A question for general discussion...

[bullypulpit]

Since I can't get an answer from specific individuals regarding this question, I'm brining it up for debate to the whole board.

With the renewal of the misnamed "Protect America Act", which has less to do with protecting America than it has with gathering even more power to the presidency in the name of national security, being debated I have one question. This piece of legislation undermines key constitutional protections against blanket warrants and provides no real accountability to either the judiciary or to Congress. Coupled with habeas corpus being effectively gutted by the Military Commissions Act of 2006, US citizens are bereft of the protections against the abuse of power the Constitution was intended to protect us against.

Given that the Bush administration, every time, justifies these erosions of the Constitution in the name of "national security", my question is this, "How is supporting and protecting the Constitution incompatible with supporting and protecting America?"

Absent the Constitution, there is no America.

[bullypulpit]

Come...Come now. No takers?

[BoogyMan]

Since I can't get an answer from specific individuals regarding this question, I'm brining it up for debate to the whole board.

With the renewal of the misnamed "Protect America Act", which has less to do with protecting America than it has with gathering even more power to the presidency in the name of national security, being debated I have one question. This piece of legislation undermines key constitutional protections against blanket warrants and provides no real accountability to either the judiciary or to Congress. Coupled with habeas corpus being effectively gutted by the Military Commissions Act of 2006, US citizens are bereft of the protections against the abuse of power the Constitution was intended to protect us against.

Given that the Bush administration, every time, justifies these erosions of the Constitution in the name of "national security", my question is this, "How is supporting and protecting the Constitution incompatible with supporting and protecting America?"

Absent the Constitution, there is no America.

Lets see a point by point substantiation of your claims with supporting materials provided from legitimate sources (meaning no mental feces from ThinkProgress, MoveOn.org, KOS, or other loon harboring asylums) and we can begin to discuss this topic.

[Classact]

Since I can't get an answer from specific individuals regarding this question, I'm brining it up for debate to the whole board.

With the renewal of the misnamed "Protect America Act", which has less to do with protecting America than it has with gathering even more power to the presidency in the name of national security, being debated I have one question. This piece of legislation undermines key constitutional protections against blanket warrants and provides no real accountability to either the judiciary or to Congress. Coupled with habeas corpus being effectively gutted by the Military Commissions Act of 2006, US citizens are bereft of the protections against the abuse of power the Constitution was intended to protect us against.The liberal version now under debate in the congress requires Intel agencies to read minds... never in American history has a warrant been required for foreign wiretaps... according to the porposed legislation the Intel agency can only listen to bad guys in foreign nations if they can first assure that the bad guy has no intention of calling a party in the US... that is insanity! What is probable cause (PC)? I must present to the court that an illegal act is or is about to occur... with this in mind, if OBL would make a call to me this call may not be listened to because you cannot present PC because you cannot satisify the judge that I'm a bad guy too... I may be OBL's cousin and he may be calling me to wish me Happy Birthday... no warrant authorized.... Unlawful Combatants (UC) are not protected by the Law of War or The Geneva Convention as ratified by the United States government... Therefore UC's are not protected but simply UC and under the Law of War may be executed for conducting war without wearing a uniform or insignia... In WWII many German soldiers were executed after being captured in civilian clothes... American German Hitler supporters were captured in NY state, placed in prisons and trials were conducted by the military... they were not provided "citizen rights" of habeas corpus. I might also point out that all letters from Europe to US persons were opened by the government in WWII and all cable communications were monitored.


Given that the Bush administration, every time, justifies these erosions of the Constitution in the name of "national security", my question is this, "How is supporting and protecting the Constitution incompatible with supporting and protecting America?"

Absent the Constitution, there is no America.The US constitution is not a death wish as you would have it be.

[bullypulpit]

Lets see a point by point substantiation of your claims with supporting materials provided from legitimate sources (meaning no mental feces from ThinkProgress, MoveOn.org, KOS, or other loon harboring asylums) and we can begin to discuss this topic.

