So did anyone notice?
- Thread starter J.D.
- Start date
Let me make this as clear as I possibly can.
Yes. This is supposed to target terror suspects. It applies to "detainees".
However, detainees can be American citizens. As was posted above, you only need be "suspected of aiding terrorist organizations", and you qualify to be stuck in a prison cell indefinitely without charge. Because there is no HC in such cases, they don't actually need any PROOF of those suspicions. Essentially, a government agent could come to your house tomorrow, take you away without saying a word, lock you in a prison and keep you there for months, if not years, simply by telling your family you're "suspected of helping terrorists". And it would all be completely legal.
As for examples of this happening, well, the bill isn't even in effect yet, it's awaiting presidential signature. However, recently, a Canadian citizen was transported by US authorities from the US to Jordan, where he was interrogated and tortured for an extended period of time. He had done nothing, had no terrorist connections, and was never charged. Eventually he was released once they were satisfied. Is that okay? No. But as of now, it's legal. And it applies to you too.
Let's face it, you're probably only in trouble if your name is Abdul Muhammad Jibar. If you're Geoffrey Hamilton, you're probably not going to end up in a cell somewhere. Especially if you carry an American passport. But isn't it a bit disconcerting that if, somehow, you WERE, you would no longer have the right to representation, to a trial, to anything? Let me finish with a quote.
"Alongside our famous individualism, there’s another ingredient in the American saga, a belief that we’re all connected as one people. If there is a child on the south side of Chicago who can’t read, that matters to me, even if it’s not my child. If there is a senior citizen somewhere who can’t pay for their prescription drugs, and having to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it’s not my grandparent. If there’s an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties.
It is that fundamental belief: I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper, that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our individual dreams and yet still come together as one American family.
E pluribus unum: 'Out of many, one.'"
Yes. This is supposed to target terror suspects. It applies to "detainees".
However, detainees can be American citizens. As was posted above, you only need be "suspected of aiding terrorist organizations", and you qualify to be stuck in a prison cell indefinitely without charge. Because there is no HC in such cases, they don't actually need any PROOF of those suspicions. Essentially, a government agent could come to your house tomorrow, take you away without saying a word, lock you in a prison and keep you there for months, if not years, simply by telling your family you're "suspected of helping terrorists". And it would all be completely legal.
As for examples of this happening, well, the bill isn't even in effect yet, it's awaiting presidential signature. However, recently, a Canadian citizen was transported by US authorities from the US to Jordan, where he was interrogated and tortured for an extended period of time. He had done nothing, had no terrorist connections, and was never charged. Eventually he was released once they were satisfied. Is that okay? No. But as of now, it's legal. And it applies to you too.
Let's face it, you're probably only in trouble if your name is Abdul Muhammad Jibar. If you're Geoffrey Hamilton, you're probably not going to end up in a cell somewhere. Especially if you carry an American passport. But isn't it a bit disconcerting that if, somehow, you WERE, you would no longer have the right to representation, to a trial, to anything? Let me finish with a quote.
"Alongside our famous individualism, there’s another ingredient in the American saga, a belief that we’re all connected as one people. If there is a child on the south side of Chicago who can’t read, that matters to me, even if it’s not my child. If there is a senior citizen somewhere who can’t pay for their prescription drugs, and having to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it’s not my grandparent. If there’s an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties.
It is that fundamental belief: I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper, that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our individual dreams and yet still come together as one American family.
E pluribus unum: 'Out of many, one.'"
ski_cartel
Active member
Im with you jd, there is some major problems with the system right now. The thing that i question is why/how this was put in place. There are tons of speculation on how the goverment knew about 9/11, and that it was a way to go to war for oil but the way I see it they used this cance to gain more power within their own country.
Hey, as once was said, I forget by who, "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
The US has become a nation which condones torture and detention without trial, accuses dissenters of treason, and encourages its people to live in fear and ignorance and to trust that the government is acting constantly in their interests... despite the fact that their track record to date has earned them nothing of the sort. And that doesn't even take into account the economic issues.
You all need to start doing something about this, because it has officially gotten out of hand.
The US has become a nation which condones torture and detention without trial, accuses dissenters of treason, and encourages its people to live in fear and ignorance and to trust that the government is acting constantly in their interests... despite the fact that their track record to date has earned them nothing of the sort. And that doesn't even take into account the economic issues.
