Few Americans, including the opposition Democratic Party, seem interested in speaking out against the new terrorist detainee bill just signed into law by President Bush.
But for the record, here is what Americans have signed off on:
Congress has given President Bush the unchecked power to declare anyone he wishes an “unlawful enemy combatant” — including U.S. citizens — and throw them in jail without charges or legal representation, and keep them there as long as he wants.
Never in America’s history as a democracy has Congress granted these kind of despotic powers to the chief executive.
Never have we been asked to give up constitutional checks and simply trust the president to do the right thing.
As one constitutional lawyer, Jonathan Turley, said this week of the law: “It’s something that no one thought — certainly I didn’t think — was possible in the United States. And I am not too sure how we got to this point. But people clearly don’t realize what a fundamental change it is about who we are as a country. What happened today changed us. And I’m not too sure we’re going to change back anytime soon.”
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- JWink on Jail consultants straining patience
- Howserfan on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Monkeyhawk on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- Mrage on Health care reform would save state money
- BlueJay on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
165 Comments
From Keith Olbermann: “On this first full day that the Military Commissions Act is in force, we now face what our ancestors faced, at other times of exaggerated crisis and melodramatic fear-mongering:
A government more dangerous to our liberty, than is the enemy it claims to protect us from.”
Read the rest of Keith’s courageous commentary at http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1019-24.htm
And the Bush Administration didn’t waste any time exploiting it’s new powers!http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/19/AR2006101901692.html?nav=rss_nation/special
“Moving quickly to implement the bill signed by President Bush this week that authorizes military trials of enemy combatants, the administration has formally notified the U.S. District Court here that it no longer has jurisdiction to consider hundreds of habeas corpus petitions filed by inmates at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.
In a notice dated Wednesday, the Justice Department listed 196 pending habeas cases, some of which cover groups of detainees. The new Military Commissions Act (MCA), it said, provides that “no court, justice, or judge” can consider those petitions or other actions related to treatment or imprisonment filed by anyone designated as an enemy combatant, now or in the future.”
Damn! That was fast!More from the WaPo article:
“Immediately after Bush signed the act into law Tuesday, the Justice Department sent a letter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit asserting the new authorities and informing the court that it no longer had jurisdiction over a combined habeas case that had been under consideration since 2004. The U.S. District Court cases, which had been stayed pending the appeals court decision, were similarly invalid, the administration informed that court on Wednesday.
A number of legal scholars and members of Congress, including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), have said that the habeas provision of the new law violates a clause of the Constitution that says the right to challenge detention “shall not be suspended” except in cases of “rebellion or invasion.” Historically, the Constitution has been interpreted to apply equally to citizens and noncitizens under U.S. jurisdiction.”
I really hate it when an administration uses the Constitution for toilet paper, don’t you?
And you can see the video of Keith Olbermann’s special comment athttp://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/18/countdown-special-comment-death-of-habeas-corpus-your-words-are-lies-sir/#more-11142
After reading this, several thoughts from others in history ring in my head:“Those willing to sacrifices a little freedom for a little security…Deserve neither freedom or security”.
“When they came for the Jews I said nothing, for I was not Jewish! When they came for the Gypsies I said nothing, for I was not a Gypsies. When they came for the Catholics I said nothing, for I was not a Catholic.When they came for me, no one said anything…Not one was left!”.
“What you do unto the lesser of me, you do unto me.”.
“ had no idea I was a criminal, till they arrested me”.
“This is the great experiment, the whole world is watching to see the outcome. Some wish it to fail and some of those are here.”.
“We have seen the enemy…And they are US!”.
“No power short of that in heaven can end this country…These ideals. Only we can end it”.
“We are not fighting for the souls of the Terrorists, but for the soul of this country!”.
If the Supreme Court doesn’t rule this law unconstitutional, that’s the end of America. If they do, it may be the end of the court.
In my not-so-humble opinion, the future of the republic lies in the unsteady hands of one Anthony Kennedy.
Unless Bush gets another appointment. Then we are very likely screwed, period.
P.S. I suppose Scalia or even Thomas could surprise us on this (I’m thinking of Hamdan. . or was it Hamdi?), but I wouldn’t count on it.
Alito has already endorsed the Ultimate Executive (now live on Pay for View! And you’ll pay. . . ). I strongly suspect Roberts is the same way.
I should have been a registered Repub the past six years (vote in the primaries!), or registered Dem (support the loyal opposition!). Randy gives one of many compelling reasons I have insisted on being neither.
This election is critically important, but that’s only the prologue. Taking back the government also means evicting the comfortably corrupt bastards, cowards, and blind poltical hacks from BOTH major parties.
But–for now–I view breaking or least loosening the regime’s grip as more important. That means Democrats, with the exception of Lieberman, and the Vermont races. Just My Opinion®.
But wake up after election day not giddy, but determined. The bleak Dem abdication CANNOT be tolerated in 2007!
i say we charge President Bush as an unlawful enemy combatant and every legislator who voted for this bill.
They are more dangerous to our constitution than any terrorist.
Bush is basing his power grab on the misuse of the word “terror”
The Israelis have all of you so trained against any criticism of them by labeling that criticism as anti-Semitic that you won’t consider the misuse of the word “terror, which they tagged Palestinians, so as to hide the Palestinian resistance neatly behind “terrorism” which in fact does not exist.
Ariel Sharon taught Bush to use that open-ended classification to justify the stripping of our constitutional guarantees.
All that to guard against something, which in fact is being used as a catalyst to remove freedom.
This video explains how first the Israelis pulled it off and how Bush has used the same technique.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7828123714384920696
Criticism of Israeli behaviour is not anti-Semitism, when it consists of their brutality against Palestinians.
George Orwell’s 1984 took a bit longer to get here than thought, but it’s still here.
This isn’t about terrorism anymore, it’s about control.
If all of the above is set in stone, we are already screwed!I dearly hope the American public will wakeup and quit worrying about dow jones and starte worrying more about our constitutional rights. One of these days the government will walk in and say “That’s it game over, Hand over your assets!”We are within spitten distance now.Don’t look back,they are gaining on us and they want it all.
The only way for a quick reversal is to take back both houses on Congress.
I can understand Randy being so historically challenged but Turley I don’t. What short historical memories we seem to have at WEBlog.
“Never in America’s history as a democracy has Congress granted these kind of despotic powers to the chief executive.”
How about WWII Randy?
“Congress has given President Bush the unchecked power to declare anyone he wishes an “unlawful enemy combatant” — including U.S. citizens — and throw them in jail without charges or legal representation, and keep them there as long as he wants.”Heckler:This the elimination of habeas corpus you keep questioning. But, I am sure it is okay with you, right? Because, afterall, this is like WWII, right?
Steven Davis
If you go to a foreign land and fight next to our enemies against our troops as far as I’m concerned you are no longer a citizen of this country and should not enjoy it’s constitutional protections.
Why should our enemies have the protection of our constitution Steven? WHY?
Steven
And unless you do something like that you have not lost the protection of habeas corpus. Stop lying.
Finally, some sanity on this string. The Coddlecrats don’t think we are in a war (unless it’s a war against Bush). They don’t realize that a lot of people want to do us harm.
Appears to me if you don’t wage war against the U.S. or collude in the act of conspiracy against the U.S., you don’t have anything to worry about.
Excluding enemy combatants from habeas corpus proceedings that current U.S. Citizens have the priveledge to receive. They did not earn this priveledge, they want to destroy it.
Giving an ability to an enemy combatant to access classified evidence is not a good idea under any venue.
Too many ‘chicken littles’ here on this subject. You can bet that each case will be appealed to the Supreme Court and if it is unconstitutional, it will be dealt with accordingly.
So Heckler,you’re saying we can’t fight terrorists unless we give up our rights? You’re surely not so mentally challenged that you are buying that Bush false dichotomy are you? You know the one that goes, “give me all of your rights, or a plane will crash into your place of work.” Hotclit might be that stupid, but I don’t think you are.
I don’t think raising the extremely remote possiblity of suspending my habeas corpus rights is necessary in the fight against terrorists. Any patriot should against this governmental intrusion. I think I know you (from here) well enough to believe you’d be against this, if you would just think a minute.
Let’s use the scenario you provide: I am a fighter joining with an enemy who fights against us. Could I not be killed or adjudicated under some violation of the law? I would think the answer would be “Yes” – and if this is correct, as I believe it is, what is the advantage of this new legislation?
This legislation is not necessary, does not help us fight terrorists, and provides an opening to have our basic rights violated. Tell me how you think this is necessary. I will check back around noon time.
This is what happens when one party has total control of government. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
It is so sad what we have lost and for what? So a strutting little martinet (look it up Repukes) can feel like he he is fufilling his divine assignment (which is more likely a mental delusion as result of brain damage).
It’s all a joke now. Liberty and justice for all. The American dream. The flag. They are all meaningless, cold and dead.
Hey bushies? Was it REALLY worth it? Do you love that little blight on humanity so much that you allow him this? I am so ashamed of you.
This will get reversed. It may take a lifetime and the impeachment of many men but this will NOT be allowed to stand. Our founding fathers demand no less.
And this was all brought to us by the good people of the Religious Right. You know those people – the ones that want to shove their version of Christianity down everyone’s throat.
