Wow. Just wow. I'd always thought America (And therefore North America) would become a police state; I never dreamed it would happen so rapidly.
Olberman's views on it are
Here. He brings up some good historical parrallels.
As big a farce as it may have been, at least Joseph McCarthy gave people a trial for his witch hunt.
"i promise we won't get drunk, and go out in boat in the dark, stand up in the boat and fire the gun into the air unless we have life jackets on."
craig steele wrote:Wow. Just wow. I'd always thought America (And therefore North America) would become a police state; I never dreamed it would happen so rapidly.
Olberman's views on it are Here. He brings up some good historical parrallels.
As big a farce as it may have been, at least Joseph McCarthy gave people a trial for his witch hunt.
That video almost brought a tear to my eyes it was so beautiful. (well no real tears, but that was very well said)
At least I can say I did not vote for Bush... I can't wait until he's out of office
The government as a whole IS trully becoming dangerous.
not just from the military comission act.
but their acts as a whole. we wont declare WAR on people we are at WAR with. WHY? to avoid the laws set out by the PEOPLE for the proper way to act durring a war.
there has been no declaration of war EVER since WWII
does that seem right? why havent we?
we have not declared war durring times when we are IN WAR because the declaration of war is accompanied by all kinds of laws and regulations for the treatment of the enemy. like legal and illegal combatants, prisoner of war laws and treatment, the requirement to follow geneva conventions etc...
by not declaring war, the US gvnmt is able to get around the laws that were set to limit them and stop them from acting unconstitutional or even inhuman.
-------------
in words of that video:
habeous corpus GONE
geneva conventions OPPTIONAL
Creative Draft Art Media Forums
Yet, where are the street protests?
---
fear is an amazing thing.
out of fear people will throw away most of the freedoms and liberties and they wotn question the gvnmt for doing so, if fear is telling them it is what is needed for their safety.
Creative Draft Art Media Forums
Spread the word. I think this snuck past a lot of people. We on the north side of the border can't do much except try to stop our Gov from doing the same thing.
I feel pretty good that I started a worth while topic
PAX
First the reason we do not declare war anymore is because after WW2 Congress chose to limit it's power to declare war to authorizations of force, which under the constitution can still be called declarations of war.
Second after reading that law, and watching the video, that video had absolutly nothing to do with hr6166 in any way shape or form, and doesn't even refer to it or any part of it.
The video is to remind you of why laws like this need to be stopped. It reminds of previous errors like this one, and offers some context. That's how it's related. Besides, it's a well made and interesting piece of art.
Like the video says, even if this president doesn't abuse it, what about the next guy?
PAX
I think i'm just retarded.
What exactly does this do? (In layman's terms) I saw the video but still have no clue what it means.
The video was neat, and I thought well done, but it has no contex and pertains to nothing about hr6166 in any way or form.
The bill allows military courts to punish alien illegal combatants, ie anyone not a US citizen who is fighting the US, but not apart of any country's army, and in my interpertation, a member of a country's army that does not follow the rules of war (ie not wearing a uniform in a time of war).
Eric Esler wrote:First the reason we do not declare war anymore is because after WW2 Congress chose to limit it's power to declare war to authorizations of force, which under the constitution can still be called declarations of war.
Second after reading that law, and watching the video, that video had absolutly nothing to do with hr6166 in any way shape or form, and doesn't even refer to it or any part of it.
completely incorrect.
an authorization to use force is in no way considered a declaration of war. authorization to use force is absolutely a way to avoid political reprecutions and war time laws.
Creative Draft Art Media Forums
Eric Esler wrote:The video was neat, and I thought well done, but it has no contex and pertains to nothing about hr6166 in any way or form.
The bill allows military courts to punish alien illegal combatants, ie anyone not a US citizen who is fighting the US, but not apart of any country's army, and in my interpertation, a member of a country's army that does not follow the rules of war (ie not wearing a uniform in a time of war).
It also allows US citizens to be declaired terrorists and treated under the same lack of rules.. That's the dangerous part.
I did include a lint to the law itself for those who want to know more about it. Remember that definitions are very important in legalese and this law lacks definition.. Therefore it can be loosely interpreted.
PAX
I read the law and it clearly states that only alien,which is described under that law as a non-US citizen, illegal enemy combatants, which is described under that law as being any combatant not belonging to a nations army, can be tried by the military.
Also, Nathaniel, there is no constitutional way to declare war, but any act by congress to use the military in another country can count as a declaration of war by our constitution. Congress limited itself to authorizations of force after WW2.
The law is very clear on who can and cannot be declared an alien illegal enemy combatant, and it states so in that link you posted.
Eric Esler wrote:
Also, Nathaniel, there is no constitutional way to declare war, but any act by congress to use the military in another country can count as a declaration of war by our constitution. Congress limited itself to authorizations of force after WW2.
no that is incorrect. we have discussed is this for 3 days in my poly science class. auth of force frees the country from any and all obligations to follow laws and regulations set out by the constitution for when we are under a declaration of war. that is WHY in the first place they changed it to be a auth of force.
if auth of force was the same as dec of war than there would have been no need in the first place to create it.
