Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Unconstitutional Bill Bush is Proposing
#1
Yes. You got the title of this thread correct. US citizens suspected of terrorism DO NOT gain access to the court system! Shock :roll:

Bush submits new terror detainee bill

U.S. citizens suspected of terror ties might be detained indefinitely and barred from access to civilian courts under legislation proposed by the Bush administration, say legal experts reviewing an early version of the bill.

A 32-page draft measure is intended to authorize the Pentagon's tribunal system, established shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks to detain and prosecute detainees captured in the war on terror. The tribunal system was thrown out last month by the Supreme Court.

Administration officials, who declined to comment on the draft, said the proposal was still under discussion and no final decisions had been made.

Senior officials are expected to discuss a final proposal before the Senate Armed Services Committee next Wednesday.

According to the draft, the military would be allowed to detain all "enemy combatants" until hostilities cease. The bill defines enemy combatants as anyone "engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners who has committed an act that violates the law of war and this statute."

Legal experts said Friday that such language is dangerously broad and could authorize the military to detain indefinitely U.S. citizens who had only tenuous ties to terror networks like al Qaeda.

"That's the big question ... the definition of who can be detained," said Martin Lederman, a law professor at Georgetown University who posted a copy of the bill to a Web blog.

Scott L. Silliman, a retired Air Force Judge Advocate, said the broad definition of enemy combatants is alarming because a U.S. citizen loosely suspected of terror ties would lose access to a civilian court — and all the rights that come with it. Administration officials have said they want to establish a secret court to try enemy combatants that factor in realities of the battlefield and would protect classified information.

The administration's proposal, as considered at one point during discussions, would toss out several legal rights common in civilian and military courts, including barring hearsay evidence, guaranteeing "speedy trials" and granting a defendant access to evidence. The proposal also would allow defendants to be barred from their own trial and likely allow the submission of coerced testimony.

Senior Republican lawmakers have said they were briefed on the general discussions and have some concerns but are awaiting a final proposal before commenting on specifics.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England are expected to discuss the proposal in an open hearing next Wednesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Military lawyers also are scheduled to testify Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The legislation is the administration's response to a June 29 Supreme Court decision, which concluded the Pentagon could not prosecute military detainees using secret tribunals established soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The court ruled the tribunals were not authorized by law and violated treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions, which established many international laws for warfare.

The landmark court decision countered long-held assertions by the Bush administration that the president did not need permission from Congress to prosecute "enemy combatants" captured in the war on terror and that al Qaeda members were not subject to Geneva Convention protections because of their unconventional status.

"In a time of ongoing armed conflict, it is neither practicable nor appropriate for enemy combatants like al Qaeda terrorists to be tried like American citizens in federal courts or courts-martial," the proposal states.

The draft proposal contends that an existing law — passed by the Senate last year after exhaustive negotiations between the White House and Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz. — that bans cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment should "fully satisfy" the nation's obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

Sen. John W. Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said Friday he expects to take up the detainee legislation in September.
Reply
#2
This is exactly why, from the very beginning, Bush should have asked for a formal declaration of war. That way his war powers would have not been able to have come under the scrutiny of your favorite organization: the ACLU.

For his not doing so, he is now having to put up with them and the rest of the Jackasses out there, including yourself Grizz.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#3
This shows Bush's(and Grizz's) lack of knowledge about the constitution.

I posted a long time ago about the provision(I think article 9????) that allows the government to do exactly what Lincoln did. What Bush is asking congress for is a lot less authority than he already has.

Why would an American want to hamstring the government providing us safety from Muslim terrorism?
Reply
#4
Why didn't he ask for a formal declaration of war?
Reply
#5
Dem,

It's something that needs doing. We need to get over this legalistic crap,we're in a deadly fight with the most evil,brutal and nihilistic animals in human history,half as.s won't work with them.
Reply
#6
Palladin Wrote:This shows Bush's(and Grizz's) lack of knowledge about the constitution.

I posted a long time ago about the provision(I think article 9????) that allows the government to do exactly what Lincoln did. What Bush is asking congress for is a lot less authority than he already has.

Why would an American want to hamstring the government providing us safety from Muslim terrorism?


:? I'm sorry. That didn't even make sense to me. Could you explain further?
Reply
#7
John L Wrote:This is exactly why, from the very beginning, Bush should have asked for a formal declaration of war. That way his war powers would have not been able to have come under the scrutiny of your favorite organization: the ACLU.

For his not doing so, he is now having to put up with them and the rest of the Jackasses out there, including yourself Grizz.