The "Protect America Act" (PAA), a misnomer if there ever was one, essentially ignores the Fourth Amendment particularly with regard to warrants. Let me refresh your memory:

<blockquote>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and <b>no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause</b>, supported by Oath or affirmation, <b>and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized</b>.</blockquote>

The PAA grants agencies broad powers to conduct surveillance of international electronic communications without any oversight. If US citizen within the borders happens to get caught in the net...Oh well. The only requirement of the law is that the surveillance be "directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States." There is no requirement specifying that the individual be suspected of anything. In short, it is a blanket warrant. If you remember your American history, it was the use of <a href=http://www.history1700s.com/articles/article1139.shtml>General Writs of Assistance</a> which were blanket warrants for the search and seizure of private property absent either just cause or due process that ultimately triggered the Revolution.

The Bush administration rejected a Democratic version of the bill as it contained language requiring oversight of, and checks on, the executive use of the authority granted.

As for the Military Commissions Act, that law gives the government authority to detain a permanent resident alien, including any who have been lawfully living in this country for decades and, as we saw in the case of Jose Padilla, US citizens, who have been declared "enemy combatants" by the Executive branch, and lock them up without legal recourse, unable to face their accusers, with no access to counsel or court. In short, <i>habeas corpus</i> is effectively gutted and thrown on the rubbish heap.

Intelligence is vital to the defense of this nation, but to give the government the authority to gather that intelligence in the absence of ANY oversight, which the PAA grants, is a travesty, and a mockery of the sacrifices made by the Founders of this nation. The Constitution was not meant to be put aside in times of trouble, but the weak and fearful among us continue to insist that we do so.

Sources:

<a href=http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/08/06/new_law_expands_power_to_wiretap/?page=full>New law expands power to wiretap</a>

<a href=http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20070810.html>The So-Called Protect America Act</a>

<a href=http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20061011.html>Why The Military Commissions Act is No Moderate Compromise</a>

[manu1959]

in a time of war what is unreasonable.....

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[Classact]

in a time of war what is unreasonable.....

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Whenever, during the present war, the President shall deem . . . public safety demands it, he may cause to be censored under such rules and regulations as he may, from time to time establish, communications by mail, cable, radio, or other means of transmission passing between the United States and any foreign country.18
http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2001/spring/mail-censorship-in-world-war-two-1.html#f17

[Classact]

As for the Military Commissions Act, that law gives the government authority to detain a permanent resident alien, including any who have been lawfully living in this country for decades and, as we saw in the case of Jose Padilla, US citizens, who have been declared "enemy combatants" by the Executive branch, and lock them up without legal recourse, unable to face their accusers, with no access to counsel or court. In short, <i>habeas corpus</i> is effectively gutted and thrown on the rubbish heap.The Supreme Court rulled based on the fact unlawful enemy combatants are in fact under the jurisdiction of the executive branch as it applies to war. Soldiers are under similar jurisdiction... the rules for soldiers are not constitutional but created regulations that reflect the constitution as allowed in conduct of war... many of soldiers constitutional rights are also removed... Combatants are under jurisdiction of the Executive Branch and the Military Commissions Act is to the Unlawful Combatant's what the UCMJ is to soldiers. In war a soldier need not have probable cause to shoot or detain the enemy.

[Gaffer]

I have not seen thousands or even hundreds of people rounded up in this country under the patriot act or any other act. Gitmo has a few hundred prisoners taken in Afghanistan. None are American citizens. There are no internment camps set up anywhere in the US. When such camps are established and arbitrary arrests taking place around the country, then its time to worry. But that won't happen until libs get full control of the country.

[BoogyMan]

I asked for a point by point substantiation, Bully, not more left wing talking points. Care to take another shot at fulfilling that request?

[darin]

Bully won't believe it's a war until his home-town is bombed by islamic terrorists.

[bullypulpit]

in a time of war what is unreasonable.....

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and <b><i><font color=red>no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.</font></i></b>

Second emphasis mine.