This is wonderful, watching liberals worry that their little terror cell might be uncovered and they will be taken to jail. I love it. If only their nightmares would come true. What a beautiful world. No liberals to yuck the place up. One can only hope they are right.
JW might be singing a different tune if a Democratic president gets the same power that has now been bestowed on George W. and the new president deems JW an enemy combatant. Then who will be yelling for the ACLU?
I agree that if a person “go to a foreign land and fight next to our enemies against our troops” then he becomes an enemy combatant. But how does that apply to a person who verbally tells a government official that he disagrees with policy? One such man WAS handcuffed,arrested, and hauled off to jail for saying something Cheney didn’t want to hear. In that case he was eventually released with no charges but that was only AFTER he was jailed. What next?
Give up what rights? Are those that are sniveling about rights enemy combatants? What the heck are you squealing about? Did you have plans of joining Al Quaeda and now your hopes are dashed? I mean…hysteria at its worst.
Heck
In WWll Israel wasn’t calling the shots and FDR and Truman were patriots who accepted the responsibility to keep America free and protect the Constitution.
Every move that Bush is making is straight out of Ariel Sharon’s takeover of the US Government.
AIPAC has it all mapped-out, pull-up their site and see for yourselves. Read between the lines.http://www.aipac.org/
Where was all the worrying about the constitution when the Brady bill was signed?
What were worried about is say a paid informant mistakenly id’s someone has a terrorist.Said person is never to be seen again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus
In common law countries, habeas corpus (/’he?bi?s ‘k??p?s/), Latin for “you [should] have the body”, is the name of a legal instrument or writ by means of which detainees can seek release from unlawful imprisonment. A writ of habeas corpus is a court order addressed to a prison official (or other custodian) ordering that a detainee be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he or she should be released from custody. The writ of habeas corpus in common law countries is an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.
“Freedom is just another word for nothing left to loose” from Janice Joplin song Me and Bobby McGee. Well we have now lost the one thing our country was founded upon FREEDOM. God help us all for we can’t count on our government anymore to protect us from our government.
I have been a disillusioned citizen for quite sometime now, I guess since I realized that we keep electing people that only think of their own careers and how they can get ahead and stay there. Honest and moral people don’t run for congress or president anymore, they can’t. They don’t have the money and they don’t stand a chance in changing anything inside the Beltway. It’s a whole other world in D.C. and they all treat themselves like they are in another world, it sure as H*ll isn’t ours.
“Justice and Freedom for All”, nice words in a pledge that has somehow been set aside. That reminds me I thought J.Edgar Hoover died quite some time ago, it looks as though he has reached from the grave and took control of Washington and the country again with his twisted definition of constitutional rights.
As one here has said ” We now have to wait for someone to challenge this in the Supreme Court”. But wait, how can it get to that court when this law now takes the lower courts out of the loop? I thought you had to go through the lower courts before it could get to the Supreme Court? Unless the honorable robed ones on the court take it upon themselves to review this I don’t think it will ever get there. I could be wrong and I do hope I am.
AIPAC
U.S. Software Firm McAfee Purchases Israeli Start-UpIn its first-ever acquisition in Israel, American security software giant McAfee is purchasing IT security start-up Onigma Ltd. for $20 million, the Israeli business journal Globes reported. Onigma—founded in 2004 by three Israelis who met during their service with IDF Military Intelligence—produces solutions for preventing leaks of confidential data. Onigma will become McAfee’s development center in Israel. Lacking natural resources, Israel has become renowned as the home of high-tech companies that draw on the Jewish state’s human capital to produce cutting-edge innovations.
Congress granted the power. They can take it away if it should be abused. Is that not the case? If so, then why this silly partisan hysteria about the end of America as we know it?
Outlander-You already know the answer. You even wrote it. Partisan and Hysteria. The Lathercrats best friends. They got what they wished. A Congressional approval. I really don’t think that they are not patriotic, but some of these posts leave me scratching my head. “Guantanamo-Concentration Camp”???
I dont have to worry about that Lucee because I do not associate with jihadists. I guess a lot of liberals do, as worried as they are about this law. I guess you can move to mexico or canada since this isnt America any longer. You have always wanted to visit france anyway haven’t you? Over there I hear the guys won’t make fun of your hairy pits. Go for it Lucee, before it is to late and you end up in a concentration camp. Hurry Lucee, run Lucee run.
Steven Davis
First we must ask the question-why do we detain prisoners in war, be they regular troops in uniform fighting for a nation-state, or be they “enemy combatants”?
The answer to that question is- To keep them off of the battle field, keep them from rejoining the fight. We are not keeping them so that we can charge them with a crime, we keep them so they don’t go back and start killing our soldiers again. Any problem here?
If we grant these combatants a habeas corpus hearing in a civilian court we not only tie up the civilian courts with military matters, we possibly have to give them access to classified military information that they could use against our military if they are released. Why would we do that for our enemies?
Why do so many here wish to bestow our constitutional protections upon our enemies?
And again, as several have said here already, “Appears to me if you don’t wage war against the U.S. or collude in the act of conspiracy against the U.S., you don’t have anything to worry about.”(JM put it this way).
Heckler, FDR did not ask for, nor did he receive, Congressional authority to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus. The writ has only been suspended (partially) once, in American history; that was by President Lincoln during the Civil War.
I am unclear of that to which you refer being done by FDR during WWII. If you are referring to the travesty of the internment camps, then I agree; but, in total, the powers granted the Executive under the referenced Act are, to my mind, unparalleled in history.
There is much about the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that bothers me; the ability to declare a U.S. citizen an “unlawful enemy combatant”, as broadly stated and defined in the Act, should give anyone pause; if the act had clearly defined that a U.S. citizen became an unlawful enemy combatant as the result of taking up arms against the U.S. in a foreign land, fighting with non-State combatants, I would have less concern; but it doesn’t.
CF, how to get to SCOTUS; file for a writ, arguing the unconstitutionality of the Act, have it denied by the District Court on the basis of lack of jurisdiction, appeal to the Court of Appeals, then to the Supremes. That’s one way to do it. There are others, but each is fraught with risk.
Yes, Outlander, Congress giveth, Congress taketh away. A future Congress may repeal or modify the offensive provisions. Or, it may not.
I view this through the lens of Richard Nixon’s enemy list and the abuse of the IRS in going after political enemies. Thankfully, Watergate happened, and as a part of this, the privacy provisions of the Internal Revenue Code were strengthened to (hopefully) prevent this from happening in the future. It did, however, take a scandal, Presidential impeachment investigations, etc., to bring it to light and have action taken. I don’t know that the public can count on such things recurring.
JR
That’s what the second amendment is really for.
Right now the Iraqis are practicing their second amendment while the Bushco Bunch tries to figure-out which new name they can call the Iraqi defenders.
Insurgents? NawTerrorists? Naw.Militants? NawJihadists? NawIslamic-extremists Naw
Can we just call them what they really; Iraqis? Hell no, then Americans will figure-out what we Bushcos are really up to.
And, lest I forget; FDR was acting, in WWII, under a congressional declaration of war, which, in the words of Justice Jackson in the Youngstown Sheet and Tube case, gives the Executive the highest degree of authority for its actions. Without quibbling here about whether this is a “war”, there has been no formal declaration of war, thus placing the Executive in a weaker position under the Jackson analysis, and why the Administration was forced to seek Congressional autorization.
What nauseates me is the clearly political calculus of the opponents of the Act who, in light of the 2006 elections, nonetheless voted for it, counting on the courts to clean up the mess.
Vaughn
I am not excusing or defending or advocating anything FDR did. Just pointing out the idiocy of Randy’s statement. And his short memory.
Mr.Tolle eloquently states my concern. There is simply too much room for error.
What if you were pulled in because you name appears on a no fly list?
Bush is basing his power grab on the misuse of the word “terror”
The Israelis have all of you so trained against any criticism of them by labeling that criticism as anti-Semitic that you won’t consider the misuse of the word “terror,” which they tagged onto the Palestinians, so as to hide the Palestinian resistance neatly behind “terrorism” which in fact does not exist.
Ariel Sharon taught Bush how to use that open-ended classification to justify the stripping of our constitutional guarantees.
All that to guard against something, which in fact is being used as a catalyst to remove freedom.
This video explains how first the Israelis pulled it off and how Bush has used the same technique.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7828123714384920696
Criticism of Israeli behaviour is not anti-Semitism, when it consists of their brutality against Palestinians.
The torture techniques used at Abu Ghraib Prison came straight out of “facility 1391″ in Israel, which has now been airbrushed off all Israel maps, even the road leading up to it. Eye-witness accounts have been recorded.The US has them classified as top secret. Rumsfeld’s little secret.
The so-called “war on terror” is Bush’s tool to create a dictatorship.
Bush ’s claim the the Constitution gets in his way of fighting terrorism is the scam. When actually Arab anger against American sponsored brutality against first Palestinians, then Iraqis and finally { so far } the Lebanese.
The defence against exposure of the “terror scam” is “anti-Semitic,” “Conspiracy Theory,” “Soft on terrorism” “weak of fighting Terrorism” Yada, yada, yada.
Vaughn-Where do we mail the letter to declare war? You people do not seem to understand this is not the war of our Grandfathers.Rules of War- Humbug!
hotlick, I fully understand that unlike WWI and WWII, there is not a clear-cut “nation state” against whom war may be declared. The same was true in the Korean War, which gave rise to the Youngstown case, and Justice Jackson’s analysis of executive power, which was the reason for my citation thereto.