You all need to start doing something about this, because it has officially gotten out of hand.
CooksCorner
Active member
Taxes suck, but it works for them and they dont bother anyone else, salll good.
Rez4frederick
Active member
I'm sorry, but a foriegner who enters the U.S. with intentions to hurt our country doesnt deserve a fair trial. Previously, potential "terrorists" could just plead not guilty in our justice system and draw the trial out until people lose motivation to try them. Hell, even people in our own country try to destroy it, they dont really deserve a fair trial either if it's for sure they did it.
Believe me, I dont exactly agree with everything our government does, but you seem to be blowing this out of proportion JDmay.
Believe me, I dont exactly agree with everything our government does, but you seem to be blowing this out of proportion JDmay.
Rez4frederick
Active member
I said if it's for sure they did it....You don't seem to have any idea about how long our "justice" system can take. Someone who is DEFINATELY guilty can make the process last 10X longer than it should (this costs a ton of money too) just by saying "not guilty" and then trying every way they can to make it take even longer. (this costs taxpayers like myself for the long drawn out process) Hell, this person who is being tried, has plenty of time to up and leave the country without a trace before his/her punishment.
Answer this JD, why does someone who attempted/accomplished a destruction plan against the U.S. deserve a fair trial if they know for sure he/she did it? (i.e. they went to this persons house, found plans for the destruction, bomb materials, etc.)
Answer this JD, why does someone who attempted/accomplished a destruction plan against the U.S. deserve a fair trial if they know for sure he/she did it? (i.e. they went to this persons house, found plans for the destruction, bomb materials, etc.)
Because if you can justify saying "We know for sure he did it, so let's just skip proving it in a court of law", where does that end? Hell, why even have trials in the first place? You don't seem to understand anything about the purpose of your own justice system: people cannot simply be assumed to be guilty, you can't just say "He definitely did it". Otherwise, innocent people, people very much like you and me, end up getting tossed in jail for life. I don't care how sure you are, and I don't care how "inconvenient" due process may be, you have to prove it, because otherwise, you're not living in a free society. I'm not even sure what to call it... other than a dystopia.
EVERYONE has the right to stand up in a court of law and asser their own innocence, because every once in a while, no matter how unbelievable it may seem, they are right, and what seems to be obvious is wrong.
EVERYONE has the right to stand up in a court of law and asser their own innocence, because every once in a while, no matter how unbelievable it may seem, they are right, and what seems to be obvious is wrong.
Quinny
Active member
The United States government has always has the right to suspend habeas corpus under certain circumstances. It even says so the in the Constitution. The Military Commissions Act makes it explicit that the suspect must have exerted hostility towards the country (particularly if it is an unlawful enemy action). The Supreme Court even proved that the Government can't just "black-bag" its own citizens without due process.
Yes... in cases of rebellion or invasion, the Constitutions says you can suspend habeus corpus. However, it hasn't been suspended... it's been eliminated. And have you noticed a rebellion or an invasion going on?
The point is, they no longer have to PROVE anything, hostile action or otherwise. They can just assert it, and all's well.
The point is, they no longer have to PROVE anything, hostile action or otherwise. They can just assert it, and all's well.
almostaskier
Active member
From over here, i have to say i am APPALLED.
How does this happen?
Im all the way across the pond, and im in dismay about the state of my country. How can anyone justify this? I have this weird feeling in me when i read about this, sort of a dumbfounded awe.
How is that the USA is justifying getting rid of the very liberties we are supposed to be fighting for? Suspending Habeus Corpus is going against everything we are supposed to believe in and fight for.
How far, how far does the US government and US people think that it is justifiable to go all in the interest of public safety? This paranoia about security is driving people to widely accept to hand over their freedoms, and giving the government free reign. Americans are so extremely conscerned with safety that it's almost scary to go there nowadays.
How do we get off thinking it is ok for the WHOLE basis of our juridicial system to be thrown out the window? What happended to "innocent until proven guilty beyong a shadow of a doubt?" What happended to the right to a free trial? What happended to the VERY THING that differentiates "us" from "them"?
