Military Commissions Act 2006

Terryray

Say Parlay
Forum Member
Ok, I actually ran into the Olbermann piece The Sponge spoke of in another thread.


I had already read CBS legal expert Cohen's piece, where he writes " Over and over again, Gonzales was forced to explain that the most onerous provisions contained in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 does not on its face apply to U.S. citizens. And, indeed, this is true. 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 Constitutional scholar Robert Levy wrote:

Does the Military Commission Act Apply to U.S. Citizens?

Legal scholars are debating whether the Military Commission Act [MCA], passed by Congress on September 29 and soon to be signed by President Bush, applies to U.S. citizens. The answer is more complicated than one would think.

First: Under Sec. 948a(1) an unlawful enemy combatant is ?(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents ?; or (ii) a person who?has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal?.? Use of the word ?person? suggests that citizens may be detained as unlawful combatants.

But second: Sec. 7(a) denies habeas rights only to aliens. Thus, a citizen who is detained as an unlawful combatant would appear to have habeas rights to challenge his detention.

Moreover, third: Sec. 948b states that ?[t]his chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants.? In other words, only non-citizens may be tried by a military commission.

My conclusion: A citizen may be detained (subject to habeas challenge), but not tried, under the MCA.




...................................................................................

thus, Olbermann seems to be running a scare tactic. The same sort of shrill scare tactic these sort of folks always accuse Bush Admin of exploiting outta 9/11....decide for yourself....


..............................................................................



Olbermann Addresses the Military Commissions Act in a Special Comment

By Keith Olbermann
MSNBC Countdown
Wednesday 18 October 2006



We have lived as if in a trance.

We have lived as people in fear.

And now - our rights and our freedoms in peril - we slowly awake to learn that we have been afraid of the wrong thing.

Therefore, tonight have we truly become the inheritors of our American legacy.

For, on this first full day that the Military Commissions Act is in force, we now face what our ancestors faced, at other times of exaggerated crisis and melodramatic fear-mongering:

A government more dangerous to our liberty, than is the enemy it claims to protect us from.

We have been here before - and we have been here before led here - by men better and wiser and nobler than George W. Bush.

We have been here when President John Adams insisted that the Alien and Sedition Acts were necessary to save American lives, only to watch him use those acts to jail newspaper editors.

American newspaper editors, in American jails, for things they wrote about America.

We have been here when President Woodrow Wilson insisted that the Espionage Act was necessary to save American lives, only to watch him use that Act to prosecute 2,000 Americans, especially those he disparaged as "Hyphenated Americans," most of whom were guilty only of advocating peace in a time of war.

American public speakers, in American jails, for things they said about America.

And we have been here when President Franklin D. Roosevelt insisted that Executive Order 9066 was necessary to save American lives, only to watch him use that order to imprison and pauperize 110,000 Americans while his man in charge, General DeWitt, told Congress: "It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen - he is still a Japanese."

American citizens, in American camps, for something they neither wrote nor said nor did, but for the choices they or their ancestors had made about coming to America.

Each of these actions was undertaken for the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

And each was a betrayal of that for which the president who advocated them claimed to be fighting.

Adams and his party were swept from office, and the Alien and Sedition Acts erased.

Many of the very people Wilson silenced survived him, and one of them even ran to succeed him, and got 900,000 votes, though his presidential campaign was conducted entirely from his jail cell.

And Roosevelt's internment of the Japanese was not merely the worst blight on his record, but it would necessitate a formal apology from the government of the United States to the citizens of the United States whose lives it ruined.

The most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

In times of fright, we have been only human.

We have let Roosevelt's "fear of fear itself" overtake us.

We have listened to the little voice inside that has said, "the wolf is at the door; this will be temporary; this will be precise; this too shall pass."

We have accepted that the only way to stop the terrorists is to let the government become just a little bit like the terrorists.

Just the way we once accepted that the only way to stop the Soviets was to let the government become just a little bit like the Soviets.

Or substitute the Japanese.

Or the Germans.

Or the Socialists.

Or the Anarchists.

Or the Immigrants.

Or the British.

Or the Aliens.

The most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

And, always, always wrong.

"With the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few: Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously, and did we do what it takes to defeat that threat?"

Wise words.

And ironic ones, Mr. Bush.

Your own, of course, yesterday, in signing the Military Commissions Act.

You spoke so much more than you know, Sir.

Sadly - of course - the distance of history will recognize that the threat this generation of Americans needed to take seriously was you.

We have a long and painful history of ignoring the prophecy attributed to Benjamin Franklin that "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

But even within this history we have not before codified the poisoning of habeas corpus, that wellspring of protection from which all essential liberties flow.

You, sir, have now befouled that spring.

You, sir, have now given us chaos and called it order.

You, sir, have now imposed subjugation and called it freedom.

For the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

And - again, Mr. Bush - all of them, wrong.