Creative Draft Art Media Forums
Video=Boring Music was horrible, and it did not pertain to the subject
Since when has congress needed to give permission to the president to use the military?
Article 2 Sect. 2 wrote:
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
Seems pretty clear cut to me.
Also...here is a
link to the auctual bill itself
Basicly...from what I've read so far...it can only be done to to "unlawful enemy combattants," "Lawful enemy combattants" recive a full military tribunal, unlawful does not.
Also, the maximum punishment is determined by Sec. of Def. or the President. It can include death.
But this is the important part, reguarding statements of the accused
H.R. 6166 wrote:
Sec. 948r. Compulsory self-incrimination prohibited; treatment of statements obtained by torture and other statements
`(a) In General- No person shall be required to testify against himself at a proceeding of a military commission under this chapter.
`(b) Exclusion of Statements Obtained by Torture- A statement obtained by use of torture shall not be admissible in a military commission under this chapter, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.
`(c) Statements Obtained Before Enactment of Detainee Treatment Act of 2005- A statement obtained before December 30, 2005 (the date of the enactment of the Defense Treatment Act of 2005) in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the military judge finds that--
`(1) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value; and
`(2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.
`(d) Statements Obtained After Enactment of Detainee Treatment Act of 2005- A statement obtained on or after December 30, 2005 (the date of the enactment of the Defense Treatment Act of 2005) in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the military judge finds that--
`(1) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value;
`(2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence; and
`(3) the interrogation methods used to obtain the statement do not amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment prohibited by section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.
There is nothing in the bill that says that US citizens can be put on trial. Fear not my fellow JBOers, it isn't
1984 just yet
Adam is correct, and the law also clearly states alien illegal enemy combatants, which is described as someone who is not a US citizen, which means there is absolutly no way this law can be interpreted as effecting anyone with citizenship.
ADAM-
incorect. its called checks and balances. if the president had the power to pick and choose when the military went to battle and was able to send them in the executive would be by FAR the most powerfull branch.
the essence of checks and balances and seperation of powers is to keep any one branch from becoming too powerfull.
you need more understanding than just a fast BASIC reading of the constitution.
the president has to ASK congress for permission to send in forces/go to war/auth to use force.
worst case scenario the president CAN send force in imediately but MUST be back within 90 days if congress decides his choice to send forces was incorrect.
Creative Draft Art Media Forums
here is more detailed information for ya'll
wikpedia-
The War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148) limits the power of the President of the United States to wage war without the approval of Congress. The Resolution is also referred to as the War Powers Act of 1973. The Resolution is sometimes erroneously referred to as simply the War Powers Act, but that is an older law intended to define limits on trade with enemies during wartime.
Provisions
The purpose of the War Powers Resolution is to ensure that Congress and the President share in making decisions that may get the U.S. involved in hostilities. Portions of the War Powers Resolution require the President to consult with Congress prior to the start of any hostilities as well as regularly until U.S. armed forces are no longer engaged in hostilities (Sec. 3); and to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not declared war or passed a resolution authorizing the use of force within 60 days (Sec. 5(b)). Following an official request by the President to Congress, the time limit can be extended by an additional 30 days (presumably when "unavoidable military necessity" requires additional action for a safe withdrawal).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
---------------------------
it is people that take such confidence in our own government and only look at the surface that cause bills like this to be passed.
here are some specifics about what the bill is actually saying:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hr6166
The Act changes pre-existing law to explicitly disallow the invocation of the Geneva Conventions when executing the writ of habeas corpus or in other civil actions [Act sec. 5(a)].
Applicability to U.S. Citizens
The text of the law states that its "Purpose" is to "establish procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission." Legal and Constitutional scholar Robert A. Levy commented that the Act denies habeas rights only to aliens, and that U.S. citizens detained as "unlawful combatants" would still have habeas rights and could challenge their detention. [8] While formally opposed to the Act, Human Rights Watch has also concluded that the new law limits the scope of trials by military commissions to non-U.S. citizens including all legal aliens. [9] CBS Legal expert Andrew Cohen has commented on this question and writes that the "suspension of the writ of habeas corpus – the ability of an imprisoned person to challenge their confinement in court—applies only to resident aliens within the United States as well as other foreign nationals captured here and abroad" and that "it does not restrict the rights and freedoms and liberties of U.S. citizens anymore than they already have been restricted". [10]
STATEMENT
Patrick Leahy, United States Senator:
Passing laws that remove the few checks against mistreatment of prisoners will not help us win the battle for the hearts and minds of the generation of young people around the world being recruited by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Authorizing indefinite detention of anybody the Government designates -, without any proceeding and without any recourse -- is what our worst critics claim the United States would do, not what American values, traditions and our rule of law would have us do. This is not just a bad bill, this is a dangerous bill. [16].
more info
A number of legal scholars and Congressional members - including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) - have said that the habeas provision of the Act violates a clause of the Constitution that says the right to challenge detention "shall not be suspended" except in cases of "rebellion or invasion."[17]
The Act has also been denounced by critics who assert that its wording makes possible the permanent detention and torture (as defined by the Geneva Conventions) of anyone - including American citizens - based solely on the decision of the President.[18] Indeed, the wording of section 948b[19] of the act appears to explicitly contradict the Third Geneva Convention of which the United States is currently a signatory.
