President Bush Signs Un-American Military Commissions Act

[Mia]

Quote by: RickSp No, by then we will not be able to talk. Duh.

Exactly the point.

[Mia]

Quote by: Fonceai When the first American who speaks against the government is arrested, then you guys can talk. Right now, the ones speaking out aren't just speaking, they are planning. They are living amongst our enemies. I'm with GHook93... this isn't as bad as you might think. We still have more freedom than anyone else on the planet. Go ahead and try to voice anything about rights and freedom on the streets of Iraq while a woman is beaten in an alley because she looked you in the eye.

We should not be even having to compare ourselves to countried run by dictators - we are supposed to have the most freedom of anywhere in the world - why can you not compare us to a free country and show how we are the best in that area?

Because you can't - comparing us to Iraq is another 'duh'. That is no great achievement.

[Fonceai]

I can't compare us to another "free" country because no other country is as free as we are.

The next one in comparison is maybe Canada or Britain.

"Duh" isn't much of a response, all things considered.

Instead, tell me how this is going to hurt the average, non-blog-whining American.

[Mia]

Please explain the 'average non-blog-whining American' before I can answer your question, although it is SO SAD that you have to ask.

Let's see - there is a law on the books that you can be arrested for wearing red. No one has been arrested yet, and the lawmakers assure us that only terrorists will actually be arrested for wearing red, so there is no cause for concern.

Well, do you not realize that you are at slight risk for wearing red here? Are you going to take the chance when the consequence includes having no right to a civillian trial? No regular rights for an attorney even? That you can be held in secret indefinitely, and even tortured?

Why does someone actually have to be arrested for the law to be wrong and downright scary?

Do you really not get that we won't KNOW if the people arrested are actually regular American citizens because even their ATTORNEY and FAMILY are not told anything?

I know of an American citizen being held this way - under the Patriot Act, this new act just makes it even more 'legal' to continue holding him and beat a confession out of him if that's what they deem necessary!

[GHook93]

First off I most Americans can't stand GWB or the Iraq war. Just look at the approval ratings for both.

Coming from a 9/11 denier I wouldn't expect any less. We still have more freedoms that basically any other country in the world. This will affect basically only foreign nationals - Terrorist (the true 9/11 murderers). Toss Padilla at us as much as you want, but this is a guy who intented to set off a dirty-bomb. Sorry if I am not crying for this guy. He is the exception not the norm. The douche-bags in FL that got arrested for plotting to blow up the WTC. They are not in guantanamo bay. Walker the American Taliban was tried in as an American and in Jail. Habeus Corpus was not intented to protect against treason!

Like it or not we are a war.Hippie ideology and conspiracy theories are not going to change that.

Quote by: PatrickHenry I think the nation has polarized into those who can see and those who are blind as bats to the gradual decline of freedom. What does it take to wake people up? Does your own family have to be abused before you can realize that a republic has been replaced with Empire? To say it can't happen is to be willfully blind. The Roman Republic existed for centuries and was replaced by one man rule and tyranny. Can any deny that the US is an oligarchy at the present moment? That it siezes other nations militarily and holds them captive through various means, financial, political and military? That it engages in propaganda ops against its own citizens? C'mon, deny it you Bush toadies! But the rewards you reap will not be security and prosperity. Instead you will face increasing national indebtedness, increasingly draconian security legislation, policemen and cameras prying into your lives, and the life blood of your sons smeared on the battlefield. The only way to freedom is freedom.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Mia NO - an AMERICAN CITIZEN can be declared an enemy combatant for SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT - have you read the entire Patriot Act? Have you read the new Act? It is NOT just for foreign nationals. It is NOT just for terrorists. Bush says he will only USE it for terrorists. Guess you trust him, I don't.

Please!!!!!! Enemy combatants are not going to be applied to speaking out. It will be for terrorist acts and aggression. They will be aimed mainly at foreign nationals on our soil.

[GHook93]

Quote by: RickSp No, by then we will not be able to talk. Duh.

A little dramatic. This is not even close to happening.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Mia Please explain the 'average non-blog-whining American' before I can answer your question, although it is SO SAD that you have to ask.

Gladly.

An American who is too busy working and trying to make ends meet to get worked up about laws that, as GHook points out, are intended for non-Americans.

An American who would read some of these forum entries and say that those with the inclination can go ahead and fight, or dismiss the opinions as sounding crazy.

An American who votes based on one or two issues at best, doesn't really read into other policies, and generally just wants to raise their family, have a good weekend, and be happy.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Fonceai Then I guess you better take action now. Stop whining on forum boards, get together a large enough group of people who sees this the way you do, and get so much support for your side that your local government will up-channel it. If you aren't willing to do that now, then what point is there to your complaining?

And you presume that my only activities are on boards like this?