It's a sad sad day for the United States. We have rendered ourselves hypocrites. In lowering our moral standards and our freedoms to fight an enemy that has none, we ahve done what they could only dream of doing: destroy the very foundation of our country, our rights and freedoms. What kept us above them is gone, if it wasn't already. We are fighting on their level now, and thus, have lost the means to winning. Our children forgive us.
If i am not mistaken, this is also part of a bill enabling our president to interpret what is and isn't an outrage against human dignity, and who is and isn't an unlawful combatant? Well, we have now put all of our powers into one. The executive controls everything. If it were FDR, i'd feel secure. But it isn't, it's a president who can beraly form a cherent thought and express it.
We have lost the war on terror. Our "liberties", our "freedoms". our "constitution"; the things they hate us for supposedly, have now been compromised.
Im extremely sad that this happended. This is not right.
What is there to be done? can't we summon our elected officials to DO something? isn't that possible?
How does this happen?
Im all the way across the pond, and im in dismay about the state of my country. How can anyone justify this? I have this weird feeling in me when i read about this, sort of a dumbfounded awe.
How is that the USA is justifying getting rid of the very liberties we are supposed to be fighting for? Suspending Habeus Corpus is going against everything we are supposed to believe in and fight for.
How far, how far does the US government and US people think that it is justifiable to go all in the interest of public safety? This paranoia about security is driving people to widely accept to hand over their freedoms, and giving the government free reign. Americans are so extremely conscerned with safety that it's almost scary to go there nowadays.
How do we get off thinking it is ok for the WHOLE basis of our juridicial system to be thrown out the window? What happended to "innocent until proven guilty beyong a shadow of a doubt?" What happended to the right to a free trial? What happended to the VERY THING that differentiates "us" from "them"?
It's a sad sad day for the United States. We have rendered ourselves hypocrites. In lowering our moral standards and our freedoms to fight an enemy that has none, we ahve done what they could only dream of doing: destroy the very foundation of our country, our rights and freedoms. What kept us above them is gone, if it wasn't already. We are fighting on their level now, and thus, have lost the means to winning. Our children forgive us.
If i am not mistaken, this is also part of a bill enabling our president to interpret what is and isn't an outrage against human dignity, and who is and isn't an unlawful combatant? Well, we have now put all of our powers into one. The executive controls everything. If it were FDR, i'd feel secure. But it isn't, it's a president who can beraly form a cherent thought and express it.
We have lost the war on terror. Our "liberties", our "freedoms". our "constitution"; the things they hate us for supposedly, have now been compromised.
Im extremely sad that this happended. This is not right.
What is there to be done? can't we summon our elected officials to DO something? isn't that possible?
Quinny
Active member
Okay, before this escalates any further lets clear a few things up. This is becoming a gross misunderstanding of the laws in practice.
There has been historical actions that have suspended habeas corpus without the "Cases of Rebellion or Invasion." However, the criteria of "public Safety" comes into question, and thats why cases such as temporary suspension have occurred. And furthermore it depends upon the school of constitutional interpretation you would fall under. Extenuating circumstances could make all the difference in the world.
Habeas corpus has NOT been eliminated JD. There is not a single piece of written constitutional law that even suggests that it has been anything other then suspended. The current suspension of habeas corpus is not even a new issue. It has been in motion since late 2001.
United States Constitution
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html
United States Bill of Rights
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld (recent instance of right to a writ of habeas corpus)
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf
Military Commissions Act of 2006 (on Bush's desk as we speck)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:S.3930:
Where exactly has habeas corpus "eliminated" from law or practice?
Where are the boundless criteria for imprisoning a person, or rather lack thereof by the standard that anybody can be held for anything in relation to simply "thinking" the party is an enemy of the state?
Non-issue.
There has been historical actions that have suspended habeas corpus without the "Cases of Rebellion or Invasion." However, the criteria of "public Safety" comes into question, and thats why cases such as temporary suspension have occurred. And furthermore it depends upon the school of constitutional interpretation you would fall under. Extenuating circumstances could make all the difference in the world.
Habeas corpus has NOT been eliminated JD. There is not a single piece of written constitutional law that even suggests that it has been anything other then suspended. The current suspension of habeas corpus is not even a new issue. It has been in motion since late 2001.
