Torture Bill States Non-Allegiance To Bush Is Terrorism (prisonplanet.com)

China looks at us shocked and says, "Damn..."

 

Who said that? I certainly didn't in the passage your point toward above. As I pointed out, one of these actions will be checked by the SC and one won't. Therefore one is more dangerous to our civil liberties than the other, IMO. But hey, no need to bother actually reading what someone writes before you respond.

 

Thank god we're finally passing some decent legislation to protect our country during these trying times. Thank god for Bush. When I think about what might have been with a Kerry or Gore presidency... scary thoughts.

 

fixed that for you.

T_J or Bigtexxx is that you?

 

Cute. You really need to take those meds.

I understand your point regarding the SC. But the above statement is what it is. Legislation, alone, does not signify one particular piece of a bill or law. "This legislation" is an all inclusive term.

I'm glad you trust the SC to uphold your civil liberties for you. I'm pleased that Bush's attempts to remove habeas corpus and legalize torture are met with little more than "who cares? The SC will strike it down eventually."

There is nothing in your post that demonstrates you are offended at what this administration has done here. Nonchalance - thus my snarky comment.

 

Yes, I know. Common sense and decency are very scary aren't they.

 

Whatever it takes. Be real, this is about life and death. Better somebody else than me.

 

Spoken like a true republican

 

This is unmitigated bull****.

Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions

Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter

Sec. 948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions

(a) Jurisdiction- A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.

Foreign citizens - yes. Legal residents - yes. American citizens - no.

 

Actually all the administration has to do is label an American as an enemy combatant and they are subject to this as well.

We are all in danger. This administration already tried that tactic with Jose Padilla.

Now of course the govt. doesn't have to show any proof or evidence of why they are labeling someone as an enemy combatant either.

 

Others would disagree with you. Many others.


Can 609 law profs be wrong?


'Taken together, the bill's provisions rewrite American law to evade the fundamental principles of separation of powers, due process, habeas corpus, fair trials, and the rule of law, principles that, together, prohibit state-sanctioned violence.'

From a letter sent to members of Congress by 609 law professors, urging them to reject the Bush administration's terrorism detainee legislation. Congress passed the measure last week.

http://www.statesman.com/search/content/editorial/stories/insight/10/1amdigest.html



Keep D&D Civil.

 

See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

 

You are right. Congress has never passed laws in response to or designed to change the outcome of a Supreme Court decision.

 

That was prior to the recent legislation.

 

All the Hamdi decision did was guarantee habeas corpus for American citizens. The legislation just states that if you invoke habeas corpus, you do so within the context of a military commission as opposed to a civilian court.

 

Right, legislation which states that the jurisdiction of the military tribunals encompasses only aliens, not citizens.

Otto: I fail to see how this changes the judicial requirements regarding the legal treatment of American citizens. If it does, there will be beaucoux legal challenges & it will be revisited by the Court, as it should. Thanks for the rolleyes, though.

 

You are correct. Thanks.

 

In theory you are correct, but because of the loopholes it doesn't have to be that way in practice.