Creative Draft Art Media Forums
^^^^
True, but your getting your stuff from wikipedia...you gotta take it ALL with a grain of salt
You've probably all have seen this
Nathaniel O'Flaherty wrote:it is people that take such confidence in our own government and only look at the surface that cause bills like this to be passed.
I appologize for not having the same degree of paranoia that you do
Quote:
A number of legal scholars and Congressional members - including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) - have said that the habeas provision of the Act violates a clause of the Constitution that says the right to challenge detention "shall not be suspended" except in cases of "rebellion or invasion."[17]
Does not matter, the writ of habeas corpus is not denied to US citizens. Not only that, but would they (being the prisnoers/detainees/whatever) be able to safely assume what they are being held for? I don't think I'm giving them too much credit when I assume that they would be able to figure out what they are being held for.
Quote:
(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--
`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
`(ii) a person 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.
This clearly defines what exactly an Unlawful enemy combatant is. No where in this does it say that a US citizen is this type of combatant. They would be held under US law, enabling them the writ of habeus corpus, and a trial in (possibly) civilian courts.
Not only that, but as for torture
Quote:
(a) In General- No person shall be required to testify against himself at a proceeding of a military commission under this chapter.
`(b) Exclusion of Statements Obtained by Torture- A statement obtained by use of torture shall not be admissible in a military commission under this chapter, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.
`(c) Statements Obtained Before Enactment of Detainee Treatment Act of 2005- A statement obtained before December 30, 2005 (the date of the enactment of the Defense Treatment Act of 2005) in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the military judge finds that--
`(1) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value; and
`(2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.
`(d) Statements Obtained After Enactment of Detainee Treatment Act of 2005- A statement obtained on or after December 30, 2005 (the date of the enactment of the Defense Treatment Act of 2005) in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the military judge finds that--
`(1) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value;
`(2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence; and
`(3) the interrogation methods used to obtain the statement do not amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment prohibited by section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.
This also shows that any and all information that could possibly have been obtained through torture methods is unusable in the court cases. This, in essence, makes torture completely pointless.
im not paranoid at all.
i just believe in history. and history shows that the PEOPLE need to make sure the gvnmt does not become tyranical.
and your right, a US citizen detained under this act WOULD supposedly still get habeus corpus rights.
however we as people should not accept a bill that denies ANYONE habeus corpus rights. HC are basic rights set out by the constitution and there is no situation in which it should be compromised. this bill denies HC to any and all alien combatants.
the bill also lets the gvnmt freely NOT follow the rules/regs for torture in the geneva conventions.
and while in this bill it says no info obtained by torture can be used in trial that does not mean they wont torture. if they werent going to turture prisoners they would not have included the section with exempts them from the geneva conventions.
and yes i did show my info from wikipedia. however, wikipedia has been proven to be as accurate ans the britannica. and all of this info is all stuff we have talked about in my poly science class. its just that wikipedia is a super easy place to show and document info so people dont think im just making things up.
Creative Draft Art Media Forums
First, the geneva conventions have nothing to do with this bill, the rules we follow for the geneva convention are for lawful enemy combatants, ie other military's, and it has never at any time since it's conception covered terrorists.
Second hr6166 does not allow information obtained by torture to be used in trial, I'm not sure if you missed that part or just mistyped.
where did i mistype?
Quote:
and while in this bill it says no info obtained by torture can be used in trial that does not mean they wont torture.
maybe you misread.
and what do you think terrorists are? ENEMY COMBATANTS when our nation has authorized the use of force against terrorists.
and nothing to do with the geneva conventions!?
read
Quote:
`Sec. 948b. Military commissions generally
`(g) Geneva Conventions Not Establishing Source of Rights- No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights.
look it up
Quote:
SEC. 5. TREATY OBLIGATIONS NOT ESTABLISHING GROUNDS FOR CERTAIN CLAIMS.
(a) In General- No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories.
and this is one of the scariest parts
Quote:
(3) INTERPRETATION BY THE PRESIDENT-
(A) As provided by the Constitution and by this section, the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and to promulgate higher standards and administrative regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.
(B) The President shall issue interpretations described by subparagraph (A) by Executive Order published in the Federal Register.
(C) Any Executive Order published under this paragraph shall be authoritative (except as to grave breaches of common Article 3) as a matter of United States law, in the same manner as other administrative regulations.
it has been proven that the president is willing to do unconstitutional acts when he has decided it is for national security (phone tapping) along with past presidents as well. this is teetering on the edge of not maintaing balance of powers and checks and balances.
and now we are giving him ALL power to interperet the meaning and when and where things set out in the geneva conventions apply? WHOA.
Creative Draft Art Media Forums