Well we’ve still got the First Amendment and if that fails, then there’s always the Second.
To clear up my last post; I understand that there was, in fact, a nation-state; North Korea; however, there was no formal declaration of war, the involvement of the U.S. and other countries was pursuant to a United Nations resolution, thus the reference one may find, from time to time, to a “police action” describing what is commonly referred to as the Korean War.
The Korean “War” is just another of a long list of reasons why the UN is irrelevent.
Ben,
I’m so disappointed with your statement:
“I agree that if a person “go to a foreign land and fight next to our enemies against our troops” then he becomes an enemy combatant….. But how does that apply to a person who verbally tells a government official that he disagrees with policy? One such man WAS handcuffed,arrested, and hauled off to jail for saying something Cheney didn’t want to hear. In that case he was eventually released with no charges but that was only AFTER he was jailed. What next?”
Was the person who yelled at Cheney an enemy combatant? How about no? So what is the worry factor here?
Ed,
They’ve taken care of the 2nd Amendment with this, too.
JM-The guy stepped over the line. He was released. It all worked out. Find something else to make your point. It is out there. Don’t bring this weak shit.
Folks:
The statute, Sec. 948c, says that “alien unlawful enemy combatants” are subject to the commissions’s jurisdiction. Sec. 948a defines both “unlawful enemy combatant,” and “alien,” giving both the expected definition.
If the complaint is that “alien unlawful enemy combatants” do not have the habeus privilege, it appears, no, they don’t. Whether that is a good thing or not is debatable, I’ll pass on that for now.
If the concern is that a US citizen could be simply declared same and imprisoned, the answer is simply, NOT. Arguing that such an action is authorized by this statute is pure hysterical balony.
Read it for yourself. Once again, the hysteria that the sky is falling is just that, hysteria.
And the decision of a military commission is appealable to the DC circuit court of Appeals. Sec. 950g
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:2:./temp/~c109OHcrcA:e8419:
It’s too bad Lincoln didn’t come up with this one. It might have saved us most of the Civil War. After all, why not jail all of those enemy combatants in the South?
This will save the current administration the trouble of declaring martial law–or at least put the worst of the offenders away before doing so.
In one way or another, this will come back to bite them in the ass.
For those of you saying that this new Act doesn’t affect you, keep in mind that no one is safe in their little bubble of Republicanism, Democraticism, or Independentism. No one. (Or as those misspellers would put it, Noone.)
This isn’t about ‘It won’t happen to me.’ This is about ‘It COULD happen to me.’
What would you on the right say if the next step in this list of revoking freedoms was the removal of your guns? You say it’s the Democrats who want to take them, but you really should stop and think about that. The NRA lists have already been collected, and it happened in the last couple of years. Don’t you pay attention? Don’t you CARE?
What you don’t see is that once this begins, and no one speaks up, it can and will continue. Ask Germany.
“… It is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is ademocracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communistdictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to thebidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell themthey are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack ofpatriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same inevery country.”~ The testimony of Hermann Goering (Adolf Hitler’s vice-fuhrer) at theNuremberg trials
“First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I didnot speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the TradeUnionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came forthe Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they camefor me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”-Martin Niemoellerhttp://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Niemoller_quote.html
“Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.
And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so.
How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.” – Julius Caesar
Hotlick,
eh? I think you need to re-read my post. In fact, you need to read the post I made on that particular subject in the blog that addressed this issue.
I agreed the individual stepped over the line.
I was addressing Ben Huie’s concern that this individual may be classified under the enemy combatant bill that was signed into law. It doesn’t and there is nothing to worry about.
RB,
The key word is “UNLAWFUL” Enemy Combatants.All that dribble you posted is useless rhetoric.
Unlawful meaning those individuals that don’t adhere to the Geneva convention and or are known associates of terrorists groups.
To settle your gentle mind, Timothy McVeigh would not be classified as an enemy combatant even though he was a domestic terrorist. He was afforded all the rights and priveledges of a United States citizen when he was arrested and brought before the court.
I think someone needs to stop flailing their arms about and read what the new law actually means.
Just tried my link to the MCA of 2006 in THOMAS. It didn’t work, sorry, try this one.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:2:./temp/~c109OHcrcA::
I’m 0 for 2. I’m not sure why, I’ll try again.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:2:./temp/~c109OHcrcA::
OK – I give. It is in there, I’ve seen it, even quoted part of it. Perhaps some genius will tell me why the links will not work. Even do me a favor, and post one that will. The enrolled bill as passed by the House was the sourse, as posted on THOMAS.
How did he “cross the line” by expressing his opinion. That is called freedom of speech. Even though he was released that does not undo the chilling effect of cuffing him and hauling him to jail.
I hope he gets a very good lawyer – and successfully sues everyone involved. 7 figures minimum.
Google THOMAS Military commissions Act 2006; and look at the enrolled bill. That ought to work!!
And sorry all, I guess I’m displaying my internet ignorance. Oh well.
JM,
Either your eyesight is failing or you’re rude. Your choice. You have now referred to me as RM and RB, neither of which is correct. Perhaps NOT referring to me would be your best course of action. I, in turn, will follow suit.
Ben:
That presumes that the incident happened as he says. It also presumes that he can show damages as a result. The first, I’ll not doubt at this point, as his word is all we have so far. As to the second, it appears his damages were incidental at best. If I were the VP, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it.
Ben Huie
He crossed the line by interfering or at least impeding the security of the Vice President of the United States. When you distract secret service membes by yelling at the Vice President you are impeding that security detail by drawing their attention away from concerns that may threaten the safety of the Vice President.
This arrest and detainment would have happened whether the Vice President was a Republican or a Democrat.
I remember approaching a VIP quarters at a military base overseas. I was told a high level official was staying there and I was not allowed inside anywhere the VIP quarters including the kitchen or dining area (where I was heading.)
I asked out of curiosity what would happen, the agent told me I would be wrestled to the ground and arrested. I believed him, so left.
You must and cannot interfere with security details or give the impression of a threat whether it be real or perceived.
I think that falls under the category of common sense of things not to do.
Dick Cheney sleeps?
Oh, that’s right. Vampires sleep during the day.
So, verbally petitioning the VP for redress of grievences is no longer alllowed. And now we say that hauling a guy off and throwing him in jail for a few hours is simply “incidental”
Maybe if I take your car for “just a few hours” that shouldn’t count either?
And how is Bush going to define “enemy combatant?” Easy; anyone who voices opposition to Bush being appointed President for Life!
RB,
My eyesight is failing as a matter of fact.
Regardless of the unfortunate assignment of the letters to your name, ignoring the facts will further your position.
I believe I addressed a post to hotlink and a RB; unless of course you are both people?
Ben, Ben, Ben:
I didn’t dispute his recitation of events. But I seriously doubt he can show any substantial damages as a result of the incident, given the outcome.
Besides; he has what he REALLY wants: his 15 minutes of fame, and a platform from which to criticize the administration. Soon enough there the usual appearances on Oprah, etc.
The suit’s a suit for publicity and platform, not actual damages.
BTW – anyone find a way to get a link to work to THOMAS? Anyone want to try actually reading the statute at issue here for yourself before going off half-cocked?
RB,
My eyes may be getting bad, but yours seem to be getting worse than mine. Here’s screen shot of saying your not RB, but the post is by an RB.
http://mccluer.name/rb.jpg
JM – it’s your eyes. He signed RD, not RB.
Ben,
Evidently so, should have used the Windows magnifier thing, I have trouble reading small text.
My apologies to R D.
Yes, GMC, I did; now I realize I screwed up and didn’t copy it to post here. To all: Google THOMAS Military Commissions Act 2006, and click on the first (top) link; then, when presented with the page that comes up, select choice 3, which is the text of the bill as finally passed and signed into law. As I urged yesterday, and GMC suggests, read the law for yourself. I am following my own advice, only in this case, it is a reread.
I think the Thomas (Jefferson) database at the library of congress does not allow external linking of searched items.
If you go tohttp://thomas.loc.gov/
and type in “Military Commissions 2006,” you can get some search results on the bill.
I’ll tell you honestly.
You right wingers make me sick to my stomach and afraid for our future. Why don’t you just proclaim that sonofabitch king and be done with it. Everybody knows a civil war is coming. Let’s get it on. No quarter given and none asked for.
JM, apology accepted, and I do understand about the eyes. Without these glasses, it would all be a blur to me.
And, Ben, hon, it’s SHE not HE. What? I don’t appear to be a bra-burning feminist? Dang, I gotta try harder!
Okay, so far Bush has stated that he can decide who is an enemy combatant. He has also stated that he oversees Congress.
Would one Republican please step forward and honestly say that if Clinton had done these things, they wouldn’t be complaining?
JR
I quote:”You right wingers make me sick to my stomach and afraid for our future. Why don’t you just proclaim that sonofabitch king and be done with it. Everybody knows a civil war is coming. Let’s get it on. No quarter given and none asked for”
You’ve stepped off the cliff. Where is that vaunted credibility now? Please. And I’ll hear no more about your fear of the “nuts” who support CC and your fear of them. Pot, meet Kettle.
And as to the MCA. Did you read it? Does it say what you say it says? Read it. Call me when you can point to specific provisions which grant the president the authority you assert. I’ll wait.