[darin]

Emphasis mine:


Whenever, during the present war, the President shall deem . . . public safety demands it, he may cause to be censored under such rules and regulations as he may, from time to time establish, communications by mail, cable, radio, or other means of transmission passing between the United States and any foreign country.18

:)

[bullypulpit]

The Supreme Court rulled based on the fact unlawful enemy combatants are in fact under the jurisdiction of the executive branch as it applies to war. Soldiers are under similar jurisdiction... the rules for soldiers are not constitutional but created regulations that reflect the constitution as allowed in conduct of war... many of soldiers constitutional rights are also removed... Combatants are under jurisdiction of the Executive Branch and the Military Commissions Act is to the Unlawful Combatant's what the UCMJ is to soldiers. In war a soldier need not have probable cause to shoot or detain the enemy.

The military commissions sought by the Bush administration have little to do with those established under the UCMJ. Hearsay evidence, evidence obtained by <i>coercion</i>, i.e. torture, is admissible, neither the defendant nor his defender have access to the "secret" evidence, and are thus unable to refute it. Under the UCMJ, military commissions derive their authority from the Constitution and Articles I and II as well as the powers granted them by statutory law. The Constitution is the basis of the authority of military commissions. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 attempts to negate that constitutional authority.

[Classact]

Second emphasis mine.Have you considered that if you travel to a foreign nation upon your return to the US the customs inspector can hold your skid marked underware up to the light in front of the world and inspect them and anything else they desire to search prior to allowing you out of their custody... Have you considered being pulled over by the police on a random drunk search? Reasonable cause?

Probable cause could never be forecasted even if the caller were OBL himself and your telephone number was on one of his speed dial phones captured on the battlefield because a judge could say maybe you are a relative and he just wants to tell you he still love you... Reasonable search?

[darin]

Doesn't bother me at all - your fictitious, and extreme scenarios.

[bullypulpit]

I asked for a point by point substantiation, Bully, not more left wing talking points. Care to take another shot at fulfilling that request?

Tell ya what, since your definition of left wing is obviously different from mine, why don't you supply a point by point refutation of my argument with supporting materials provided from legitimate sources (meaning no mental feces from FOX News, NewsMax, FreeRepublic, or other loon harboring asylums)...Hmmmm?

[bullypulpit]

Emphasis mine:



:)

Your quote deals with censorship, not intelligence gathering.

[BoogyMan]

Tell ya what, since your definition of left wing is obviously different from mine, why don't you supply a point by point refutation of my argument with supporting materials provided from legitimate sources (meaning no mental feces from FOX News, NewsMax, FreeRepublic, or other loon harboring asylums)...Hmmmm?

You started this fractured fairytale of a discussion BP, now support your argumentation with facts. It can't be that hard since you seem to speak as if you have some behind your talking points.

Time to belly up to the bar or hit the door.

[Classact]

The military commissions sought by the Bush administration have little to do with those established under the UCMJ.The Military Commissions Act was written by Congress... Regulations dealing with soldiers are written by congress or commissioned officers congress appoints.


Hearsay evidence, evidence obtained by <i>coercion</i>, i.e. torture, is admissible, neither the defendant nor his defender have access to the "secret" evidence, and are thus unable to refute it.Unlawful Combatants regardless where captured are under the control of the Executive Branch... the MCA is administration, that the Supreme Court recommended be placed into law by congress to deal with the UC's. If a soldier takes a prisoner in uniform a Lawful Combatant he has rights under the Geneva Convention and Laws of War... if an Enemy Combatant is captured then he/she is treated according to Executive Branch guidelines and disposition is in accordance with the MCA.

Under the UCMJ, military commissions derive their authority from the Constitution and Articles I and II as well as the powers granted them by statutory law. The Constitution is the basis of the authority of military commissions. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 attempts to negate that constitutional authority. How?

[bullypulpit]

The Military Commissions Act was written by Congress... Regulations dealing with soldiers are written by congress or commissioned officers congress appoints.

