The Road to hell...

Petre, I could care less how many lawyers you drudge up. I don't care whether a us citizen is declared an unlawful enemy combatant.

The bottoms line is that under this bill ONLY ALIENS WILL BE TRIED IN MILITARY TRIBUNALS AND HABEAS CAN ONLY BE SUSPENDED FOR ALIENS


I can declare you, your mother, your sister and your dog an unlawful enemy combatant, and you will still recieve your due process guarantees. You will get your day in court.

This bill specifically limits the applicability of military courts to aliens. It also limits the suspension of habeas to aliens.

You notice that your precious professor didn't mention this. Maybe if you did some reading and thinking on your own instead of relying on some partisan hack (believe me, most professors are partisan hacks on one side or another) you would have figured out what is blatantly clear.
 
You should care ... in case you didn't realize it , they're the ones that help interpret the laws.

And your points are wrong. It does not. It is a sloppily written document that could easily be used against US Citizens.

Not for you to worry though. I can see you will blindly follow where ever they lead.
 
And your points are wrong. It does not
Click to expand...

All right. Let's put my law degree against your propoganda. Show me where this bill allows for suspending habeas for us citizens. Show me where this bill will be used to try citizens in military courts.

This ought to be good.
 
Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.

What's wrong with this sentence Einstein ?
 
Sorry Rich ... :(

And my apologies if I offended you too Stage2 ... IMO this is a serious issue , and a sloppily written document. I'd love to just stand on trust that the intent was honorable , but I do not trust this current administration with our rights any longer.

This section was not complete in Ahenry's post. IMO it clearly combines and also distinguishes the two. Note in C no mention of the requirement of being an alien.
=======================

`Sec. 948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions

`(a) Jurisdiction- A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.

`(b) Lawful Enemy Combatants- Military commissions under this chapter shall not have jurisdiction over lawful enemy combatants. Lawful enemy combatants who violate the law of war are subject to chapter 47 of this title. Courts-martial established under that chapter shall have jurisdiction to try a lawful enemy combatant for any offense made punishable under this chapter.

`(c ) Determination of Unlawful Enemy Combatant Status Dispositive- A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.

`(d) Punishments- A military commission under this chapter may, under such limitations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe, adjudge any punishment not forbidden by this chapter, including the penalty of death when authorized under this chapter or the law of war.
 
Fair enough Rich... as for you Petre...

What's wrong with this sentence Einstein ?
Click to expand...

Umm.... because if you're an alien you're not a us citizen. You can't be both an alien and a citizen.

Even if you wanted to play the ambiguity/interpretation game, the bill clearly defines alien as a person who is not a citizen of the United States.

So once again, how is a us citizen ever going to see the inside of a military court under this bill?
 
Because the way it's recklessly written , it can apply to either. And IMO therein lies the problem.

I realize you don't feel this way , but many do because it's a legitimate concern.
 
Because the way it's recklessly written , it can apply to either. And IMO therein lies the problem.
Click to expand...


Show me. Don't tell me, show me. I've already pointed out that the courts only have jurisdiction over matters governing aliens.

You may not like the way its written but you can't sit there with a straight face and tell me that an american citizen will see any effects of this bill.
 
Stage, what he's saying is that being an 'unlawful enemy
combatant' is equal to being an 'Alien unlawful enemy combatant' since they're both equal under the eyes of this law.

Can we agree on that?

If so, we're thinking that the standards by which one can be judged an unlawful enemy combatant will widen up in the following years.

If not, nothing to worry about.

Right?
 
Let me just add , if this were written properly , stating something clear and concise like ...

Only unlawful enemy combatants that are not US CITIZENS, are subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.

Critical words ANY vs ONLY subject to the proper identifyer of TYPE of combatant and citzenship status ... written properly , we wouldn't be having this discussion.

As it's written , it's reckless and suspect in it's interpretation. The fact that they further, in C distinguish Unlawful Enemy Combatant and describe the possible consequence of such , WITHOUT adding the supposedly required ALIEN status , only further muddies the waters and IMO distiguishes the two.
 
Rich is right, we can discuss this (and should), but we can do so in a gentlemanly manner.

That said…

Petre,

The law states: (and I’ll re-quote myself) ”Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.” And “Jurisdiction- A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.”

As I stated before, the law clearly states that it is only applicable to aliens (i.e. non U.S. citizen), and only unlawful combatant aliens at that. The law does define an “unlawful enemy combatant”, but there is nothing anywhere in the law that exempts the alien status.

You’re making the assertion that it includes U.S. citizens, but you’re not providing anything to support that assertion.
 
Stage, what he's saying is that being an 'unlawful enemy
combatant' is equal to being an 'Alien unlawful enemy combatant' since they're both equal under the eyes of this law.