Sorry roxann – I hadn’t looked at your address, only your initials. I typically type “he” when not sure of gender; he/she is too much work. Definitely nothing “intended” by my error!
;^)
Cowardly, spineless, ignorant, gutless, POS troll duly ignored.
Did you inadvertantly kick the rock he was hiding under, or are you just lucky?
Thanks for the notice, Ben. I think we’d noticed it wasn’t you anyway. That troll’s kinda like dog&%@# on your shoe, isn’t he? Scrape as you might, it’s awfully hard to completely get rid of!!
Ben
What happened to your troll alert post?|??
I believe any of the following are possible between now and January 20, 2009:a) Bush, finding some incident to give him justification, suspends elections;b) A military coup (which might be welcomed in some surprising circles);c) Bush and Cheney impeached and removed from office, followed by an insurrection by right wing militias;d) None of the above.
Thanks GMC. We fight (heaven knows we fight) but for me to post some crazy drivel over your nic/email? I think that constitutes fraud. Maybe even identity theft?
I suspect I kicked some rock – just not sure which one.
heck – looks like they took it out along with the garbage!
JM–Please accept my apologies. I must have bad peeps, too.
This is a link that I got by searching the site GMC 70 linked. This is the table of contents to the law in question. I read the definitions and I am not seeing where a U.S. citizen could be denied habeas corpus rights via this legislation. What am I missing, if anything?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:8:./temp/~c109nOs1Mn::
If there is no way a U.S. citizen can be denied basic rights, I don’t have much of a problem with this legislation. I don’t want the door to such basic rights opened even a crack. I am failing to see how this door has been opened with this legislation at this time.
“The Act even allows U.S. citizens to be subjected to this treatment (though the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdi likely requires for U.S. citizens some opportunity to challenge the detention) because even American citizens can be declared to be ‘unlawful enemy combatants’ under the statute (see Sec. 3(a)(1)(1)). All anyone has to do is read the Act and it is immediately and undeniably apparent that it does not provide the right to be tried that Kondrake told the Fox audience it provides.”
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/10/what-fox-viewers-are-told-about.html
Text of the bill:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.txt.pdf
But of course, Bush would NEVER EVER use these provisions against Americans, now would he? Uhm, you might get a second opinion from Yaser Hamdi. Or Jose Padilla:http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/10/bush-administrations-torture-of-us.html
Those, my friends, were test cases. Expect to see more.
Sec. 3(a)(1)(1):
“”(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.—(A) The term ‘unlawfulenemy combatant’ means—
”(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or whohas purposefully and materially supported hostilitiesagainst the United States or its co-belligerents who isnot a lawful enemy combatant (including a person whois part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces);or
”(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date ofthe enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006,has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatantby a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competenttribunal established under the authority of thePresident or the Secretary of Defense. “
Rage:
Would you post specific cites to the statute which support such a reading? Your link doesn’t work (that’s OK, neither did mine). I suggest you read Sec. 948c and 948a of the MCA. Try the THOMAS search listed above.
Then tell me it says what you (or Greenwald) say it says.
I think you’ll find you can tone the hyperbole down a notch or two.
Thomas line time out in seconds. That’s the way it is.
Mine, however, DOES work. You needed to give it time. :)
Vaughn, thanks for the explanation on the courts, I appreciate any education I can get when it comes to our justice system.
As far as the statement someone made about Congress passing a law and can repeal it if they choose, I don’t think the Congress has repealed that many laws in its history. The problem I see is Congress passes so many laws and pretty much forgets about many of them afterwards. Sure the hot issue ones will remain a top focus for awhile but eventually languish over time.
I didn’t mean to sound unpatriotic in my first blog but I feel we, as a nation, have straid so far from the original foundation this country was based. And yes to the person that said the Constitution should change with the times, correct it is a living document and should reflect the conscience of the nation through the years. My concern is, whatever law gets passed surely somewhere, someone or some group will abuse its true intent and innocent people will be caught up in that abuse, and lives will be ruined or severely affected because of it.
We are human and we all make mistakes, but we must recognize those mistakes, correct them and learn from them. As someone once stated that “If we don’t learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.” And I liked that speech from Julius Caesar that was posted. We may be running the risk of repeating history.
I enjoy reading these posts, now this is what the founding fathers had in mind about freedom of speech and the exchange of ideas. My overall thought on this subject is, we need to keep a close watch on the use of this law, it may or may not affect all or some of us. When our constitutional rights look as though they may be infringed upon, we all must be vigilant in protecting them.
Sigh.Directly from the statute:
“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.
* * *
`(3) ALIEN- The term `alien’ means a person who is not a citizen of the United States. ”
I’d further refer you to Sec. 948c:
“Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.”
You noticed that, didn’t you? Only ALIEN unlawful enemy combatants are subject to jurisdiction under the act.
Take a deep breath, Rage. And read carefully. The sky really isn’t falling.
I take it you mean this:Ӥ 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
”Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial bymilitary commission under this chapter. “
I do. Alien means exactly that: alien. The hyperbole that US citizens are subject to the act is simply wrong. Period.
C.F.–you are either a troll or ignorant of the fact that someone else already uses CF.
He doesn’t confuse “loose” with “lose” or say “reached from his grave” when he means to say “raised from the grave.”
Please pick a new web ID.
Thank you,
The Management
Okay, I’ll back off for now, although I’ll continue to be suspicious. After all, it’s my nature.
MrC, you’re right. All those things are possible. Being probably is what I worry about. Are those listed probable? I don’t know. But I don’t trust anybody on either side.
Well, GMC, Padilla was a U.S. citizen, but Bush wanted to try him before a military comission. (c) does say “alien” but the definition of “enemy combatant” doesn’t, and then there’s this:
“”(c) DETERMINATION OF UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT STATUSDISPOSITIVE.—A finding, whether before, on, or after the date ofthe enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by aCombatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunalestablished under the authority of the President or the Secretaryof Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositivefor purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commissionunder this chapter.”
(c) would indeed seem to preclude adding Americans to the list, but I don’t trust people who ALREADY have repeatedly parsed and ignored the law to obey such a fine distinction.
And by the way, as Greenwald point out, this doesn’t keep them for capturing and holding Americans without trial FOREVER.
Ben, no insult taken nor harm done. The sex of a poster can sometimes make a difference to others. That probably has to do with envisioning who one is corresponding with more than it does how to word potshots. *Or more grammatically phrased, ‘with whom one is corresponding.* Not that anybody ever looks like what I’d expected. ;)
The bottom line: when the Executive branch determines the jurisdiction, and it is “dispositive” (no challenges, appeals etc.), they can do whatever the hell they want.
That’s not hysteria. That’s reality.
P.S. Not trying to be a pain, but one more thing:
The fact that (c) says any alien is subject doesn’t preclude any other “unlawful combatant,” now, does it?
This, Randy, is how it happens. Tortured logic and legal mazes, making something appear other than what it is.
GMC, back from the real world of billable hours for a moment: as has already been pointed out above, sec. 948a(1)(ii) provides an alternative definition to the term “Unlawful Enemy Combatant” which is contingent upon a determination of “…a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.” I haven’t found any definition of “Combatant Status Review Panel” or “other competent tribunal” in the Act. If anyone can cite me to such definition, I would appreciate it.
Sec. 948c does clearly state that only alien unlawful enemy combatants are subject to being tried by a military commission.
This is as far as I have been able to go in my reread. Back to the real world.
Vaughn, it’s only Wiki, but it’s a start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant_Status_Review_Tribunal
Vaughn:
That is the point – ONLY ALIEN unlawful enemy combatants are under the jurisdiction of the MCA, Rage’s tortured reading notwithstanding.
I’d further point out that the decision of said tribunal is appealable to the DC circuit. Sec. 950g. With counsel. 950h.
Rage et al can twist to their hysterical heart’s content, but it simply isn’t there. If you are not an alien, you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Military Commission.
Using the title to a Buffalo Springfield song, “For What Its Worth”, here are my thoughts after rereading the MCA:
The focus of the Act is to correct the Constitutional deficiencies found to exist in the Hamdi case. Thus, the reference in 948a(1)(ii) to a Combat Status Review Tribunal.
As posted earlier, only alien unlawful enemy combatants may be tried by military commission. Once tried, if convicted, the act sets up a review/appellate procedure similar to that provided by the UCMJ, with the right of appeal once that process is completed to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (950g), and then on writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court (id).The provisions of the Act blocks habeas review for alien unlawful enemy combatants only, see Sec. 950j,MCA; see also Section 7, amending the provisions of title 28, Section 2241, U.S.C. (e), dealing with the availability of a court to hear an application for a writ of habeas corpus. Note that this applies to “alien” UECs, thus resident aliens (but not citizens) who are determined to be UECs have no right to apply for a writ of habeas corpus, as are nonresident aliens.
Troublesome aspects of the Act: the definition of Unlawful Enemy Combatant (sec. 948a(1)(i) and (ii), especially 948a(1)(ii)) clearly does include American citizens. There is no specific reference to this provision elsewhere in the Act, thus leading me to wonder why it’s there at all. One possibility: the decision in the Hamdi case. As this determination may be made, inter alia, by a competent tribunal established … of the President or Secretary of Defense, and there is no definition of competent tribunal, it seems to me to be laying groundwork for future legislation/regulation. So, in essence, by establishing such tribunal, the President may determine who is an unlawful enemy combatant.