Obviously any discourse with one who comes up with a bizarre gem like, "when the first American who speaks against the government is arrested, then you guys can talk" is valuable only as amusement.

[RickSp]

Quote by: GHook93 A little dramatic. This is not even close to happening.

The statement was:

When the first American who speaks against the government is arrested, then you guys can talk.

That is about as foolish a starment regarding free speech as any I've heard in quite a while. We can talk only after it is illegal to talk. Genuis, that one.

[Mia]

Quote by: GHook93 Please!!!!!! Enemy combatants are not going to be applied to speaking out. It will be for terrorist acts and aggression. They will be aimed mainly at foreign nationals on our soil.

Then why is it not spelled out as such?

Law against wearing red - but only terrorists will actually be prosecuted. So why not only say that it's illegal for terrorists to wear red.

Oh, because we don't know who they are. And some are American citizens. So we might have to yank up anyone remotely suspect of being or knowing of a terrorist, so we are going to write the law like this.

But, really, don't worry, because we PROMISE that it will only be used against a real threat.

Like when we went after anyone suspected of communism. Anyone remember that? Think it won't happen again? Think again. Think harder.

[Mia]

Quote by: Fonceai Gladly. An American who is too busy working and trying to make ends meet to get worked up about laws that, as GHook points out, are intended for non-Americans. An American who would read some of these forum entries and say that those with the inclination can go ahead and fight, or dismiss the opinions as sounding crazy. An American who votes based on one or two issues at best, doesn't really read into other policies, and generally just wants to raise their family, have a good weekend, and be happy.

If the laws are intended for non-Americans, why are they written to include Americans?

[Mia]

Habeas corpus -- it's your most fundamental legal right, your right to go to a court and get an order requiring the government to prove that it is holding you in prison with proper legal authority to do so. Without that right, one necessarily lives in a dictatorship. The Constitution says it may never be suspended except in cases of rebellion or invasion. President Bush today on October 17, 2006 signed a bill repealing that law, meaning that the administration need not comply or show compliance with law any more with regard to who goes to prison or Gitmo. While it supposedly applies just to terrorism cases, that doesn't prevent it from ending the rule of law in the United States for our newly all-powerful Executive. This is true not just because terrorism is construed so broadly in the prohibition of "material support" for terrorism (which by the way has already been held to include a lawyer's press release on behalf of a terrorist client) but because the administration NEED NOT PROVE IT'S REALLY TERRORISM because they don't need to answer to any court in the land at any time. Even "Justice" Scalia wrote in the Hamdan case that "the very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive. " That very core of liberty died on October 17, 2006 with the signing of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and its elimination of habeas corpus. Oh yeah, it also legalized torture wholesale. While misleadingly purporting to prohibit a few forms, upon full analysis it prohibits none. But who's going to know since your relatives won't be able to find out where you are anyway, right?

zenwire - seeking the truthiest news - Frontpage

And today also a lawyer was sentenced to 2 and a half years in prison for the simple act of issuing a press release on behalf of a terrorist client in prison. While this terrorist is a genuine terrorist, there's nothing in the law that distinguishes between serious terrorists and innocent terrorists (if there is such a thing) but in any case, remember, they don't need to comply with habeas and show that you are guilty anyway! At most, they just think to themselves "this guy's a terrorist" and you disappear into the torture chamber with no right to be heard from, even indirectly through your lawyer, which you have no enforceable right to anyway. Even public opinion will likely not catch up with this because people will just disappear and who knows, maybe the missing person just went off on a lark or a fugue to start a new life, right? Consequently, on October 17, 2006 freedom died in the United States of America. We now live in a dictatorship. We live in a dictatorship even if you think George W. Bush will be a wise and beneficient king or dictator. It is defined as the possession of absolute power as opposed to checks and balances. In the Keith Olbermann commentary at the first youtube link below; I agree with Professor Turley (Constitutional Law) that people "really have no idea how significant this is." Turley says we now have an "absolute ruler" which is really just another way of saying dictatorship. He's not kidding. I'm not kidding. I'll be releasing an extended (and devastating, early readers say) critical piece on this within 48 hours, but in the meantime and after that please consider the importance of this issue is at a WHOLE OTHER LEVEL. It's not an "issue" that we form polite activist groups to respond to. The Executive Branch now has full discretion to imprison anybody they want to without charge or trial or bail and there will be nothing anybody can do except beg the King. I.e. there's no rule of law applicable to the administration. EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN LAW was essentially repealed, because the administration need not prove to anybody that it has complied with the law by indefinitely detaining you, your relative or anyone else.

Keith Olbermann's commentary, with Professor Jonathan Turley
YouTube - The Day King George Was Crowned...