Unlawful Combatants regardless where captured are under the control of the Executive Branch... the MCA is administration, that the Supreme Court recommended be placed into law by congress to deal with the UC's. If a soldier takes a prisoner in uniform a Lawful Combatant he has rights under the Geneva Convention and Laws of War... if an Enemy Combatant is captured then he/she is treated according to Executive Branch guidelines and disposition is in accordance with the MCA.
How?

The SCOTUS in the <i>Hamdan v. Rumsfeld</i> decision ruled that General Article III of the Geneva Conventions do indeed apply to the detainees at GITMO. As to how, by the Executive branch assuming the sole authority to determine who is an "enemy combatant" absent any congressional overdight or judicial review.

[bullypulpit]

You started this fractured fairytale of a discussion BP, now support your argumentation with facts. It can't be that hard since you seem to speak as if you have some behind your talking points.

Time to belly up to the bar or hit the door.

The links are there. Follow them. Sorry if you don't like what they have to say, but the facts are neither liberal nor conservative. Your feelings about them are irrelevant...much like your posts thus far.

Now, boyo, are you going to present any evidence refuting the argument I have made or are you simply going to whine?

[PostmodernProphet]

This piece of legislation undermines key constitutional protections against blanket warrants and provides no real accountability to either the judiciary or to Congress.

sorry, but that is a false statement.....the Act covers only communications engaged in outside the borders of the United States, and the Supreme Court long ago decided that such communication is not covered by the constitutional limits requiring warrents.....thus, this act had no effect whatsoever upon constitutional protections against blanket warrents......

[BoogyMan]

The links are there. Follow them. Sorry if you don't like what they have to say, but the facts are neither liberal nor conservative. Your feelings about them are irrelevant...much like your posts thus far.

Now, boyo, are you going to present any evidence refuting the argument I have made or are you simply going to whine?

Boyo? I wasn't aware we were back in the schoolyard. It would appear that BP, who apparently cannot vocalize a sentient argument upon request, has little more than disparate links to post and demand I do his work for him.

Interesting tactic BP.

[Missileman]

Second emphasis mine.

The part you emphasized DOESN'T say that all searches require warrants...know why? Your implication that warrantless searches are automatically unreasonable is based in fallacy also.

[Classact]

The SCOTUS in the <i>Hamdan v. Rumsfeld</i> decision ruled that General Article III of the Geneva Conventions do indeed apply to the detainees at GITMO. As to how, by the Executive branch assuming the sole authority to determine who is an "enemy combatant" absent any congressional overdight or judicial review.

Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Sounds like Gitmo and Military Commissions Act cover each and every item.

[theHawk]

Bully, once again you've proven yourself to be nothing more than a politcal hack who parades himself around as some great defender of the Constitution.



Since I can't get an answer from specific individuals regarding this question, I'm brining it up for debate to the whole board.

With the renewal of the misnamed "Protect America Act", which has less to do with protecting America than it has with gathering even more power to the presidency in the name of national security, being debated I have one question. This piece of legislation undermines key constitutional protections against blanket warrants and provides no real accountability to either the judiciary or to Congress.
First of all the Act allows the Director of National Intelligence to authorize the aquisition of communications of people outside the United states. They can only do this if A) its resonably believed the person is outside the US, B) It is NOT soley domestic communications, C) their getting the communications from the Service Provider, and D) the purpose is mainly for foreign intelligence gathering. In addition they also have other procedures from FISA itself.
Now, I'd like you to explain how any of this authority to wiretap people outside the US is underminning any American's Constitutional rights. In order for the agencies in question to do the wiretap, it must meet the criteria above, which if it does certainly wouldn't be classified as an "unreasonable search".



Coupled with habeas corpus being effectively gutted by the Military Commissions Act of 2006, US citizens are bereft of the protections against the abuse of power the Constitution was intended to protect us against.

The Military Commissions Act eleminates Habeas Corpus for unlawful combatants.
(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

This in no way takes away what has been and still is in the U.S. Consitution which applies to U.S. citizens.



Given that the Bush administration, every time, justifies these erosions of the Constitution in the name of "national security", my question is this, "How is supporting and protecting the Constitution incompatible with supporting and protecting America?"