The act doesn’t require that an Alien UEC be, in fact, tried before a military commission; it only provides the procedure to be followed if such a trial is held. See Sec. 948b(d)(1), governing inapplicability of certain provisions of the UCMJ to Military Commissions, including the right to a speedy trial under Article 10, UCMJ. I cannot find any provision in the act to force a trial, and wtihout habeas review possible, this results in the right of the President to detain indefinitely.
Also very troublesome is the language in Section 6 of the Act, Implementation of Treaty Obligations, in particular 6(a)(3), Interpretation by the President. Read it for yourself. This seems contra to Article III, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which extends the judicial power to all cases… arising under… treaties made, or which shal be made… While the act attempts to harmonize the Executive power with the provisions of the Constitution, I suspect this may be the one part of the Act most suspect, as an unlawful delegation of power.
There’s a lot more that concerns me, but the issue of habeas corpus has seemed most important to the posters, so I concentrated on this. The above is “shorthanded” and summarized highly; again, please read it for yourself and make up your own minds.
I don’t think that 948a can be interpreted to include American citizens, simply because the act itself defines jurisdiction as applying only to ALIEN UECs. While the definition of “combatant” in 948a does not include “alien,” there is a definition of “alien” included, and the act itself only applies to “alien unlawful enemy combatants.” 948c.
As to the treaty interpretation language; I’m not an expert on treaty law, by any means, but I understand that language granting the President authority to interpret treaty obligations are fairly standard. He has the power to conduct foreign relations as a delegated power (Art. II, constitution), after all. Further, Sec. 6(a)(3)(D) makes clear that nothing in the statute is construed to effect the constitutional function of the other branches; in other words, the president’s acts are still subject to Congressional changes in the law and judicial review.
Randy Scholfield’s breathless rantings, as in this -
“Congress has given President Bush the unchecked power to declare anyone he wishes an “unlawful enemy combatant” — including U.S. citizens — and throw them in jail without charges or legal representation, and keep them there as long as he wants.”
- from the initial posting notwithstanding, I simply do not see the statute granting that authority.
BTW, Vaughn, if I may ask. In what area of law do you practice? Curiosity.
GMC, I understand your argument, but I disagree with respect to 948a(1)(i) and (ii). I don’t understand why that definition is in the Act, given that the Act is most clearly directed at “alien unlawful enemy combatants”, as it adds nothing. Thus, my reasoning on there being another statute in the works, or necessary to meet the Hamdi decision. I don’t know.
I, also, am no expert on treaty law; but interpretation, not execution, is left to the courts, IMHO. Thus, my posting.
Scholfield did go over the top, but in light of the furor flying around about the Act, I can sort of understand it. Maybe he, like I, had an earlier (pre-final passage) version?
Hope your weekend goes well.
GMC, try a Google search.
Thanks for joining our little group here, Vaughn. My eyes cross when I read legaleze, so it’s nice to have not only one, but now two interpretations.
GMC, no problem; my areas of concentration are Estate Planning; Probate; Taxation; a bit of Corporate and Real Estate.
During my military days, I was assigned to the USAF Area Defense Counsel program. I stay away from “real court” as much as I can, although I helped out a colleague of mine who is a municipal court prosecutor by taking an appointment earlier this month.
I understand that you are a prosecutor, correct? If you don’t mind, is this a full time job or are you in private practice, too.
All I can say Lucee.
Better a christian trying to shove christianity down your throat then a muslem cutting your throat.
Vaughn;
Yea, full time prosecution. No private practice, and most of the time, I’m thankful for it. No clocking billable hours, paying staff, etc., etc. Of course, not the income either. Oh well, I’m used to that. It’s not about the money; it never has been, in this “life” or last.
Someday I may well go the private route and work the other side; do defense work.
It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out. The courts are not through with this area of law, not by a long shot.
GMC you were unfair to me.
“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.” That is where I am coming from.
You understand the law better than I. You say there is no threat to liberty here. Rage disagrees. Vaugn disagrees.
The devil is of course in the details. I’ll leave it to you experts to sort it out. But I stand by my earlier post which you attacked. I cite hotlick and JM and others who I say would afford this administration anything it asked. I will call them traitors to the intent of the founding fathers. I hope you will afford me at least that I am tough but fair.
JR:
I’ll stand by my comments. Over the cliff. Zero credibility.
I understand Vaughn’s position. It’s a reasonable one; I disagree with it.
Ultimately, as always, the courts will decide. We’ll see. But the process will sort it out. A three-branch government is messy. Sometimes there are excesses. But it works, ultimately. It doen’t call for manning the barricades. And that’s where you went over the cliff.
And I don’t know your constitutional philosophy, but I suspect the “intent of the founding fathers” isn’t particularly high on the priority list.
Laws are usually interpreted by the courts, but if the courts have no jurisdiction in the matter, they won’t be interpreting anything. If they follow the intent of congress, then it is the intent to give Bush any power he thinks he needs.
How sad GMC. You assume the worst of me while I afforded the best of you. Well fool me once…..you know the rest. But then you are a prosecutor. It is your job to pursue the worst.
“….over the cliff…”
Aw but there is that “Extremism in the defense of liberty….” thing again isn’t it? Henry, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin…….I’m in good company. YOU are in the company of hotlick JM bush and cheney.
“It doesn’t call for manning the barricades….”
The founding fathers, Abe Lincoln, Susan B Anthony, union organizers, the civil rights movement, and my friend Ksfarmgrrl would beg to disagree. AGAIN I prefer my “company” to yours.
By the way? I’ll weigh your credibility in this forum against mine anytime. If mine is “zero”, well… that will leave you at a deficit is my take.
You are on the wrong side of this arguement GMC. And my sense and your posts would seem to tell that you know that. Politics, your ego, and your past with me is getting in your way. YOU are trusted with justice. Try and remember that.
President George W. Bush is desperate.Which translates into a very high death rate for American soldiers, and Iraqi civilians, as he’s instructed the Generals in Iraq just how badly he need a “victory” to claim for the upcoming November elections.
Bush lacks the integrity which is supposed to go with the office of the Presidency of the United States. He was elected into that office by his family name and parroting the speeches written by some very deviate people with dark agendas.
The misapplied use of the word “terror” has been so twisted, as to give the office of the presidency powers which it was never intended to have or use, and lobbyists have bribed members of congress to vote into law, legislation which is harmful to this US democracy. Paid-off Democrats crossed Party lines to give Bush his “Detainee Bill,” which suspends Habeas Corpus provisions of the US Constitution. A “Detainee” has no rights, as he simply disappears into whatever holding facility Bush chooses anywhere in the world. Family members are not given any information, and the detainee can be held forever or even killed.
The classification of the term “suspected terrorist” is so vague as to able to be applied to a two year old, and yet it offers absolute power to the presidency.
“Suspected Terrorist” is as foolish a description as the “bogeyman,” yet gives the US presidency the power of a dictator. It served the Israelis, but that is to be expected.
This “detainee law” is the last thing that America needs.
Those in congress who passed this law know exactly what it does, and need to be held accountable in the November elections.
War on Terror
The rich man’s war,The poor man’s fight.
JR:
If you can’t deal with the argument, resort to ad hominem. Attack what YOU consider to be my “allies.” Attempt to change the subject.
And I’ll let your own recent writings (on this topic and others- see thread on homophily)speak to your credibility. You’ve already done my work for me there. As in “. . . a civil war is coming. Let’s get it on” indeed! Now THAT’s serious thinking!!! Keep telling yourself how “credible” you are – if you repeat it enough, you might convince even yourself. Yes, I know, you’re not alone in the fainting spells. MrC has also peeked over the cliff. I’ll take (d), Mr. C. I’ll bet the farm. Come Jan. 20, 2009, Bush will leave office, just like his 40+ predecessors. There are valid criticisms of the administration (I’ve made them too), and valid disagreements. But we’re hardly a banana republic. Now who sounds like a nut?
And I still see no rational argument, JR; just overheated rhetoric and your ‘asserted’ company. While certainly there may come a time to man the barricades, I very much doubt the company you assert is on “your” side would join you there at this point. It frankly appears, given your rhetoric, that your chosen allie is more the likes of Tim McVeigh. Strange bedfollows, indeed. Or perhaps you’ve channeled Lincoln to get his OK on this? No, JR, you’ll have to do MUCH better than that.
Try again. When you offer substance, I’ll respond with substance.
And steve: “but if the courts have no jurisdiction in the matter . . . ” – I’ll point out, again, that the statute specifically makes the decision of the commission appealable to the DC circuit, and on up the judicial ladder. See Sec. 950g. The statute bars jurisdiction for habeus review for AIEC’s, not direct judicial review of commission decisions. More rhetoric. Read it for yourself, folks.
There is reasonable disagreement as to the details of this statute. And the courts may decide that barring habeus review for aliens is unconstitutional. The system, messy as it is, will work it out. But there appear to be a lot of folks – including Scholfield, who should know better – who have given in to breathless rhetoric. Read the statute for yourself. Decide for yourself.
Or you can go JR’s route, and channel Lincoln.
Ahh GMC
I afforded you too much. The record will show I gave you every chance.
You are more animated than usual. You usually have little spirit and much pomp. Does this new side of you come from drink?
How sad for you GMC. The forum will now regard you in the vein of Paul Rosell, LRB, and Hank. Hey I tried.
