The Road to hell...

Rich

I'm just trying to clarify the word dispositive. The way I read the the part I qouted, it is just another way of saying that anyone found to be an unlawful enemy combatant will NOT be under the jurisdiction of a military commission as opposed to an alien unlawful enemy combatant. It doesn't matter if the federal government accuses you of being an unlawful enemy combatant - you still are out of the jurisdiction of a military trial.

Unless I've misunderstood the word dispositive.
 
Furthermore, you haven't addressed the second part of this statute namely habeas.

‘‘(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

How are you going to get around that.
Click to expand...

Looks to me like ONCE AGAIN a seperation between ALIENS and UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANTS has been made in a poorly written bill.

I'm curios what section that is in ... I'm looking at the document and having gone over it twice , I don't find an (e)(1) with that following.

The only line I find remotely close is the lastt section of the entire document

Sec. 950j. Finality or proceedings, findings, and sentences

`(a) Finality- The appellate review of records of trial provided by this chapter, and the proceedings, findings, and sentences of military commissions as approved, reviewed, or affirmed as required by this chapter, are final and conclusive. Orders publishing the proceedings of military commissions under this chapter are binding upon all departments, courts, agencies, and officers of the United States, except as otherwise provided by the President.

`(b) Provisions of Chapter Sole Basis for Review of Military Commission Procedures and Actions- Except as otherwise provided in this chapter and notwithstanding any other provision of law (including section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this chapter.

This bolded line is a scary one BTW.
 
Well you can lead a horse to water, but you can't fix an ignorant man. I'm only thankful that you have no influence in our government.

You sir are no different that people that selectively read the 2nd amendment.
 
So we're reduced to insults then ?

BTW ... I thought the people were supposed to influence our servants in Government.

Further ... had I had influence , you can be damn sure this would have been written clearly exempting and protecting American Citizens.

By your statement here I see , that's not what you actually want.

You have a nice day , and let's hope this bill doesn't get abused like it, IMO clearly can be.
 
Ahhh ... my apologies. I found it WAY down in Section 7

-----------------
SEC. 7. HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS.

(a) In General- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking both the subsection (e) added by section 1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2742) and the subsection (e) added by added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law 109-163 (119 Stat. 3477) and inserting the following new subsection (e):

`(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

`(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.'.


------------------------

After reading this , I'd like to find and read the paragraphs of this that are missing.

This section is relating to amendments of Sections ... I'd want to read what still remains before forming any opinion about this.
 
The loss of constitutional rights as described in the bill.

This bill could easily be used to squash any dissention from We the People of the United States of American.
Click to expand...

You don't have a Constitutional Right to be an enemy combatant. You don't have a Constitutional Right to attack and/or to kill American soldiers. Non-citizens don't have a Constitutional Right to be enemy combatants, or to attack and/or to kill American soldiers. You can't lose a Constitutional Right that doesn't exist!

As far as "squashing" dissention, this bill has no effect on your First Amendment Right to express yourself. Unless you consider attacking and/or killing American soldiers a mode of "expression" that is protected by the First Amendment. (How's that for a 'newly discovered' Constitutional Right, Stage?!? :D :p )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top