Has no one mentioned the Military Commission Act of 2006?

Post by **bitWISE** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:18 pm

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 017-1.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_C ... ct_of_2006

Post by **Fender** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:28 pm

I was going to say something about the death of habeas corpus, but it looks like Olbermann beat me to it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15220450/
and
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15318240/

Post by **Turbine** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:31 pm

Oh oh.
The act II. commences.

But in reality, i don't know the significance of this.
What's this mean now? Torture is completely legal?

Post by **CitizenKane** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:35 pm

its funny the way each of those three sites takes a completely different view on this piece of legislation: the white house one says its the best thing since sliced bread, Wikipedia is fairly neutral, and the MSNBC one abhorrs it already.

WHO ARE WE TO BELIEVE?!??!??!?!

Post by **CitizenKane** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:36 pm

CitizenKane wrote: WHO ARE WE TO BELIEVE?!??!??!?!

answer: MSNBC

Post by **Fender** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:39 pm

Turbine wrote:Oh oh.
The act II. commences.

But in reality, i don't know the significance of this.
What's this mean now? Torture is completely legal?

Not just torture, but anyone can be imprisioned at any time. This more or less makes null and void one of the most basic rights in a democratic society.

This is the time when comparisions to Nazis are warranted. This is deeply and truely fucked up and a dark scar on America.

Post by **CitizenKane** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:40 pm

Turbine wrote:Oh oh.
The act II. commences.

But in reality, i don't know the significance of this.
What's this mean now? Torture is completely legal?

my reading of it seems to suggest that it simply means that the state is kinda reserving itself the right to limit certain constitutional rights (mostly provisions regarding habeus corpus, right to fair trial, etc) for the sort of 'greater good' of the united states people and the public interest in the war against terror...or something like that

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:44 pm

bush can lock anyone away without charges or a trial

yeah sounds great

Post by **bitWISE** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:49 pm

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c ... S1:e116515:

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.'.

(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001.

Post by **CitizenKane** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:54 pm

completely nullifying the power of the judiciary in any question to do with the detention of military prisoners. so that eliminates the judicial section of the tripartite seperation of powers which leaves us left with two, the legislature and the executive which are, lets face it, both pretty well one in the same (ie. the drafters of this piece of legislation AND the implementers thereof). so in other words: totalitarianism

fantastic

Post by **mrd** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:59 pm

/me is glad he doesn't live below the 49th parallel.

Post by **bitWISE** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:03 pm

mrd wrote:/me is glad he doesn't live below the 49th parallel.

That makes you an alien. Which means you have no rights according to our country. Good luck with that.

Post by **mrd** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:06 pm

I don't care about rights in your country. I never go there.

Post by **CitizenKane** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:10 pm

ah canada-land. half my country emigrated there for the summer this year. notice how they DIDNT go to the states?? lol

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 4:41 am

Post by **GONNAFISTYA** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 12:26 pm

Old news to some....but Bush is seeking retroactive immunity for violating the War Crimes Act.

Clicky

The ''pardon'' is buried in Bush's proposed legislation to create a new kind of military tribunal for cases involving top al-Qaida operatives. The ''pardon'' provision has nothing to do with the tribunals. Instead, it guts the War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal law that makes it a crime, in some cases punishable by death, to mistreat detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions and makes the new, weaker terms of the War Crimes Act retroactive to 9/11.

Press accounts of the provision have described it as providing immunity for CIA interrogators. But its terms cover the president and other top officials because the act applies to any U.S. national.

Avoiding prosecution under the War Crimes Act has been an obsession of this administration since shortly after 9/11. In a January 2002 memorandum to the president, then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales pointed out the problem of prosecution for detainee mistreatment under the War Crimes Act. He notes that given the vague language of the statute, no one could predict what future ''prosecutors and independent counsels'' might do if they decided to bring charges under the act. As an author of the 1978 special prosecutor statute, I know that independent counsels (who used to be called ''special prosecutors'' prior to the statute's reauthorization in 1994) aren't for low-level government officials such as CIA interrogators, but for the president and his Cabinet. It is clear that Gonzales was concerned about top administration officials.

Post by **Kat** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 1:03 pm

This is all serious "WTF?!" stuff.

[EDIT] This is a bold faced lie in relation to the info above.

...These military commissions will provide a fair trial, in which the accused are presumed innocent, have access to an attorney, and can hear all the evidence against them. These military commissions are lawful, they are fair, and they are necessary..

What was it that Orwell said about 'opposite' speak? Everything they say means the opposite?

Post by **RRROOOAAARRR** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 1:28 pm

Bush and his fascist buddies truly are turning America into an Orwellian nightmare.

Post by **R00k** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:56 pm

Haven't posted about it but I've been keeping up with it. Wrote a couple letters to my congresscritters about it - like it would do any good.

Guess it takes something like this to finally convince people that the Bush govt is a sham that would take complete dictatorial control of the country if we let them.

This act is a worldwide embarrassment to our country. Not to mention the fact that it will almost certainly have the effect of causing our own soldiers to be tortured by other countries.

I've been wondering what our congressmen are being blackmailed with to pass all these things with just a cursory glance and no discussion.

Post by **Kat** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:15 pm

In one of the numerous 911 vids there's a comment by a Senator saying something to the effect that they (Bush camp) choose 'odd' times and hours of the day to put bills like this through the house (late at night, or in sessions where either very little is going on, or too much), or that they simply get swamped with so much paper work that they don't have time to properly investigate these things. This is of course assuming they're somewhat 'honest' politicians as I can't imagine 2/3rds of congress being 'bribed' *balks at the thought*.

Post by **R00k** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:30 pm

It also assumes not having enough time to read is ample reason to just pass whatever bill the President wants.

I was kinda joking about the blackmailing tho.

Post by **Ryoki** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 4:08 pm

R00k wrote:I was kinda joking about the blackmailing tho.

Yeah, it's more like deep rooted corruption.

Post by **CitizenKane** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 10:21 pm

R00k wrote:
This act is a worldwide embarrassment to our country.

much like every other aspect of US foreign policy in the last 10....20...50...well, ever

Post by **MKJ** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:15 am

why hasnt been any assassination attempts vs bush? i dont get it

Post by **seremtan** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:20 am

i guess he hasn't upset enough people to make them obsessed

maybe if he started posting on an internet bulletin board, it would happen