Absent the Constitution, there is no America.
I don't know where you think any of us would say that. Protecting the country is exactly what these laws are doing, and none of these laws take away the rights of any U.S. citizens.

[actsnoblemartin]

this is very confusing. What i do think is important is oversight to prevent abuses, and keep innocent americans from being abused or caught up. That is just common sense in my opinion.

The question is, how do we balance the need to protect society against terrorism, vs the need to protect innocent peoples civil rights and proper oversight to prevent abuses.

In my opinion,the justice system, should focus more on being pro-active to prevent crime, rather then just dealing with the victims after the fact, and caring more about criminals rights, then the victims rights.

Where am i wrong on this bully?


Since I can't get an answer from specific individuals regarding this question, I'm brining it up for debate to the whole board.

With the renewal of the misnamed "Protect America Act", which has less to do with protecting America than it has with gathering even more power to the presidency in the name of national security, being debated I have one question. This piece of legislation undermines key constitutional protections against blanket warrants and provides no real accountability to either the judiciary or to Congress. Coupled with habeas corpus being effectively gutted by the Military Commissions Act of 2006, US citizens are bereft of the protections against the abuse of power the Constitution was intended to protect us against.

Given that the Bush administration, every time, justifies these erosions of the Constitution in the name of "national security", my question is this, "How is supporting and protecting the Constitution incompatible with supporting and protecting America?"

Absent the Constitution, there is no America.

[bullypulpit]

Boyo? I wasn't aware we were back in the schoolyard. It would appear that BP, who apparently cannot vocalize a sentient argument upon request, has little more than disparate links to post and demand I do his work for him.

Interesting tactic BP.

It seems to be rather more a case of you being unable to articulate a satisfactory answer to the question raised at the beginning of the thread. So rather than make the attempt, you attack the messenger.

As for being in the school-yard, it is your posts thus far have the ring of "So there...!" about them.

[bullypulpit]

this is very confusing. What i do think is important is oversight to prevent abuses, and keep innocent americans from being abused or caught up. That is just common sense in my opinion.

The question is, how do we balance the need to protect society against terrorism, vs the need to protect innocent peoples civil rights and proper oversight to prevent abuses.

In my opinion,the justice system, should focus more on being pro-active to prevent crime, rather then just dealing with the victims after the fact, and caring more about criminals rights, then the victims rights.

Where am i wrong on this bully?

And that's what I'm really trying to get at here...Oversight and accountability. I'm no legal scholar, but common sense tells me that something has gone drastically wrong with the system of checks and balances established by the Constitution when the President claims Congress has no authority to perform its oversight duties in matters of national security.

Intelligence is the life-blood of national defense, anyone claiming otherwise is simply wrong. But that intelligence must be gathered within the four corners of the law. What the Bush administration want from the re-authorization of the "Protect America Act" is the absence of any oversight. The result of such a lack of oversight was revealed by <a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/15/AR2007101501857.html?hpid=topnews>Verizon</a>, which surrendered to the federal government some 720 times without a warrant or court order. And former Qwest CEO <a href=http://www.abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=3723676&page=1>Joseph Nacchio</a> has, in court documents stated that the NSA was requesting phone records absent a court order some six months before 9/11.

It is these, and other issues, which are helping to erode the Constitution and secure powers to the Executive branch which exceed the bounds laid out in the Constitution.

So, I ask...again, "How is supporting and defending the Constitution...maintaining its integrity and the rights it secures for all of us...Incompatible with defending America?"

[BoogyMan]

It seems to be rather more a case of you being unable to articulate a satisfactory answer to the question raised at the beginning of the thread. So rather than make the attempt, you attack the messenger.

As for being in the school-yard, it is your posts thus far have the ring of "So there...!" about them.

You post a compendium of left wing talking points and have a hissy when after having been asked to substantiate your claims you again post left wing talking points and are routed from the rhetorical battlefield.