United States Constitution
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html
United States Bill of Rights
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld (recent instance of right to a writ of habeas corpus)
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf
Military Commissions Act of 2006 (on Bush's desk as we speck)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:S.3930:
Where exactly has habeas corpus "eliminated" from law or practice?
Where are the boundless criteria for imprisoning a person, or rather lack thereof by the standard that anybody can be held for anything in relation to simply "thinking" the party is an enemy of the state?
Non-issue.
flippintricker
Active member
Truth be told, between the media and rumours that go around the newspapers, the american government is not all transparent, and thats my main source of worry. So, JD sees a difference between what they have in paper (accopording to Quinny), and what they are putting into practice. Is the media so fucking spineless that the government isnt taking any heat over this? John Stewart made a good point on Crossfire once that his show is one of the most unbiased (once you look beyond the comedy), and thats scary.
The act stipulates that US courts no longer have any jurisdiction to consider HC appeals of anyone being held as a quote-unquote "enemy combatant". And no, that term does not bear a hard-and-fast definition. They've basically back-doored their way into this one, but the loophole is there. I'm betting half the people who voted for this didn't even read it. And by the way, there is no set time limit on this, no conditions that must be met in order for it to be rescinded, and so yes, it is an elimination and not a suspension.
At this point this isn't even a partisan issue... it's an issue of the undermining of the fundamental principles of western legal systems of justice and fairness. I'm not even sure why you're attempting to defend it... can there be any justification for this other than on utilitarian grounds? In other words, is there any way this isn't utterly unjust and immoral?
At this point this isn't even a partisan issue... it's an issue of the undermining of the fundamental principles of western legal systems of justice and fairness. I'm not even sure why you're attempting to defend it... can there be any justification for this other than on utilitarian grounds? In other words, is there any way this isn't utterly unjust and immoral?
twistedxfaith
Member
what the hell is habeus corpus?
ElConquistador
Member
yeah b/c it works so well
will987654321
Active member
How can the government keep passing and proposing things like this? I thought that politicians were supposed to be at least slightly educated. How could they not see all the problems? I think it's because politicians are rewarded for being decisive above all and ignoring their consciouses. I've hardly met anyone, save the few internet crazies, who agree that what Washington has been doing recently isn't absolutely amoral.
canadianskier
Member
yay im canadian!
Campeador
Active member
True, I mentioned that on the first page. I'm sure there were plenty of other instances when habeus corpus was denied to individuals, especially American communists during the Cold War. I believe Woodrow Wilson also threw anyone in prison for the most part without trial when they were caught attempting to dissuade people from joining the armed forces or spreading anti-war sentiment during the First World War. I'd say we have progressed quite a bit since then. Also, I'd rather throw 10 muhammad jihads in jail even if 9 were innocent if it were to prevent another terrorist attack like 9/11. The muslims need to be shown that even if they think about any kind of terrorist loyalty they will spend the rest of their life in gitmo.
Mr_Bojangles
Active member
Why the fuck would you even want to suspend Habeus Corpus? For the sheer 'convenience'? That's completely fucked, the day we lose Habeus Corpus is the day that our legal system ceases to exist, and that day has already come.
Quinny
Active member
Oh yes it does.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:4:./temp/~c109LDFO9D:e2789:
S.3930 - Sec. 948a. Definitions
`(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.
`(2) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- The term `lawful enemy combatant' means a person who is--
`(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
`(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
`(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.
I have a creeping suspicion that you haven't read the bill in it's entirety.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:4:./temp/~c109LDFO9D:e2789:
S.3930 - Sec. 948a. Definitions
`(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.
`(2) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- The term `lawful enemy combatant' means a person who is--
`(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
`(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
`(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.
I have a creeping suspicion that you haven't read the bill in it's entirety.
flippintricker
Active member
haha, so technically that lets them re-imprison anyone who gets off if they do go through a trial?
I should have been more specific. Essentially, the President has the right to appoint anyone he chooses to determine who is an "enemy combatant", American or no. Thus the term is not conclusively defined. He appointed an attorney general who a couple years ago favoured torturing detainees up to the point of organ failure, do you really trust him to appoint someone impartial to this tribunal? It doesn't matter if you do, because that's not the point. The point is that the executive branch of government has given itself the power to circumvent the justice system. It is frightening, regardless of how much faith in him you might have, that Americans must now trust in the President's honesty and competence for their so-called "unalienable rights" to remain in effect.