We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who has said it is unacceptable to compare anything this country has ever done to anything the terrorists have ever done.

We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who has insisted again that "the United States does not torture. It's against our laws and it's against our values" and who has said it with a straight face while the pictures from Abu Ghraib Prison and the stories of Waterboarding figuratively fade in and out, around him.

We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who may now, if he so decides, declare not merely any non-American citizens "unlawful enemy combatants" and ship them somewhere - anywhere - but may now, if he so decides, declare you an "unlawful enemy combatant" and ship you somewhere - anywhere.

And if you think this hyperbole or hysteria, ask the newspaper editors when John Adams was president or the pacifists when Woodrow Wilson was president or the Japanese at Manzanar when Franklin Roosevelt was president.

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?

This President now has his blank check.

He lied to get it.

He lied as he received it.

Is there any reason to even hope he has not lied about how he intends to use it nor who he intends to use it against?

"These military commissions will provide a fair trial," you told us yesterday, Mr. Bush, "in which the accused are presumed innocent, have access to an attorney and can hear all the evidence against them."

"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.

"Hearing all the evidence," Mr. Bush?

The Military Commissions Act specifically permits the introduction of classified evidence not made available to the defense.

Your words are lies, Sir.

They are lies that imperil us all.

"One of the terrorists believed to have planned the 9/11 attacks," you told us yesterday, "said he hoped the attacks would be the beginning of the end of America."

That terrorist, sir, could only hope.

Not his actions, nor the actions of a ceaseless line of terrorists (real or imagined), could measure up to what you have wrought.

Habeas corpus? Gone.

The Geneva Conventions? Optional.

The moral force we shined outwards to the world as an eternal beacon, and inwards at ourselves as an eternal protection? Snuffed out.

These things you have done, Mr. Bush, they would be "the beginning of the end of America."

And did it even occur to you once, sir - somewhere in amidst those eight separate, gruesome, intentional, terroristic invocations of the horrors of 9/11 - that with only a little further shift in this world we now know - just a touch more repudiation of all of that for which our patriots died -- did it ever occur to you once that in just 27 months and two days from now when you leave office, some irresponsible future president and a "competent tribunal" of lackeys would be entitled, by the actions of your own hand, to declare the status of "unlawful enemy combatant" for - and convene a Military Commission to try - not John Walker Lindh, but George Walker Bush?

For the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

And doubtless, Sir, all of them - as always - wrong.
 

maverick2112

Registered User
Forum Member
Jan 16, 2001
2,967
5
38
Wyoming
Seems to me .........."a person who has engaged in hostilities".........could mean anything from threatening someone to protesting something.....

Would'nt it be safer for everyone if this was defined better..................
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
when you give presidents this type of power they always get caught abusing it. This is the most dangerous man in the world to have this type of power. I hear ole Hillary thought this was a good idea. If she wins the democratic primary im just gonna give up. Im all for the patriot act as well as the NSA program but you need to latch the death penalty to those bills to make them work. You get caught abusing them you get the death penalty. You can't give power hungry people this type of power. Now as for Olberman using this as a scare tactic? Cmon man he doesn't yeild that type of power. Now if he was just saying what he did without backing it up with constitutional lawyers i may agree with you. What i will never understand is why some of you can't understand how furious some people are. I mean even a number of Bush's team who have left tell it right to your face. There might have been ten of them. People are just so sick of the lies and deceit and are even more sick of the people who can't see through the bullshit.. Maybe eddie Haskel could clear this up a bit but im sure if he gave his honest opinion people will think he has a political motive. these reasons get old.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
214
63
"the bunker"
The CMC Provides The Accused With Substantial Due Process Rights, Including:

The accused has a right to a full and fair trial.
The accused has a right to know the charges against him as soon as practicable.
The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by legal and competent evidence, with the burden of proof on the prosecution.
The accused has a right to counsel, including military defense counsel and retained civilian defense counsel.
The accused must have a reasonable opportunity to obtain witnesses and other evidence, including evidence in the possession of the government.
The prosecution must disclose to the defense any exculpatory evidence known to it.
The accused has the right to cross-examine witnesses who testify for the prosecution.
The accused has a right not to testify against himself at a commission proceeding.
Evidence may be admitted only if the judge finds it would have probative value to a reasonable person, and it must be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Statements obtained by use of torture are not admissible against the accused.
Statements allegedly obtained through use of coercion are not admissible if the judge finds that the circumstances under which they were obtained render them unreliable or lacking in probative value.
No person may attempt to coerce or by any unauthorized means influence the action of a commission or any commission member in reaching a finding or sentence.
The commission proceedings must be open except in special circumstances where the judge makes specific findings.
The accused has the right to at least two appeals from any conviction, including appeal to the D.C. Circuit.
The accused may not be tried a second time for the same offense...


the rights afforded those that would afford our own soldiers a rusty blade hacking off his head...