As to company, let’s just us see how many will claim you.
How sad for you GMC. The forum will now regard you in the vein of Paul Rosell, LRB, and Hank. Hey I tried.
Still riding that high horse I see!
Drink? Nah – you just bring out the “best?” in me. I’d offer to meet you for a beer and a handshake, but you’ve made it clear that you can’t be sullied by association with Republicans. Might challenge that self-rightous thinking. Can’t have that.
For important celebrities like JR, we little people should be thankful for even being mentioned by him!
hey Will? Pick a side and stay there ok?
GMC I’ve always brought out the best in you. That is what free speech is all about. I am fighting for that. Are you? I’m only encouraging you to do so.
By the way GMC you were invited to the last unofficial meet up. I was there. Where were you?
I don’t hate you GMC. If I did I’d be harder on you. You are better than this fight you have chosen. You know it yourself. Throw off the rules and regs now and again and think about what is RIGHT not what is “right”.
Pick a side? Did I hear PICK A SIDE? Sounds suspiciously like “you’re either for us, or against us;” a phrase I think you attribute to your VERY favorite president, JR!
It’s not about “sides,” JR. It’s about rational debate, thinking, exchanging ideas. THAT is what free speech is all about. Please don’t tell me how you’re a champion of free speech, after you’ve responded to posters you disagree with by telling them that they should get off and not come back. KS M-lark? Remember that? Is that high horse getting a bit uncomfortable yet?
Free speech requires more than choosing up sides.
And given your recent rhetoric, JR, should I “fear” a meeting with you? You have expressed a “fear” of me, at times. Read those past posts, on both topics; tell me with a straight face which of us appears to be more threatening.
I’m all about what is right. We probably even agree most of the time as to just what “right” is. But there’s a principle here. It’s called rule of law, JR. Even if I disagree with the law. There are still constitutional and legal processes to sort out legal conundrums. I’m still ready to let them work; you’re apparantly ready for “civil war.”
And please don’t presume to tell me what I REALLY think. I’ll do that for myself, thank you. And I won’t have to check and see how many are on my “side” to do it.
Finally, as much fun as it has been to twist the knife this early AM, gotta get my beauty sleep. See ya. At some point I would still, believe it or not, like to meet ya. But I’ll probably be packing then, though you won’t see it. It’s concealed, ya see.
Dang, I go away for a few days, I come back and everyone is a feudin’!
I do believe that JR is right and theri will be civil/race/class war in our near future. I have said that there is a very good chance that shrub will be the LAST president in the history of our nation. If not, then the sap elected in 2008 will have that distinction.
Viva La Revolucion Blanco!!
And I though I was calling it a night.
Well, JR, there ya go. That’s company. You’ve got our resident racist nut on your “side.” Feels good, don’t it?
GMC70,
Go to sleep, JUDAS! Jr and I don’t agree on much but I do admire him for his convictions, he is no hypocrite, that’s for sure.
You sir, are nothing but a functionary, and an apologist for a dying system. Go to sleep, you mike nifong wannabee!
V.L.R.B!!
JR,
Union or Confederate?Please enlighten us!
RandyTake a deep breath!:
“Never in America’s history as a democracy has Congress granted these kind of despotic powers to the chief executive.”Never have we been asked to give up constitutional checks and simply trust the president to do the right thing.”
Take a look at wars fought on American soil. In the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Spanish American War, The Mexican American War and the Civil War, we did not grant full constitutional rights to enemy combatants or to regular POW’s.”Unlawful Enemy Combatant” is a term used to describe someone who is fighting outside the legal bounds of the Geneva Convention, either due to being out of uniform or some other reason.If the President ever abused this power, to declare a combatant “unlawful” he could surely be impeached.However, Randy, you are being very misleading in your quote I posted above.The reason Congress never HAD to specifically authorize these powers, is because EVERY Supreme Court, and ever CONGRESS, up until recently, ASSUMED that the President already HAD these powers.No President in history has ever treated LAWFULL POW’s the same way we treat persons accused of a crime.Unlawful Enemy Combatants, again, is a term created by the Geneva Conventions for people who do not deserve the full protections of the Geneva Conventions.Try reading the Geneva Conventions folks:http://www.genevaconventions.org/
“Rage et al can twist to their hysterical heart’s content, but it simply isn’t there. If you are not an alien, you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Military Commission.”
At least I’m the lead plantiff, hehe!
Actually, I never said the law permitted Americans to go before tribunals. My position is consistent with Vaughn’s, and Greenwald’s, and Jonathan Turley’s: The act DOES allow citizens to be named by Executive Branch as unlawful enemy combatants, and that determination is, under this law, dispositive. UCEs have typically been held for years without due process, and I expect that to continue.
And this is an administration that is strongly inclined to creativity reinterpret the Constitution and statutes to its own liking. Apparently, you forgot about their legally untenable claim that AUMF somehow overrode existing statutes on domestic wiretapping, even though there wasn’t word one in the act.
Oh, wait, you though that was a defensible argument, didn’t you? (but “far from sure” it was a winner–that was cute!).
I’m quite weary today, or I would go thru chapter and verse: the relevant precedents (Quirin, Hamdi, Padilla, Hamdan, etc,), yada yada yada. I would qualify and revise where necessary (I don’t see any need at present). But I see Rosell has shown up to pollute the thread, so I have yet another reason to call it a day.
P.S. BTW: After mulling it over, I say the Sixth Circuit–the whole Circuit, en banc–will uphold Anna Diggs Taylor’s judgement (and probably on very similar reasoning). Well, GMC, what you say?
P.P.S. GMC, if you have so little respect for JR’s views, why stay up until 2 a.m. to argue with him? Hehehe!
Did Saddam ever claim the authority to hold secret prisons in countries over which he did not control? How is his lack of Haeeus Corpus in his regime differ from the Bush Regime, or from China’s? I suppose one could argure that if China classified their dissidents as “State Terrorist”, they would be more than entitled to carry on with our blessing. America should stand for more, we have lost any moral authority we may have ever held.
Now that Paul Rosell has stunk up the place in his usual fashion, it’s up to the Rude Pundit to freshen up the air in here.
I particularly like Jonathan Turley’s incredulity at how America has just surrendered its Constitution, while the public goes on watching “Dancing with the Stars.”
**********************************rudepundit.blogspot.com
10/19/2006One Nation Under Bush:
“There’s probably not a lot to add to Keith Olbermann’s Special Comment last night on the President’s signing of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, where Olbermann repeatedly called Bush a “liar” and seemed to stop just short of asking Dubya to step outside. But for an equally or even more intestine-grinding gut punch, check out Tuesday’s Olbermann interview with Jonathan Turley on the same subject. Turley ain’t a flame-spewing liberal (although, in these vicious times, anyone who even murmurs that the Bush administration has gone too far is proclaimed a flag burner). He told Olbermann, “[P]eople have no idea how significant this is. What, really, a time of shame this is for the American system. What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values.”
And then he smacked down the country for its laissez-who-gives-a-fuck attitude: “It couldn’t be more significant. And the strange thing is, we’ve become sort of constitutional couch potatoes. I mean, the Congress just gave the president despotic powers, and you could hear the yawn across the country as people turned to, you know, Dancing with the Stars. I mean, it’s otherworldly.”
The law the President signed is the kind of shit that, in a real democracy, would cause citizens to be rioting in the streets, daring the government to invoke the law against them. It’s the kind of thing that ought to shut the nation down because of the convulsive revulsion of the people, a massive expectoration of unified disgust at what a group of Republicans has allowed to happen. Nothing of the sort will happen here, though.
Americans will desperately cling to those lies that make their lives easier. It’s like when you know, with all your being, that your lover is fucking around on you, despite all her protestations of devotion and monogamy. It’s just simpler, at the end of the day, to suck it up and pretend that her body is yours and yours alone. For most Americans, if their neighbor or lawn guy gets picked up by Homeland Security and his family cannot find out why, it’s just less taxing on the mind to think, “Goddamn, Jorge or Omar must’ve done something, and, really, did I really know him that well?” Even when it’s not Jorge or Omar. Even when it’s Johnny All-Star, maybe a blond-haired, blue-eyed blogger. Even then most of us would comfort ourselves thinking, maybe not articulating it this way, but still, “Bush knows best; Bush knows best.” Even as poll after poll suggests how much we despise him, it’s just easier.
Yesterday, Alberto Gonzales, Igor to Cheney’s Dr. Frankenstein, “answered” “questions” from the “public” about the MCA. Most of it was the same bullshit you’ve heard from just about every Republican opening his or her mouth on the topic. But when Gonzales was asked if he was proud of the act (in a pretty confrontational question), Gonzales answered, “I am very proud of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and every American should share that pride.” Share the love. Gonzales was practically licking his red rocket over the Act: “Future generations will look back and commend us for recognizing the threat of terrorism and taking every possible step -consistent with American values and the rule of law- to defeat it.” Of course, the act pretty much allows a President to detain anyone who isn’t proud of it. Gonzales went out of his way a couple of times to say the act doesn’t apply to Americans, but, fuck, c’mon. Not after you’ve already detained a couple of Americans.