By the way, this officially took effect yesterday. As of now, any of you could conceivably be tossed in jail without charges or hope of a fair trial today, tomorrow, or at any time. The only question left to ask is, if you don't care about the rights of those this administration has already infringed on, do you at least care about your own?
Black-Bandanna
Active member
chill with the phrase 'bang up job'.
but yea, i agree...this is BS
but yea, i agree...this is BS
will987654321
Active member
What? I don't understand you.
feezy
Active member
NAW DUDE.
FUCK ANTI-NEOCON PEOPLE.
seriously though.
i am moving to canada.
this shit is turning into a police state.
nobody cares.
because nobody understands.
nobody understands what this country was built on, what it stood for.
it was built on the backs of slaves, and stood for nothing more than finding a way to suppress rebellion.
america is straight fucked up.
FUCK ANTI-NEOCON PEOPLE.
seriously though.
i am moving to canada.
this shit is turning into a police state.
nobody cares.
because nobody understands.
nobody understands what this country was built on, what it stood for.
it was built on the backs of slaves, and stood for nothing more than finding a way to suppress rebellion.
america is straight fucked up.
I truly hope you're sarcastic here. I just got back from England and France, and shit over there is incredibly expensive for us. A typical meal in England goes for abour 10 British pounds, and in France you can eat a good sit down one for about 10 Euros. And $10 gives you a good meal here in the US too. The difference? The Euro is worth 1.5 X the dollar, and the Pound is now right around TWICE what the dollar is. Even Canada (sorry you guys, but its true) is catching up with what our money is worth. Being a tourist right now sucks if you live here...
Ender
Active member
The tradition of the current administration is to not follow the laws, but to amend them or pass new ones to fit what they need to accomplish. Spying on American citizens was illegal until it became an inconvenience, so instead of breaking laws, they just change them.
Terrorists are threatening American freedom and safety, so the government violates our freedoms to prevent the terrorists from doing it. We're getting fucked by our own government so the terrorists can't.
We need some V for Vendetta shit or some 60's style protesting.
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."
Terrorists are threatening American freedom and safety, so the government violates our freedoms to prevent the terrorists from doing it. We're getting fucked by our own government so the terrorists can't.
We need some V for Vendetta shit or some 60's style protesting.
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."
Prorider2themax
Member
this is the biggest bunch of bullshit ever. i hate the administration. how could this ever happen
almostaskier
Active member
but not the other way round 
JD, I completely agree with you on this. The day the legislation passed the house and senate I just shook my head.
I love how everyone yells so much how terrorists are threatening our lives and freedom, but your odds of being killed by a terrorist are slim to none compared to the odds of you being killed on your drive to work in the morning.
There are sooooo many issues that are much more pressing in the world, than terrorism, but the Government has channeled the fear and found ways to piss all over the Consitution.
I don't care who you are, or where you're from, or even what you've been accused of, EVERYONE deserves to be able to challenge their detention in the courts.
This legislation makes it VERY easy for the Government to go on Witch-hunts and detain people that could very well be innocent.
I love how everyone yells so much how terrorists are threatening our lives and freedom, but your odds of being killed by a terrorist are slim to none compared to the odds of you being killed on your drive to work in the morning.
There are sooooo many issues that are much more pressing in the world, than terrorism, but the Government has channeled the fear and found ways to piss all over the Consitution.
I don't care who you are, or where you're from, or even what you've been accused of, EVERYONE deserves to be able to challenge their detention in the courts.
This legislation makes it VERY easy for the Government to go on Witch-hunts and detain people that could very well be innocent.
Haha, I know, and we have such the vacation spots to! We have like.... Michigan. And Rhode Island. Detroit is nice too.
almostaskier
Active member
I have money, they'll leave me alone.
almostaskier
Active member
I have to admit, it is easier to live in complete and utter ignorance and still be satisfied in the USA than pretty much everywhere else...
Mr_Bojangles
Active member
Not only have you lost Habeas Corpus, your executive branch has also violated separation of powers.