[jose]

Quote by: GHook93 We still have more freedoms that basically any other country in the world.

please list some of the freedoms that you belive you have, that i don´t

[xyzer]

What absolute nonsense..based on illogical emotionalism rather than fact!

Can any deny that the US is an oligarchy at the present moment? That it siezes other nations militarily and holds them captive through various means, financial, political and military? That it engages in propaganda ops against its own citizens?

Yes, I can and do deny it Patrick! The USA governmental structure has not changed a bit except in the minds of those afflicted with political paranoia!
We have a Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary, just as we have always had. Plus a 'Rule of Law'. Any Act passed by the Legislature and approved by the President is subject to interpretation in the courts as it always has been?
To suggest that somehow a small group is running our government is a bit over the top IMNSHO! To suggest some dark, ominous conspiracy to deprive us of rights, is afoot is balderdash and nonsense!
Don't worry about it Patrick, we have the same system we have always had with the same checks and balances we have always had! The Constitution is still in place. You can sleep at night!

[RickSp]

Quote by: GHook93 Toss Padilla at us as much as you want, but this is a guy who intented to set off a dirty-bomb. Sorry if I am not crying for this guy. He is the exception not the norm. The douche-bags in FL that got arrested for plotting to blow up the WTC. They are not in guantanamo bay. Walker the American Taliban was tried in as an American and in Jail. Habeus Corpus was not intented to protect against treason!

You say that Jose Padillo intended to set off a dirty bomb. How do you know? Where is the evidence?

There is no evidence. The government said he did. That's all.

How do we know that you aren't a dirty bomber? Perhaps you should be thrown in jail without evidence without trial, without even access to an attorney. We have exactly the same evidence that you are a dirty bomber as we do that Jose Padillo is. Why in hell aren't you in jail?

The traitors now are those who want to destroy the Constitution for the transitory illusion of safety. Those so stupid as to cheer on the destruction of their basic liberties hardly deserve to have them.

[GHook93]

QUOTE=RickSp;293218 You say that Jose Padillo intended to set off a dirty bomb. How do you know? Where is the evidence? There is no evidence. The government said he did. That's all

.

Like I said same guy, Padilla (with an 'A') is the exception not the norm. There is evidence, but its classified.

How do we know that you aren't a dirty bomber? Perhaps you should be thrown in jail without evidence without trial, without even access to an attorney. We have exactly the same evidence that you are a dirty bomber as we do that Jose Padillo is. Why in hell aren't you in jail?

Nice Red Herring.

The traitors now are those who want to destroy the Constitution for the transitory illusion of safety. Those so stupid as to cheer on the destruction of their basic liberties hardly deserve to have them.

Don't call me naive. I study law and intent to make that my profession. I do not like infringments on my privacy rights and in fact I think the government is getting to large; however, I don't see this law as the slippery slope dome and gloom as you see it as.

I see extremely vulnerable US ports, borders, nuclear plants etc. The constitution gave the Congress the right to suspend Habeus Corpus for certain instances. This fits in one of them.

Don't worry, it is almost 2007 and GWB has only 1 more year in office!!!

[Fonceai]

Quote by: jose please list some of the freedoms that you belive you have, that i don´t

How's this for starters?

2005 Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Spain

The government generally respected the human rights of its citizens; although there were a few problems in some areas, the law and judiciary provide effective means of addressing individual instances of abuse. The following problems were reported: * detainees, foreigners, and illegal immigrants were reportedly abused and mistreated by some members of the security forces * lengthy pretrial detention and delays in some trials * some societal violence against immigrants * domestic violence against women * trafficking in women and teenage girls for the purpose of sexual exploitation * societal discrimination against Roma

Any of those things not covered in your civil rights?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: xyzer What absolute nonsense..based on illogical emotionalism rather than fact!

Then let's look at the facts. Is it possible that you, or anyone else, could be tossed into jail and held without charges, evidence, or any other legal right? If you answer no, then you're in disagreement not only with Constitutional scholars, but with reality itself. It's already been done, and to American citizens. You can claim that Padilla was all kinds of things, but you have only hearsay evidence to back that claim up. Until now, hearsay evidence was not allowed in trials.

Quote by: xyzer Any Act passed by the Legislature and approved by the President is subject to interpretation in the courts as it always has been?

And one can only hope that this Act is declared unconstitutional as quickly as possible.

Quote by: xyzer To suggest some dark, ominous conspiracy to deprive us of rights, is afoot is balderdash and nonsense!

It's not "some dark, ominous conspiracy", it's being done right out in the open, in front of the entire world. Only a fool would not recognize the consequences of giving the government this much power.

After WW2, many Germans, when shown the concentration camps, asked, "How could such a thing happen here"?? Well, we won't have to ask that question, we are living it. It's happening, it's here, and occurring right in front of us.

[Fonceai]

Curious... someone explain to me how it's Unconstitutional.

Be specific.