you quote olbermann....who btw, couldn`t find his way out of the closet with his hand on the doorknob....

and i quote the fact sheet from the whitehouse....

how many unlawful combatants do we have in here?.....raise your hands.....

hmm hmm hmm hmmm(checks watch).......:yawn:

:rolleyes:

how many have had their rights abridged by chimpy?...:thinking:

:violin:..... :sleep:

lol
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,407
121
63
Bowling Green Ky
Now that we got that sorted out--less look at the vote against it---

NAYS 34 ---
* Akaka (D-HI)
* Baucus (D-MT)
* Bayh (D-IN)
* Biden (D-DE)
* Bingaman (D-NM)
* Boxer (D-CA)
* Byrd (D-WV)
* Cantwell (D-WA)
* Chafee (R-RI)
* Clinton (D-NY)
* Conrad (D-ND)
* Dayton (D-MN)
* Dodd (D-CT)
* Dorgan (D-ND)
* Durbin (D-IL)
* Feingold (D-WI)
* Feinstein (D-CA)
* Harkin (D-IA)
* Inouye (D-HI)
* Jeffords (I-VT)
* Kennedy (D-MA)
* Kerry (D-MA)
* Kohl (D-WI)
* Leahy (D-VT)
* Levin (D-MI)
* Lincoln (D-AR)
* Mikulski (D-MD)
* Murray (D-WA)
* Obama (D-IL)
* Reed (D-RI)
* Reid (D-NV)
* Sarbanes (D-MD)
* Schumer (D-NY)
* Wyden (D-OR)
-----------------------------------------------------
 
Last edited:

Terryray

Say Parlay
Forum Member
I really do think Olberman and Gardenweasel are related.

well, it takes a patient man waiting above his garden to catch a weasel, that's the only relation I can find----by taking Olbermann like liberties and making a few Olbermann like distortions ("Ober" in German means "above" and "waiter") :com:



An glaring omission in Olbermann's litany of abuses by Presidents is the one that speaks most directly here---Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, not once but three times, during the Civil War.


It lead to thousands getting jailed---celebrated Democrats like Vallandigham, who Lincoln charged was encouraging desertions from the Union army. "Must I shoot a simpleminded soldier boy who deserts," Lincoln asked, "while I must not touch a hair of a wily agitator who induces him to desert?"


And Lincoln defended the suspension with the famous remark "Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?"


Anyway, I suspect Olbermann didn't wanna mention the sainted Lincoln because:

1--progressives hate attacking the saint in general, and doing so in this particular instance would make it obvious what suspension of habeas corpus really is---dramatically different than this current "suspension".


2--Adding Lincoln to the litany of abusive Presidents leads any thinking member to the obvious fact that any President in time of war is never gonna be regarded as a champion of individual liberties and rights----but Bush, tho he is no Adams, Lincoln, Wilson or FDR---has protected these rights in time of war better than any of them.
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,896
133
63
16
L.A.
well, it takes a patient man waiting above his garden to catch a weasel, that's the only relation I can find----.

They are the only two people I've run into who think so highly of anything they write that every sentence is worthy of it's own paragraph. Their difference in politics is just a formality.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Just be careful what you say. Just be careful what you put in your e-mails. And yes they can come into our homes drag us out and keep us for two days with out charges. I say fire all congressmen and senators that vote yes. Our founders must be rolling in there graves.
 

Terryray

Say Parlay
Forum Member
Time to grow up!


No! NO! :scared


C63342-2T.jpg
 

bjfinste

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 14, 2001
5,462
18
0
AZ
I'm attempting a schedule adjustment. I need to be working by 9 am and asleep by 1 am. Time to grow up!:sadwave:

Never grow up!! Actually, now that I'm 28 today, it occured to me that while I've never thought of that as old, but hanging around a lot of these straight-out-of-undergrad kids at school certainly makes me feel that way sometimes.
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,896
133
63
16
L.A.
Happy Birthday, Finster!

I'd be fine with this "never grow up" policy if it seemed natural, but it doesn't. Thy shall be done.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
I'd be fine with this "never grow up" policy if it seemed natural, but it doesn't. Thy shall be done.

We'll leave the door open for you here on the dark side. In fact, if we do actually make that trip in December that we've been talking about, you will forget about ever 'growing up', and you will blast through that door back to the dark side like a tornado. Good luck.

Happy b-day, Bj!
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
Grownups take vacations, last I checked.

That's the spirit! Luckily you're not aware of the severe regression that will inevitably take place. It will be too late once you see what's happening and you will surely eschew any more of these silly attempts to 'grow up.'
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
how many have had their rights abridged by chimpy?

The truth is, nobody really knows, now do they? What is the definition of secrecy...maybe that will clear it up for you. I guess you are saying that none have? Or what?

No oversight, no reporting, no following existing law.

No worries, eh? Give these guys whatever they want, no big deal. Because they tell us it's for our own good. Warms my heart, I know that.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top