When Bush signed the MCA, he gave a little speech where he made feints at specificity in relation to the “good” the CIA’s near-death experience interrogations have done. He said evil sounding names whose invocation made one think of facial hair and olive skin. He said, “The CIA program helped us identify terrorists who were sent to case targets inside the United States, including financial buildings in major cities on the East Coast. And the CIA program helped us stop the planned strike on U.S. Marines in Djibouti, a planned attack on the U.S. consulate in Karachi, and a plot to hijack airplanes and fly them into Heathrow Airport and Canary Wharf in London.” Gonzales reiterated these triumphs of torture.
But here’s the thing: we just have their word for it. On everything. No wonder these motherfuckers are opposed to habeas corpus. Show the body? Fuck that. How about showing a single thread of evidence that demonstrates our “new” methods of interrogation have led to anything that the old, tired ones couldn’t have obtained?
Essentially, what Bush and Gonzales have said is that American military law, the treaties we have abided by, and our entire goddamned judicial system is so weak, that it coddles criminals, that to be tried and sentenced, or even to be charged, is merely liberal weakness. In the end, Bush is saying, to truly love your country, you better be willing to undermine its civic foundations, you better be willing to vest power in a single leader for the duration of a “new kind of war,” as Gonzales called it. Yes, this war on “terror” is different. Yes, certain powers have been granted to Presidents in more traditional wars, wars with nations and armies, and, above all, clear objectives and certain end.
To those who would support the Bush administration and the act, which, as Jonathan Turley said made “a fundamental change [in] who we are as a country,” we can pull out that old conservative line, “America – love it or leave it.”"
Great post, CF.
What really resonates is the line:”But here’s the thing: we just have their word for it. On everything.”
After the way these mother-rapers have lied about absolutely everything, you’d have to be one dumb f*** to believe them now.
Capn,
Indeed. And that’s why I find GMC70’s argument so unconvincing. I mean, in one clase of the law it stipulates only ‘enemy’ combatants, while in another it further stipulates they must be ‘aliens.’ Given this administration’s repeated and blatant disregard of the law, this is exactly the sort of ambiguity they’ve proven themselves adept at driving a truck through.
Why would anybody believe anything this administration says?
“Given this administration’s repeated and blatant disregard of the law, this is exactly the sort of ambiguity they’ve proven themselves adept at driving a truck through.”
That of course was the point I was trying to make. It was interesting how GMC criticized my tortured reasoning when of course that was EXACTLY my point (I even used those same words!).
Okay, back to vegging with SNL and brandy . .
Turly did bring up opinion polls.However, the polls for and against Bush do not really do justice to this issue do they?The American public overwhelmingly supports the idea that terrorists do not deserve full Constitutional rights.I don’t think much of opinion polls.Facts and law should not rest on opinion polls.However, your boy Turly brought it up, and the fact is, this Tribunal law is in line with public opinion.This law will never be overturned, no matter who is elected President, no matter who controls Congress.It is with us for good, thank Heaven!
Please name another country that signed on to the Geneva Conventions that has declared America in violation of the Geneva Conventions for passing this Tribunal legislation?The ONLY organizations or parties that can claim any violation of international law are the other SIGNERS of the Gevena Conventions.Nobody else has standing on that issue.
I love the question begging: “terrorists do not have right!”
BUT, you can only determine if someone is a terrorist by giving them a trial.
So, they have to have a right to a trial, don’t they.
That’s the problem–if we could tell who the terrorists are just by looking at them, we could throw them into prison or whatever.
But we can’t. Which means a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
I hereby announce the Doctrine of M.A.P.Short for: Mutually Assured Pissedoff!Every time you post or quote Oberman or Turly, I post Coulter, lol.
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi
Ok, so even if you dont line Coulter, (or Bush), tell me how Lynne Stewart deserved to be treated as anything other than a traitor?
This is why we cant allow normal civilian courts to try matters of national security. The courts are full of political hacks and judges who want America to lose!
“Gen. George Washington tried Major John Andre, Benedict Arnold’s British co-conspirator, by military tribunal and ordered Andre hanged within 10 days of his capture. Nazi saboteurs, including an American citizen, captured on U.S. soil during World War II were tried in secret by military commission and promptly executed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Nuremberg trials were a form of military tribunal. “
Even though I think you are a complete and utter idiot, just for giggles, Paul, explain why it is in anyone’s best interest that the US “lose”?
CapnAre you claiming that there is NOT a group of American citizens out there that would take great joy at America pulling all of our troops out of Iraq, Afganistan and every other country in the world and declaring defeat?Lets use Vietnam as an example. Yes, Vietnam was poorly thought out, by Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ and Nixon. Vietnam was poorly fought. In a nuclear age, we were not sure how to handle Korea or Vietnam.However, there is a very large segment of the population that sees American retreat from Vietnam as a great “victory” for the liberal cause. Millions of boat people died, millions more refugees flooded the worlds relief agencies. Poll Pot came to power in Cambodia. American prestige was weakened for several years, leading to more aggressive acts by many other countries.Vietnam was a trajic event, and I do agree that there are patriotic Americans that felt our withdrawal was the only just resolution.But what do you think of the “Americans” like Jane Fonda who drapped themselves in the North Vietnamese Flag? Fonda also betrayed American POW’s who tried to pass secret messages to here from their prison hootches. Our fellow American citizens were beaten because of her anti-American behavior.Likewise, today, there are many who rejoice at the hardships faced by our military. I would agree, again, that some people simply feel that the sacrifice of blood in Iraq is not worth it. Those people are wrong, but they have a right to their views.What of this attorney who helped the Blind Sheik transfer war and terrorist information to our enemies?Did she want America to win??Capn, you are either deliberately avoiding the obvious, or you arent very smart.There are people, on your side of the terrorism issue, who are, in fact, our enemies!
Let’s not forget Jane Fonda shooting at American planes using a Viet Cong anti-aircraft gun! I don’t think Captain Galahad would put himself in that kind of position.
Folks; once again I see here a lot of emotional rhetoric but no substance. Because Olberman says it’s so, doesn’t make it so. Vaughn and I disagree on the operation and application of the the language of the act, but I understand and respect his position, I simply disagree with it. I’ll speak for Vaughn a bit to say he probably thinks the same; I understand, but disagree. Ultimately, as always, the courts will decide this.
What you’ve offered, CF, Rage, is incindiary rhetoric (epitomized by JR’s “civil war” BS), but not much substance, i.e. this from CF: “Of course, the act pretty much allows a President to detain anyone who isn’t proud of it.” Really? Show it to me; chapter and verse, where that is the case.
Even Vaughn (and Vaughn, you’ll excuse me for citing to you, my friend, I hope) has stated that the language of the act doesn’t support the knee-jerk reaction and hyperbolic rhetoric seen here.
There is valid reason to criticize this administration; one can even validly criticize this act. But this kind of sky is falling rhetoric isn’t supported by the language of the legislation in question.
GMC,
It’s all in the interpretation, isn’t it? Perhaps that was the intent when it was written.
“Are you claiming that there is NOT a group of American citizens out there that would take great joy at America pulling all of our troops out of Iraq, Afganistan and every other country in the world and declaring defeat?”
Who said that a scheduled redeployment would be declared a defeat? Do you mean that at any time we leave Iraq, we will be declaring defeat?
Maybe Nathan can give us, point by point, what winning the war in Iraq will look like. What specific things have to happen to be able to declare victory? So far, it’s been a bit vague, with bits of clarity here and there. At least that’s the way I’ve seen it. Somebody else has already said this, but we’ve heard at different times, “after they vote,” “after they form a government,” “after their army is trained,” and so on.
To focus on the latter, we basically have trained their army or at least are in the process of doing so. Are we looking for a specific number of trained troops? The strengths of said army? If so, does that mean that if they the Iraq army is NEVER able to take over we will stay?
Someone please give a specific list.
Correct me if im wron but wasn’t it “Mission Accomplished” three years ago?
Now we’re using our military like its a police force. I’ve always wondered at how ridiculous our foreign policy is. After WWII we became the self-appointed “World Police,” Why do we have to have a war every decade?
I think Ben’s post at http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/10/another_wartorn.html#comments shows exactly what many of us have been saying, concerning our victories in Iraq and when we can look forward to an end to this.
GMC70,
I’m not going to play this game. The language I cited serves as the premises that the Executive now has the right to declare anyone he wants an enemy combatant. Simple as that. This is irrefutable. It is your decision to refuse to draw the conclusion.
You said you weren’t a Constitutional scholar. Turley is. I suggest you defer to his interpretation. More to the point, one needn’t be a scholar to know what those words mean. The President now gets to unilaterally declare American citizens as enemy combatants, and to deny their habeas corpus rights.
Watching you and would-be Brownshirts like Paul Rosell soft-peddle this fascist overturning of the United States Constitution reinforces my conviction that nobody should, ever, ever, ever vote Republican again. And whoever on this blog HAS voted Republican is directly responsible for this successful effort to uproot our legal and Constitutional protections as Americans.
If what I’m saying is ‘incendiary,’ how should I judge your apologetics, GMC70? How about ‘unconstitutional?’ How about ‘treasonous?’
Will, fyi, Jane Fonda didn’t actually shoot at american planes, she just posed on the gun. She has since apologised and said it was a mistake. But hey, you never done anything stupid that you later regreted, right?
And Paul, please calm down and go take your meds. Yes, I dispute your statement: “Are you claiming that there is NOT a group of American citizens out there that would take great joy at America pulling all of our troops out of Iraq, Afganistan and every other country in the world and declaring defeat?”
