Author Topic: so long habeus corpus. (Read 5852 times)

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #45 on:** October 18, 2006, 06:37:22 PM »

I saw that, but the part restricting HC restricted it to aliens... non citizens.

It says,

Quote

(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[/b] who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

As I read the law, the HC restriction has to do with "Aliens who have been determined..." Please find the part where citizens HC rights are violated / removed by this law and I will be outraged by the subject of this thread.

Unless I am unfortunate enough to have a foreign lawyer.

RedTop · « **Reply #46 on:** October 18, 2006, 06:39:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bluefish
OK, here's the language from the bill, (S.3930, Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate; )http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:3:./temp/~c109Yafr7D:e116721:

Regarding Habeas Corpus: Section 7, amending USC 2241(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.

Regading Military Tribunals: Section 948(c):

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

So Holden is right, you have to be an alien before either of those provisions apply to you.

It really DOES pay to read the squealing statute!

Blue is right to.

Read this...may help

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/S-3930.pdf

Same as blue posted I believe.

lukster · « **Reply #47 on:** October 18, 2006, 06:41:03 PM »

Everyone can contest their enemy combatant status in federal court all the way to the US Supreme Court. Alarmism over this sounds like political posturing to me.

Debonair · « **Reply #48 on:** October 18, 2006, 06:59:22 PM »

I DONT THING AN ACT OF CONGRESS WILL EVER PREVENT SR-71 DRIVERS OR CREW FROM GETTING LAID

Thrawn · « **Reply #49 on:** October 18, 2006, 07:10:40 PM »

Holden, I stand corrected. Looks like it's being denied to non-citizens.

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
Everyone can contest their enemy combatant status in federal court all the way to the US Supreme Court.

How?

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #50 on:** October 18, 2006, 07:13:10 PM »

USA# 1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT MORANS!!!!

RedTop · « **Reply #51 on:** October 18, 2006, 07:33:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
Holden, I stand corrected. Looks like it's being denied to non-citizens.

How?

Page 55 of the link I posted may help.

Thrawn · « **Reply #52 on:** October 18, 2006, 07:54:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by RedTop
Page 55 of the link I posted may help.

'Fraid not. It can be referred back to the military, not the Judiciary.

lukster · « **Reply #53 on:** October 18, 2006, 09:27:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
'Fraid not. It can be referred back to the military, not the Judiciary.

'Fraid so, need I copy and paste or can you just read pages 55 thorugh 57 or so as suiggested.

Thrawn · « **Reply #54 on:** October 18, 2006, 09:52:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
'Fraid so, need I copy and paste or can you just read pages 55 thorugh 57 or so as suiggested.

IT says you can appeal a judgement of the military commissions, but it doesn't say you can appeal the classification "unlawful enemy combatant", by Bush's tribunal.

Shuckins · « **Reply #55 on:** October 18, 2006, 10:04:08 PM »

I'm confused. I thought you liberal types liked the idea of an "elastic" constitution, changing to meet the new challenges of modern society.

Maintaining national security in these changing times is certainly proving to be a challenge. Habeas Corpus is a wonderful legal principle....which has been routinely suspended by the government many times in the past when rigid adherence to it would have endangered the public weal.

Are you people really that concerned about a nebulous threat to personal freedom....or is this just an excuse to cast stones?

I hate election years.

Thrawn · « **Reply #56 on:** October 18, 2006, 10:18:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shuckins
I'm confused.

That's what happens when you conservative types pigeonhole people into nebulous generalisations like "you liberals".

Chairboy · « **Reply #57 on:** October 18, 2006, 10:20:27 PM »

Shuckins, I've been the primary 'adversary' on this thread, so I assume you're talking about me. What part of my posts have ever advocated an "elastic constitution"? EVER?

If you're NOT talking to me, then you're making a crappy strawman argument and should pull the hook out of the water.

If you're comfortable with giving up your rights, then you're no patriot and should not feel encumbered by the responsibilities given to real citizens. I'm sure there's something nice on television, why not go watch?

RedTop · « **Reply #58 on:** October 18, 2006, 10:42:19 PM »

Chair,

With all due respect, and I mean that totally ,

Exactly what right are you giving up here?

I don't feel I have given up ANY rights at all and I CERTAINLY don't feel like I have given one up here in this instance.

I'm not a combatant.
I'm not an alien.
I'm not a terrorist.
I'm not an unlawful combatant.

I'm just a law abiding citizen of the U.S..

What exactly , since I'm not a lawyer , is this new "Terrible Law" going to do to me? How will it effect my daily life?

And now the BIG question.....

Why in the world should I care about what happens to MaHatMyCoat from some country that shoots at our troops with no army designation. He isn't an Iraqi. He isn't Afghani. Perhaps he is Saudi. Maybe Iranian. He is just there to kill americans. So I should give him rights? I should feel bad that he can't get a fair trial or a trial at all for that matter. I should feel bad about he doesn't get enough prayer time? I should feel bad his koran isn't just so? Rights you say?

Heak Chair I got all the rights I had yesterday. And the day before that. And the day before that.

I wonder , if say your brother , or perhaps like some I know , a son , that was shot and killed , or just wounded , by somoeone whose fight with the U.S. was not for thier country , but just to kill the infidel , if you would feel the same.

You said a person willing to trade thier rights was not a patriot. Perhaps it's not a willingness at all to give up anything. Perhaps the LAW is what it is and some choose to stay within the bounds of it. Perhaps the constitutional changes don't infringe on our rights. PErhaps you feel violated. That doesn't mean others do and therefore are not patriots.

IF your such a Patriot , as you seem to imply , why not take up arms , and try to get things changed like you want. Then you may get a chance to try out this new law to see if it's so bad.

You'll probably relise that the only so called "Rights" people are giving up are the ones they don't ever give 2 thoughts about ever. Until it suits thier political agenda and gives them something else to gripe about. I don't see the government really takeing away rights right now. Perhaps I am blind tho and need education.

~~Sir...I certainly feel bad your life is so infringed upon.~~

Chairboy · « **Reply #59 on:** October 18, 2006, 11:00:52 PM »

RedTop, I'm talking about laws that affect US citizens. If this specific one doesn't, then I'm mistaken.

As for the rest of your screed, it's not worth dignifying with a response. You're a sad excuse for a citizen, and you're fooling yourself if you really think you have all the same rights that you did before the september 11th attacks.

You are entitled to exactly as much respect as you showed, which is to say, none.