|
The day America died and Dictatorship was born: Habeas Corpus, R.I.P. (1215 - 2006) (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
sh*t, theres the problem right there! you're listening to a bunch of communists:D ;)
kidding...but not really |
But the commies got this one right :p :(. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Shibby
Define wartime? |
in a nutshell, it's armed hostility
| quote: | | Was the cold war "wartime"? All the way until 1990? |
no.
| quote: | | Is the drug war "wartime"? From 39 to 06 and beyond? |
no.
| quote: | | Is a "war on terrorism" considered wartime? |
yes.
| quote: | | Or is that why we're KEEPING troops in iraq? To prolong the *real* wartime? |
non sequitur |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
in a nutshell, it's armed hostility
no.
no.
yes.
non sequitur |
Oh I see.
Are you armed?
Am I armed?
Are you in danger? Am I? Are they?
Where do we consider the ratio of "endangered/dying/dead" to "healthy/safe/alive" to be enough to warrant "war"?
Who is the "war" against? Why is that way? How can we prevent it without arms if necessary? Will it always be armed conflict?
Or... are you just using the word "war" to define and justify your savage early human survival instincts that are programmed into your psychology? :D |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| war on terrorism. goodie. good enough reason for me to let myself be imprisoned indefinitely for perhaps no reason. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Shibby
Oh I see.
Are you armed?
Am I armed?
Are you in danger? Am I? Are they?
Where do we consider the ratio of "endangered/dying/dead" to "healthy/safe/alive" to be enough to warrant "war"?
Who is the "war" against? Why is that way? How can we prevent it without arms if necessary? Will it always be armed conflict?
Or... are you just using the word "war" to define and justify your savage early human survival instincts that are programmed into your psychology? :D |
oh man, i'm sorry. this is an academic discussion on the rule of law. not some psuedo intellectual, Platonic circle-jerk. |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
oh man, i'm sorry. this is an academic discussion on the rule of law. not some psuedo intellectual, Platonic circle-jerk. |
Ah, so you don't actually know why you believe the things you believe, or any of the parameters therein.
Gotcha. :D |
|
|
| josh4 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
ok, well, when you find something in the new law that specifies that American citizens can be classified as "enemy combatants" and can be restricted from what they've always enjoyed Habeas Corpus to be, then consider yourself un-spun. |
Actually this is all I could find.
| quote: | `(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means an individual determined by or under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense--
`(i) to be part of or affiliated with a force or organization (including al Qaeda, the Taliban, any international terrorist organization, or associated forces) that is engaged in hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents in violation of the law of war;
`(ii) to have committed a hostile act in aid of such a force or organization so engaged; or
`(iii) to have supported hostilities in aid of such a force or organization so engaged.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milita...ons_Act_of_2006 |
It seems this definition is whats getting everyones panties in a bunch. I don't know about it allowing "Bush to imprison anyone he chooses and abuse them as he sees fit" as Al-Jazeera put it. It does include the term alien as
| quote: | | ALIEN- The term `alien' means an individual who is not a citizen of the United States. |
It uses this term in sections such as
| quote: | `Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States is subject to trial by military commission as set forth in this chapter. |
So in order to qualify for a military commission you'd have to be an alien.
Nevertheless, the bill was confusing, and irregular. It used a lot of vague logic and generalizations. Its got a lot of holes and never should have passed in its current form.
Specifically, the absence of habeas corpus is very dangerous. Without it Bush technically can imprison whomever he chooses, because once they've been imprisoned, theres no way for them to challenge the legality. If they turned out to be an American citizen, after the fact, theres no legal body except, a tribunal setup by this bill, that can get to them.
Consider the case of Cyrus Kar. Hes an American citizen, captured in Iraq and accused of being a terrorist. He was released when the ACLU filed for habeas corpus. Under this bill they wouldn't have been able to do that and he could have remained a prisoner. In fact, in a hypothetical, he could have been transferred to the CIA and been kept as a ghost detainee, where his name, location of detention, and reason for being held (even though one isn't needed) are not released, ever. |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
It used a lot of vague logic and generalizations. Its got a lot of holes and never should have passed in its current form. |
Ironic, since Bush said that this bill should exist solely because the Geneva Convention was too vague :tongue3 :crazy: :eyespop: :eyespop: :nervous: |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
wtf? you didn't know the President has always been able to imprison people indefinately during wartime. we've seriously gone above and beyond and out of our way to try these turds one way or another. |
No they haven't. There's been an Australian man, David Hicks, imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay for nearly five years without any charges being laid against him, let alone the opportunity to defend himself against them at trial.
For me, it's a pretty simple equation: if the men they are imprisoning are clearly guilty and clearly a threat to the United States then the government should be able to demonstrate this in front of a fair and impartial court. If it is not possible to ascertain guilt, or to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, then on what just grounds can they possibly be imprisoned? If they are guilty, why is it unreasonable to expect that this guilt be demonstrated to us by those who imprison them? If this guilt cannot be demonstrated, why is it unreasonable to suggest that the government has no right to imprison them in the first place? |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
It seems this definition is whats getting everyones panties in a bunch. I don't know about it allowing "Bush to imprison anyone he chooses and abuse them as he sees fit" as Al-Jazeera put it. It does include the term alien as
It uses this term in sections such as
So in order to qualify for a military commission you'd have to be an alien.
Nevertheless... |
In Patriot Act 2:
| quote: |
Patriot Act 2 not only fails to fix this definition, it exacerbates these problems by hinging even more anti-terrorism powers to this definition. These include new wiretapping authority (secs. 120, 121), civil asset forfeiture powers (sec. 427, 428), new death penalties (sec. 411), and a frightening and unprecedented power for the government to revoke American citizenship even of native-born Americans (sec. 501). |
Source: ACLU
You really think they're not going to be able to pass Patriot Act 2 or "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 ?" I was shocked that Detainee Bill and Military Commisions Act of 2006 even came into existence.
| quote: |
Undermines fundamental constitutional rights of Americans under overbroad definitions of "terrorism" and "terrorist organization" or under a terrorism pretext; specifically by
* Stripping even native-born Americans of all of the rights of United States citizenship if they provide support to unpopular organizations labeled as terrorist by our government, even if they support only the lawful activities of such organizations, allowing them to be indefinitely imprisoned in their own country as undocumented aliens. (Section 501)
* Creating 15 new death penalties, including a new death penalty for "terrorism" under a definition which could cover acts of protest such as those used by Operation Rescue or protesters at Vieques Island, Puerto Rico, if death results. (Section 411)
* Further criminalizing association - without any intent to commit specific terrorism crimes - by broadening the crime of providing material support to terrorism, even if support is not given to any organization listed as a terrorist organization by the government. (Section 402)
* Permitting arrests and extraditions of Americans to any foreign country - including those whose governments do not respect the rule of law or human rights - in the absence of a Senate-approved treaty and without allowing an American judge to consider the extraditing country's legal system or human rights record. (Section 322) |
Source: ACLU
:nervous: :( |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| !!! Now I'm having trouble sudying for my test. Looks like the Fourth Reich is approaching soon, and having my ethnic make up, religious orientation, and "far left" political views don't help me one bit. :mad: :( |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| So what ever happened to our "inalienable rights" guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Or are they just mere "gifts" from the Emperor now? |
|
|
|
|