Just because we believe that the war in Iraq is wrong and that we invaded with “casus belli” (reasons for war) does NOT mean that pulling the troops out and “declaring defeat” will be met with great joy.
This Act restores the balance of power that had always existed in this country, prior to recent Supreme Court rulings.You folks need to calm down.Congress corrected an error in the Courts.Congress has that right.Historically, the executive powers recognized by this act have never been challenged by the courts or by Congress.(recognized, not granted, the President HAD these powers previously).
Paul F. Rosell,
That’s some fantastical, historically challenged spin. Guess you’re on board with the whole Cheney / Rumsfeld ‘restoration of the Presidency’ project.
The framers envisioned a strong Congress and a weak Executive. That’s well-understood Constitutional history. The fact that it doesn’t conform to your would-be fascist presumptions doesn’t mean you get to reject it willy-nilly.
More to the point, habeas corpus has only been suspended under quite extraordinary circumstances. To suggest that this is a routine exercise of Presidential perogatives is exactly the sort of revisionist history one ought to expect from Paul F. Rosell.
And now that I have your attention, we’re still waiting for the categorical denial that you receive money from AIPAC.
Hey paul?
“There are people, on your side of the terrorism issue, who are, in fact, our enemies!”
Now you have absolutely zero credibiity on this forum Paul. But just for the sake of amusement? After you answer CF (yeah like that’s gonna happen) why don’t you list those “enemies” for us?
“Are you claiming that there is NOT a group of American citizens out there that would take great joy at America pulling all of our troops out of Iraq, Afganistan and every other country in the world and declaring defeat?”
At the risk of encouraging him–I suspect he gets paid by the word–the answer is absolutely not.
Whether we “win” or “lose” in Iraq–it already is a huge TRAGEDY.
650,000 Iraqis have died since we invaded. 3,000 American boys dead in the ground. 20,000 wounded, maimed for life, in wheelchairs, on crutches.
And for a pack of lies.
Everything we said turned out to be true–no WMD’s, no Al Qaeda ties, no flowers and candy greeting our troops, no painless reconstruction paid for with Iraqi oil–and everything you said turned out to be false.
Cassandra didn’t take pleasure in forseeing the inevitable results either . . .
Heh, nice try, CF.
But GMC is a guy who claims apparently with a straight face that in Florida in 2000, if Gore had been ahead by 315 official votes out of 6 million cast and Bush had pushed for a recount, the SCOTUS would have found in favor of GORE just like they found in favor of Bush.
Anyone capable of that degree of delusionary thinking cannot be dissuaded by mere logic.
What’s funny is I taught in Malaysia for three years where they have a law exactly like the one passed. They can “detain” suspected terrorists for two years without trial.
Of course, it is used to imprison political prisoners. Of course, it is used to lock away popular leaders of grassroots movement who threaten the hegemony of the ruling party (UMNO).
We used to ridicule Malaysia’s pretense of democracy while continuing to lock away people who’s only “crime” was free speech with this blatently dictatorial “law.”
Now we have the same thing.
“[I]n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. . . .[C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.” Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 (1992).
“Congress is presumed to act intentionally and purposely when it includes language in one section but omits it in another.” Estate of Bell v. Commissioner, 928 F.2d 901, 904 (9th Cir. 1991).
Application of “broad purposes” of legislation at the expense of specific provisions ignores the complexity of the legislative problems Congress is called upon to address and the dynamics of legislative action. Congress may be unanimous in its intent to stamp out some vague social or economic evil; however, because its Members may differ sharply on the means for effectuating that intent, the final language of the legislation may reflect hard-fought compromises. Invocation of the “plain purpose” of legislation at the expense of the terms of the statute itself takes no account of the processes of compromise and, in the end, prevents the effectuation of congressional intent. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System v. Dimension Financial Corp., 474 U.S. 361, 373-74 (1986).
“When Congress includes a specific term in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it should not be implied where it is excluded.” Arizona Elec. Power Co-op. v. United States, 816 F.2d 1366, 1375 (9th Cir. 1987); see also West Coast Truck Lines, Inc. v. Arcata Community Recycling Ctr., 846 F.2d 1239, 1244 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 856 (1988).
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s104.htm
P.S. GMC, I’m sure resident aliens will thank you for standing up for them.
/sarcasm off
Rage,
GREAT posts!
Of course, Paul F.Rosell and GMC70 will, in all likelihood, act as if they’d never seen them, so they can pretend the Detainee Bill of 2006 isn’t what it is, which is an overturning of basic constitutional principles and an assault on the separation of powers. But they expose this right-wing effort to soft-peddle the fascist detainee bill for what it is: yet another lie by the Right. Way to go, guys!
Increasingly, I’m thinking that one can’t continue to be a Republican while remaining a good American. The conservative posters on this blog haven’t done a thing to convince me otherwise.
My concerns, extant after a reread of the MCA; the definition of “unlawful enemy combatant”; the term is not used by itself anywhere else in the MCA; why, then, was it specifically defined? Two potential answers: 1) to fill in the gaps over prior designations of individuals as UECs, called into doubt by the Hamdi decision; 2) foundation for subsequent action, legislative or administrative. Either way, I’m nervous.
Two, the power granted to the President to “interpret” the provisions of the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention is a treaty, and interpretation thereof to me is lodged in Article 3 courts.
What is clear to me from reading the MCA: subjection of detainees to Military Commissions is limited to “alien UECs” (this would include resident aliens); the stripping of habeas jurisdiction from the federal courts is limited, under the terms of the MCA, to applications by “alien UECs”. Again, this would include resident aliens.
Citation to the specific portions of the MCA on the above issues is given throughout the earlier posts in this thread. As GMC noted, he and I disagree with our respective positions in regard to the above, but both are founded on the language of the statute, and in general, our respective training in the law.Professor Turley’s comments are instructive, and I am trying to fully understand them.
Rage:
Now we’re getting somewhere. Good for you!! I note CF is still simply throwing bombs and deciding who is entitled to be a “good American.” Reminds me of a quote from another blogger (and no, I do not generally endorse this view): “scratch a lefty, find a totalitarian.”
I agree, Rage, that differing language in different sections constitute different meanings. However, I would note that the language you cite as “different” language is in the definition section of the statute, not in the operational sections. The operational section, specifically just who comes under the jurisdiction of the MCA, is clear. It applies to “alien unlawful emeny combatants.”
Personally, I’m becoming more and more troubled by the lack of something Vaughn pointed out: a speedy trial clause, of some kind. Kansas has a statutory ST clause, for example, and there is a constitutional one (5th amendment). It is questionable whether habeus applies at all to aliens outside the US; a cursory reading seems to indicate it does not. Query: does a constitutional speedy trial right apply to AUECs under the MCA? I don’t know.
I’m not asking for you to agree with me, all. Just that we keep our heads. As always, the courts will have to sort it out. And yes, CF, I’m “delusional” enough to rely on our time-proven constitutional processes to sort this out. The alternative is throwing bombs, not just rhetorical ones, but the real thing. No one here (aside perhaps from JR and his new-found ally Ian) wants to go there.
GMC, I would argue that there is specifically no right to a speedy trial under the MCA, as that portion of the UCMJ is specifically omitted from incorporation into the MCA. This, too, concerns me.
With reference to the 5th Amendment right to speedy trial, applying the traditional analysis, that should apply to citizens and resident aliens; however, by the express wording of the MCA, the implementation of this Constitutional right to the military (the UCMJ)is not extended to trials by military commissions; a resident alien may be tried by a military commission; thus, there is no statutory right to speedy trial under the MCA for those subject to its provisions. Whether there is an overriding Constitutional right to speedy trial for alien UECs is a question for the Courts; all I can say is that there is no statutory right under the MCA.
GMC70,
If it walks and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. No apologies for my assessment of the statute, and no apologies for my assessment of Republican complicity with the overturning of constitutional protections.
Vaughn:
While I agree that ultimately binding interpretation of a treaty (and other law) is left to Art. III courts, the reality is that working interpretation is made daily.
As a prosecutor, for example, I make such interpretations of Kansas law on a daily basis, guided by the decisions of courts. If there is no on point decision on a particular fact pattern, I am left with “interpreting” the law myself. Ultimately, the courts will tell me if my interpretation is a correct one, through judicial review.
As I understand it, authority is routinely given to the president to interpret treaty obligations using similar language. The president’s interpretation is of course subject to judicial review, the MCA specifically holds that is so. But that happens only AFTER the president makes a working interpretation, and is challenged; the courts do not make advisory rulings, instead only adjudicating actual cases or controversies.
Enjoying the thinking through process here.
And Vaughn, I agree with you entirely on the speedy trial analysis.
GMC, I find that you and I agree more than what might be apparent to others; my concern on Geneva Convention interpretation is to provide cover to the President for apparent openly inconsistent interpretations of the language in the treaty.
Ah, Chief Justice Marshall; what a wonderful world you created for all of us by your opinion in Marbury v. Madison.(That one’s for you, GMC!).
Vaughn:
I think what he was really creating was permanent employment for lawyers – perhaps that was intentinal!! ;-)
Actually, GMC, the “dispositive” provision is within th very same section of the act.
My e key is giving me trouble, so I have to leav it at that.
P.S. Vaughn — this admin’s position on the law would sub thmselves for th judiciary in Marbury.