President Bush Signs Un-American Military Commissions Act

[Fonceai]

This is where my initial comment comes in... the one RickSp said was idiotic.

When an American is detained under this Act for speaking out, then you guys can complain about it.

Does that make more sense now?

I think RickSp can kiss my ass for being a prick about the comment, but it is still valid.

It's intention as stated is for foreigners. When it they actually try to use it on an American, then there will be grounds for legitimate concern.

God forbid, they might actually use it as intended.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Fonceai This is where my initial comment comes in... the one RickSp said was idiotic. When an American is detained under this Act for speaking out, then you guys can complain about it. Does that make more sense now? I think RickSp can kiss my ass for being a prick about the comment, but it is still valid. It's intention as stated is for foreigners. When it they actually try to use it on an American, then there will be grounds for legitimate concern. God forbid, they might actually use it as intended.

As habeas corpus has already been denied to an American "enemy combatant" your comments remain uninformed. The supporters of this abhorant legislation may claim the contrary till hell freezes over, but there is no fixed distinction between foreigners and US citizens in the law. Anyone who is designated an "enemy combatant" is stripped of all rights, regardless of citizenship. It is an open invation to dictatorship.

Fonceai, I see you have nothing additional to add but insults. If you wish to insult me further do it by PM. Be assured, I will reply in full. (My comment on your particularly absurd comment was in the Miscellaneous section in the thread devoted to such gems, not in this thread, by the way)

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Fonceai When an American is detained under this Act for speaking out, then you guys can complain about it. Does that make more sense now? God forbid, they might actually use it as intended.

Are you really that dense?? Do you really believe that when you encounter someone that can cripple you, you should wait until he does before you say or do anything??

No, it doesn't make more sense, in fact, in makes none at all.

Yes, they might use it as intended, than again, maybe they won't. Only a f*ing moron would take their word for it.

[Fonceai]

Dense and an effing moron. I am indeed.

When I encounter someone that can cripple me, I shut the futch up and do what they say until they actually try to hurt me. Then I fight back.

I know better than the provoke a response that was never pointed in my direction.

[Matt W]

*sighs* Let's stay on topic, people. Take your snappiness elsewhere. :rolleyes:

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[Fonceai]

Okay, the point that seems to be earning me the derogatory comments is that a piece of paper means nothing.

Getting worked up over a piece of paper means nothing.

Even when that piece of paper becomes law, it still can't supercede Constitutional rights.

So if it can't supercedethe rights of American citizens, then it's only applicable to non-citizens.

But when they do use it against an American, that is when Americans can legitimately protest.

[underbear1]

The test for America rests with the Supreme Court, ( with Bush's hand picked Nazi pig judges, I have little faith in the Court) because I'm certain this law will be challenged. Failure of the Supreme Court to call this law UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and UNAMERICAN will signal the time is right to leave.Then the third branch of government has also been corrupted, and it'll be deadly dangerous for dissentors to remain in the USA. You'll simply disappear, like in a South American JUNTA!

[RickSp]

Quote by: Fonceai Getting worked up over a piece of paper means nothing.

Yah sure. And denial is just a river in Eqypt.

[jose]

Quote by: GHook93 Give me time I will reply, but I have to do alittle work in the office today. (You're not going to call me a wimp again when I do)

while i´m waiting here is a few freedoms lost

[quote]Following are examples of freedoms which President Bush and his fellow Republicans in Congress have already expunged (as reported by the Associated Press):

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigations.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records questions.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.
Freedoms Lost Under G.W. Bush | BaltimoreChronicle.com

[Mia]

Quote by: Fonceai Okay, the point that seems to be earning me the derogatory comments is that a piece of paper means nothing. Getting worked up over a piece of paper means nothing. Even when that piece of paper becomes law, it still can't supercede Constitutional rights. So if it can't supercedethe rights of American citizens, then it's only applicable to non-citizens. But when they do use it against an American, that is when Americans can legitimately protest.

It is not written for non-Americans. How many times does that have to be pointed out?

The PA has already been used against American citizens. How many times does that have to be pointed out?

[Fonceai]

As many times until there is documentation to accompany it.

Against your average complaining American who forgets that one of their rights is the right to publicly complain? I haven't seen it happen yet, and that's the aspect that seems to make normally intelligent people respond like children.

If I'm wrong, link it. I don't mind being wrong, I just mind being the target of malicious behavior when there is nothing logical or debatable accompanying the immaturity.

[xyzer]

Patrick..You cite an Executive order which is specifically directed at ..

I persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism.

and using this and the one example of an American citizen who was left to rot in captivity for his terrorist inclinations, as evidence that all of US citizens have lost our freedoms? Ridiculoisness in the extreme! Your claim is not supported by evidence?
You don't cite another case where U.S. citizen has lost the right to 'due process' under the law. Why? Because you can't find one?

A basic concept in logical intepretation is not to generalize off one or two specifics. You and others are gnashing your teeth over lost freedoms though you can't come up with any freedoms actually given up by US citizens? Any cases where someone was deprived of any legal freedoms.You attempt to intermingle Gitmo with Abu Ghraib with US citizens who may be caught in a terrorist plot? You confuse the what might be with actuality?

An executive order is not extra legal. This one gives guidance to the federal government in the approach countering terrorism. It does not exclude anyone who would commit, or plan a terrorist act on the USA or its citizens. Where the terrorist suspect is a US citizen he/she will be given due process. If not, the latest act will use military tribunals to deal with non Us citizen combatants.

[xyzer]

As a follow up Patrick...this may soother your troubled outlook!
Executive Order Establishing the President's Board on Safeguarding Americans' Civil Liberties

Executive Order Establishing the President's Board on Safeguarding Americans' Civil Liberties

From the order..

Section 1. Policy. The United States Government has a solemn obligation, and shall continue fully, to protect the legal rights of all Americans, including freedoms, civil liberties, and information privacy guaranteed by Federal law, in the effective performance of national security and homeland security functions.

h) undertake other efforts to protect the legal rights of all Americans, including freedoms, civil liberties, and information privacy guaranteed by Federal law, as the President may direct. Upon the recommendation of the Board, the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security may establish one or more committees that include individuals from outside the executive branch of the Federal Government, in accordance with applicable law, to advise the Board on specific issues relating to the Policy. Any such committee shall carry out its functions separately from the Board.

Does this sound like our President is trying to curtail freedom and liberty in the USA?

[underbear1]

xyzer,
"persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism. "

No it's persons ACCUSED of commiting, threatening to commit, or support terrorism...........and guess what they might be WRONG! Look at what a cluster-f*ck they've made of the no-fly lists and tell me you trust them to detain anyone forever, with no oppurtunity to present evidence on their behalf?

Of course I assume people are innocent until proven guilty....what a quaint old fashioned concept that is.

[Mia]

Quote by: Fonceai As many times until there is documentation to accompany it. Against your average complaining American who forgets that one of their rights is the right to publicly complain? I haven't seen it happen yet, and that's the aspect that seems to make normally intelligent people respond like children. If I'm wrong, link it. I don't mind being wrong, I just mind being the target of malicious behavior when there is nothing logical or debatable accompanying the immaturity.

We can settle this very quickly - this is the third time this has been asked: show me in the text where it says that this only applies to non-Americans.

[Fonceai]

@underbear

xyzer directly quotes documentation and provides a link to it, and you throw in the word accused?

He makes a valid point and cites a source, and you interject with that.

This has only happened to one American citizen who was clearly supporting terrorism.

[Mia]

Who are you referring to?

[underbear1]

Anyone detained is alledged or accused of commiting the acts cited, until they are PROVEN guilty in court, but they won't go to court, and Bush can decide what is or isn't torture to get anyone to confess to ANYTHING!

[xyzer]

Mia keeps asking?..

We can settle this very quickly - this is the third time this has been asked: show me in the text where it says that this only applies to non-Americans.

I refer you to the Constitution Of the USA and all laws resulting from it that apply only to citizens of the USA.
It is still in effect!!!!!!!

The 'rule of law' resulting from this governing document has not been changed by President Bush that I know of. Can you please give a concrete example of such change.

[Mia]

Finally Mr. Olbermann's 'speech' about this has the transcript online:

And if you somehow think habeas corpus has not been suspended for American citizens but only for everybody else, ask yourself this: If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an “unlawful enemy combatant”—exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not? Do you think this attorney general is going to help you?

"Presumed innocent," Mr. Bush? The very piece of paper you signed as you said that, allows for the detainees to be abused up to the point just before they sustain “serious mental and physical trauma” in the hope of getting them to incriminate themselves, and may no longer even invoke The Geneva Conventions in their own defense. "Access to an attorney," Mr. Bush? Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift said on this program, Sir, and to the Supreme Court, that he was only granted access to his detainee defendant on the promise that the detainee would plead guilty.

Olbermann: 'Beginning of the end of America' - Countdown with Keith Olbermann - MSNBC.com