Step away from the pulpit and bully the playground dwellers all you wish, but here you might consider developing something of a rhetorical skillset, a skillset you obviously lack.

[Yurt]

The part you emphasized DOESN'T say that all searches require warrants...know why? Your implication that warrantless searches are automatically unreasonable is based in fallacy also.

Good point.

[manu1959]

Second emphasis mine.

yes....but reasonable searches don't require a warrant...and in a time of war the pendulum swings.....

[bullypulpit]

sorry, but that is a false statement.....the Act covers only communications engaged in outside the borders of the United States, and the Supreme Court long ago decided that such communication is not covered by the constitutional limits requiring warrents.....thus, this act had no effect whatsoever upon constitutional protections against blanket warrents......

The law provides no protection for the communications of Americans which get caught up in the net, and leaves it to the discretion of the administration as to how to gather, store and datamine the private communications of American citizens.

[bullypulpit]

You post a compendium of left wing talking points and have a hissy when after having been asked to substantiate your claims you again post left wing talking points and are routed from the rhetorical battlefield.

Step away from the pulpit and bully the playground dwellers all you wish, but here you might consider developing something of a rhetorical skillset, a skillset you obviously lack.

Please enlighten me then by refuting, point by point, the issues raised in the first post of the thread. Stop whining about my supposed lack of rhetorical skills and dazzle us all with your own, why doncha?

[bullypulpit]

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Sounds like Gitmo and Military Commissions Act cover each and every item.

Not really.

Under the Military Commissions Act there are no specific prohibitions against the "aggressive interrogation", a.k.a. torture, carried out under the authority of the administration since the GITMO detention center was established. It also retroactively reclassifies these "grave breaches" of Common Article III to shield those who have engaged in these practices from prosecution.

The Great Writ of <i>habeas corpus</i> is the foundation of US jurisprudence. Had it not been in effect, the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld could never have been brought before the courts. The habeas stripping provision of the Act prohibits those detainees in US custody any relief or redress from being held indefinitely, without charge. The Act gives the Executive branch sole authority to determine just who is and unlawful enemy combatant, including US citizens. The pertinent section (ii) states that unlawful enemy combatant status ca be applied to any person:

<blockquote>"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."</blockquote>

In effect the President, or his designee, can declare anyone, even an American citizen on America soil, an unlawful enemy combatant by whatever criteria they wish to use absent any judicial or congressional oversight, regardless of whether or not one had ANY connection to ANY hostilities whatsoever.

Sources:

<a href=http://www.aclu.org/natsec/gen/26861leg20060925.html>ACLU Letter to the Senate Strongly Urging Opposition to S. 3930, the Military Commissions Act of 2006</a>

<a href=http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/09/imagine-giving-donald-rumsfeld.html>Imagine Giving Donald Rumsfeld Unbounded Discretion to Detain You Indefinitely</a>

<a href=http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2006/221006doesaffect.htm>Military Commissions Act Does Affect US Citizens</a>

[PostmodernProphet]

The law provides no protection for the communications of Americans which get caught up in the net, and leaves it to the discretion of the administration as to how to gather, store and datamine the private communications of American citizens.

bully, you dodged.....the laws of the United States have NEVER provided a protection for Americans who communicate with lawfully surveilled sources....if you call a telephone in the US which is being tapped under a warrant, you are not protected....if you call a telephone overseas which is being lawfully tapped under FISA, you are not protected.....

this was true before this Act was passed, it is true now...therefore, it is wrong to say this Act had any effect on this issue....

[PostmodernProphet]

leaves it to the discretion of the administration as to how to gather, store and datamine the private communications of American citizens.

I always get a hoot out of folks who have no problem with Citizen's Bank datamining their "private communications" to decide whether to send them junk mail about credit cards, but don't want the government to have access to the same information to prevent terrorists from communicating with each other freely.......

[BoogyMan]

Please enlighten me then by refuting, point by point, the issues raised in the first post of the thread. Stop whining about my supposed lack of rhetorical skills and dazzle us all with your own, why doncha?

