkokusai]

BTW. I did a quick check through the thread, and couldn't find a link to the bill that was in question. Can someone post it? I'd like to see the passages that mention non american citizens (or aliens, or however they're specified.)

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...930enr.txt.pdf

[unkokusai]

No. That's a lie.

That is not a "lie" and I await your public apology.

[unkokusai]

no...the insult was directed straight at Alberto Gonzalez.... his record of interpretation of the law - if you can call it that...and other 'services' to Bush put him in the class of sleaziest of the sleazy lawyers.

Alright. What are YOUR qualifications in interpreting law?

[omarthefish]

BTW. I did a quick check through the thread, and couldn't find a link to the bill that was in question. Can someone post it? I'd like to see the passages that mention non american citizens (or aliens, or however they're specified.)

Didnt' look very hard I guess. I posted it just a couple posts before you asked.

Post #168

Here is a link to the text of the actual bill:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...930enr.txt.pdf

"Unlawfull Enemy Combatants" are defined as......

[omarthefish]

That is not a "lie" and I await your public apology.

I already posted the actual text.

The bill does not limit it's self to aliens. If it does, find the text and cite it. I cited above where it applies to US citizens. I provided a text of the bill quoted the relevant portions and supplied an interpretation from a constitutional law professor, the relevant Wikipedia citations and 2 separate news sources.

You cited.........?

In the bill, the word "alien" is mentioned 6 times.

The first 4 times are in the General Provisions where the term is defined and also in the "Purpose" of the bill where it states that this bill is supposed to be applying to alien unlawful enemy combatants. Then it is mentioned another 2 times towards the end of the bill where it specifically denies the right to invoke the Geneva conventions to any "alien detained by the United States".

Although it states that the "purpose" is specific to aliens, there is nothing in the actual body of the bill to do so and it in fact specifically spells out which American citizens can be seized and detained indefinately under the bill.

It's not like the bill is not available online...on this thread even.

[splinter]

Didnt' look very hard I guess. I posted it just a couple posts before you asked.

Post #168

LOL. I guess I didn't. I figured if it was anywhere, it'd be in the frist couple of pages of the thread, not the last one.

[GLW]

from the wikipedia :

As counsel to Governor Bush, Gonzales helped Bush be excused from jury duty when he was called in a 1996 Travis County drunk driving case. The case led to controversy during Bush's 2000 presidential campaign because Bush's answers to the potential juror questionnaire did not disclose Bush's own 1976 misdemeanor drunk driving conviction.[1] Gonzales' formal request for Bush to be excused from jury duty hinged upon the fact that, as Governor of Texas, he might be called upon to pardon the accused in the case. Upon learning of the 1976 conviction, the prosecutor in the 1996 case (a Democrat) felt he had been "directly deceived". The defense attorney in the case called Gonzales' arguments "laughable".[2]

As Governor Bush's counsel in Texas, Gonzales also reviewed all clemency requests. A 2003 article in The Atlantic Monthly asserts that Gonzales gave insufficient counsel, failed to take into consideration a wide array of factors, and actively worked against clemency in a number of borderline cases. (The state of Texas executed more prisoners during Gonzales' term, and still has more prisoners on death row, than any other state.)[3] [4]


and

During his January 2005 Attorney General Senate confirmation hearings, Gonzales apparently lied to Congress. Senator Russ Feingold, in attempting to determine where Gonzales believed the president's authority ends, asked whether the president could act in contravention of existing criminal laws and spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant. Gonzales avoided answering the question by claiming that warrantless eavesdropping was a "hypothetical situation" and thus impossible to answer. He went on to add that it was "not the policy or the agenda of this president" to authorize actions that conflict with existing law. These statements were later proven false, when on February 6, 2006, he testified before Congress to his knowledge of the U.S. domestic spying program while he was White House Counsel.


And that is merely from a 15 second search... citing other issues that make the man a sleaze lawyer wouldn't be that hard...but a waste of my time. As they say in textbooks, the proof is left to the concerned student...of course, logic and concern is lost on many.

Try a step out of your frame of reference for a minute....

[unkokusai]

I provided a text of the bill quoted the relevant portions and supplied an interpretation from a constitutional law professor, the relevant Wikipedia citations and 2 separate news sources.

You cited..........

I quoted the exact language of section 948c. You have based your opinion on interpretations that support your predetermined conclusions.



I said: "The law clearly states that it is applicable to "alien unlawful enemy combatants"

The language is very similar to that in the Geneva Convention as to the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" and additionally stipulates "alien""

and you called me a liar. I'm still waiting to see if you will appropriately apologize.