Can we agree on that?
Click to expand...


No we can't. You are reading out a specific term, a term that is so important that someone had the forsight to define it.

An unlawful enemy combatant might be a us citizen, and might not. An alien unlawful enemy combatant cannot by definition in any way shape or form be a US citizen. This bill only deals with the latter.

Whether or not congress and the president at some later date decide to broaden this bill is beyond the scope of this discussion. All of you took the position that this bill is taking away rights which is simply not correct.
 
Sorry ahenry ... I just cannot agree with that. It clearly distiguishes both.

And the fact that it doesn't exempt alien is not a disqualifier. It doesn't exempt Unlawful Enemy Combatants either.
 
Let me just add , if this were written properly , stating something clear and concise like ...

Only unlawful enemy combatants that are not US CITIZENS, are subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.
Click to expand...


But they did. They inserted the word alien. They defined the word alien. When you take the definition and insert it into the phrase you have EXACTLY what you wrote above.

The ambuguity you are talking about is simply not there.
 
ITEOTWAWKI,

Stage, what he's saying is that being an 'unlawful enemy combatant' is equal to being an 'Alien unlawful enemy combatant' since they're both equal under the eyes of this law. Can we agree on that?
Click to expand...
We absolutely can not agree on that (speaking for myself). The definition of “unlawful enemy combatant” defines unlawful enemy combatant. It in no way negates the additional requirement of alienage.

The wording of the law is similar to this:
I always give female family members a hug hello.

Family members defined is: somebody that is a member of my immediate family and my parents immediate family.
Click to expand...

Just because I defined “family members” doesn’t change the original statement to somehow include male family members. All I have done with that definition is clearly state who is a family member. The female criteria still exist.
 
Olbermann: The Day Habeas Corpus Died

Today, 135 years to the day after the last American President (Ulysses S. Grant) suspended habeas corpus, President Bush signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006. At its worst, the legislation allows President Bush or Donald Rumsfeld to declare anyone — US citizen or not — an enemy combatant, lock them up and throw away the key without a chance to prove their innocence in a court of law. In other words, every thing the Founding Fathers fought the British empire to free themselves of was reversed and nullified with the stroke of a pen, all under the guise of the War on Terror.

Jonathan Turley joined Keith to talk about the law that Senator Feingold said would be seen as "a stain on our nation's history."

Turley: "People have no idea how significant this is. Really a time of shame this is for the American system.—The strange thing is that we have become sort of constitutional couch potatoes. The Congress just gave the President despotic powers and you could hear the yawn across the country as people turned to Dancing With the Stars. It's otherworldly..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 gonna change back anytime soon."

Link to article:http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/17/olbermann-the-day-habeas-corpus-died/

badbob
 
You guys kill me. You pull yet another liberal law professon instead of addressing the straight forward arguments that have been posted here. I've actually met Turley and have sat in on one of his classes and he's a card carrying liberal. Nothing wrong with that in of itself, but don'e expect his to be impartial by any means.

None of these people are being honest because none of them are addressing any of the issues presented here. Why? Because its an argument they cant win.

Being declared an unlawful enemy combatant doesn't affect your rights diddly squat. They know it. This is just another attempt at making people who don't know any better who won't do any thinking for themselves scared.

Many on this board sit here all day long and call those who don't like guns or don't want guns in their homes or on there streets sheeple, simply because they hear someone else says about guns and violence and then adopt those ideas as their own. What some of you are doing here is the exact same thing. I wouldn't be surprised at all if any of you who are bashing the bill even bothered to actually read it for yourself before you started in with your verbal assault.


Why don't all of you guys that are opposed to this state why in your own words it is illegal rather than parrot something you saw on the news.
 
Would it make you feel any better that there are a number of Republicans that agree with the law being dangerously ambiguous ?

As for what I am opposed to , I believe I stated it quite clearly and IMO you've said absolutely nothing to disprove my point.

It is poorly written and can be interpreted to mean something no one wants. You believe as you do based on faith. The way it's written it could easily be misused.
 
Stage 2,
The responses that you're getting here (including mine) are all following the same theme: There is nothing anywhere in this legislation that specifically precludes American citizens from being subject to it. There should have been.
You interpret the word 'alien' as 'non-American' and I completely understand where you're coming from *but* legally, it's not that simple.

As I said in my first post, if this bill contained wording specifically excluding American citizens I would have no beef with it, constitutionally speaking. I think it's strategically inept, but not unconstitutional.

You do have a point about knee-jerk reactions to anything Bush is involved in. I'll grant you that and follow it up with a hearty mea culpa. Now ask yourself why that happens.

Finally, why drag this discussion through the mud? There's no call for making this personal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top