The appropriate way to deal with this is to fulfill my original request to substantiate your claims without the left wing talking points, once you finally do this I will gladly hand you your hat.

There were no issues raised in the OP, there was a rant, either substantiate your fantastic claims as asked, or yet again be relegated to the back benches as a bomb tosser with little other to say that what his partisan masters pour into him.

[bullypulpit]

The appropriate way to deal with this is to fulfill my original request to substantiate your claims without the left wing talking points, once you finally do this I will gladly hand you your hat.

There were no issues raised in the OP, there was a rant, either substantiate your fantastic claims as asked, or yet again be relegated to the back benches as a bomb tosser with little other to say that what his partisan masters pour into him.

Sorry, again, dazzle us with your rhetorical brilliance. And, while you're at it stop blaming me for your own inadequacies. B'bye now.

[Classact]

Not really.

Under the Military Commissions Act there are no specific prohibitions against the "aggressive interrogation", a.k.a. torture, carried out under the authority of the administration since the GITMO detention center was established. It also retroactively reclassifies these "grave breaches" of Common Article III to shield those who have engaged in these practices from prosecution.OK in war we have prisoner of war POW camps and in these camp lawful & unlawful combatants are secured... Lawful combatants are accorded Geneva protection by law and President Bush voluntarily agreed to provide the Unlawful combatants equal rights... The US does not torture regardless to what web site or liberal bias you may cite stating otherwise... We are signatures of a treaty that makes it illegal to torture so we cannot violate that treaty. Under the Geneva Convention, as ratified by the US Unlawful Combatants do not apply so Bush gave the UC's a pass... You see, in the 1970's many countries amended the GC and outlawed land mines, incendery devices used to firebomb cities and made fighting as a "freedom fighter" (out of uniform) legal... but the US did not ratify that change to the GC because we reserve the right to leave mines on the DMZ of Korea, think terrorist need to fight fair in uniform and like the ability to fire bomb the hell out of a hostile force if it will save millions of lives like at the end of WWII. Because we didn't ratify the changes to the GC in the 70's adding freedom fighters to Lawful Combatants they remain Unalawful combatants and under the International Law of War they have no rights... the warring party can hold a hearing and execute them if they desire... a military hearing of the waring power.


The Great Writ of <i>habeas corpus</i> is the foundation of US jurisprudence. Had it not been in effect, the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld could never have been brought before the courts. The habeas stripping provision of the Act prohibits those detainees in US custody any relief or redress from being held indefinitely, without charge. The Act gives the Executive branch sole authority to determine just who is and unlawful enemy combatant, including US citizens. The pertinent section (ii) states that unlawful enemy combatant status ca be applied to any person:

<blockquote>"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."</blockquote>

In effect the President, or his designee, can declare anyone, even an American citizen on America soil, an unlawful enemy combatant by whatever criteria they wish to use absent any judicial or congressional oversight, regardless of whether or not one had ANY connection to ANY hostilities whatsoever.Because we never ratified the GC changes in the 70's we reserve the right to hold military disposition of Lawful/and Unlawful combatants... never in history has a POW been provided habeas corpus... please prove me wrong... there have been exception in the Nurnberg trials but they were exceptions to the rule and not the rule. Do we have land mines on the Korean DMZ and are they against the Geneva Convention... Yes
but we didn't ratify those changes.


unlawful combatant but they must still be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial", because they are still covered by GC IV Art 5. For example in 1976 foreign soldiers fighting for FNLA were captured by the MPLA in the civil war that broke out when Angola gained independence from Portugal in 1975. After "a regularly constituted court" found them guilty of being mercenaries, three Britons and an American were shot by a firing squad on July 10, 1976. Nine others were imprisoned for terms of 16 to 30 years.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war#Conduct_of_warfare

Civilians who directly engage in hostilities, are considered unlawful combatants or unprivileged combatants/belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant
We didn't ratify the GC changes in the 1970's and no where in the Law of War or the Geneva convention does it state POW's must have habeas corpus rights of a US Citizen.