And John I feel that what is going on in Iraq comes pretty close to what Congress has already granted him.

MSN Ecarta Wrote:The president
The president of the United States has no clear constitutional authority to declare war without congressional approval. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the president, as commander-in-chief of the military, does have the authority to recognize a "state of war" initiated against the United States and may in these circumstances unilaterally send U.S. troops into battle. President Bush has also stated that his powers as commander-in-chief allow him to act independently in defense of the nation.

The president did not seek a formal declaration of war from Congress. But he did seek congressional support, he said, to demonstrate to the United Nations and to the world that military action against Iraq was not just his own objective; it was a view supported by the American electorate as a whole. Strategically, support from the legislators bolstered the president's case as he pressed the UN Security Council for a resolution authorizing military force in Iraq.
U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C.

Congress
The Constitution of the United States gives Congress alone the authority to formally declare war. But in several past conflicts Congress has relinquished this authority to the president. In fact, Congress has not issued a formal declaration of war since World War II.

MSN Encarta
Reply
#8
I agree Paladin. I'm just asking what is Bush's reason for not requesting a declaration of war? Anyone know his reason for not doing so?
Reply
#9
Democrats4Bush2005 Wrote:I agree Paladin. I'm just asking what is Bush's reason for not requesting a declaration of war? Anyone know his reason for not doing so?
I'm not sure, but I would think that Bush, like all of his predecessors back to Truman, know that they don't need a formal, constitutional declaration of war because they can wage war without one, unconstitutionally.

I think all these ten or so wars that the USA has waged since 1947 needed formal declarations of war, by both houses of Congress. Neither political party believes the Constitution matters one bit in this regard.
I'm often wrong. But I'm not always wrong!
Reply
#10
Thats if you want to get into a war you're not in. If you're attacked the war has already been declared on you so you're responding. Terrorists attacked us on 9/11 after declaring war over 5 times during the Clinton administration. Congress said go after Al Qaeda and its allies and thats what Bush did. I will say I still don't get why he just doesn't ask for a declaration of war no one can dispute. If the democrats don't give it to them they are dead in November. We were attacked thats reason enough for a declaration.
Reply
#11
You still need a declaration of war. FDR asked for it after Pearl Harbor. Constitutionally, you must have one. Fit is correct, neither party really cares about the constitution. We can all agree on that.
Reply
#12
dkward2 Wrote:You still need a declaration of war. FDR asked for it after Pearl Harbor. Constitutionally, you must have one. Fit is correct, neither party really cares about the constitution. We can all agree on that.

Agreed. It is congress that declares war, and the president who impliments it. However, the president has much broader powers with a formal declaration. You would NEVER see all this manure coming from the Jackasses, since the president could have them (you fill in the blanks) for their seditious acts.

What gets me, is that they are screaming bleeding murder, and yet swoon whenever the word FDR is mentioned. Go figure. Hypocrites!
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#13
John, I won't argue how much FDR ran roughshod over the Constitution. Oddly, though, when even the right wing in December, 1941 would have allowed FDR to start a war, FDR went to Congress, the last president to have honored the Constitution in that regard.

...Unless, of course, FDR had considered Hawaii to be only a territory, recently stolen by force from a Christian queen...
I'm often wrong. But I'm not always wrong!
Reply
#14
Grizz&Thai,

Section 9 - Limits on Congress



"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it".

It gives the POTUS DICTATORIAL AUTHORITY during war time. Now,it may be that the congress must authorize the dictatorial power by vote.

Lincoln acted as a dictator and it was perfectly legal. FDR did as relates to the ethnic Nipponese,no one ever found FDR in an unconstitutional error.

Bush is a pussycat in this regards,he needs NO laws. He needs no formal declaration of war. If he was looking out for our best interests,he would deport or have killed all Muslims who resisted deportation 2 years after 9-11(see,that shows what a candy as.s I am).

They are all subsversive elements within our society,there are not 2 Muslims in this nation who are loyal and desire an American victory over ISLAM and it stands to reason they would not be for us.
Reply
#15
Palladin Wrote:Grizz&Thai,

Section 9 - Limits on Congress



"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it".

It gives the POTUS DICTATORIAL AUTHORITY during war time. Now,it may be that the congress must authorize the dictatorial power by vote.

Lincoln acted as a dictator and it was perfectly legal. FDR did as relates to the ethnic Nipponese,no one ever found FDR in an unconstitutional error.

Bush is a pussycat in this regards,he needs NO laws. He needs no formal declaration of war. If he was looking out for our best interests,he would deport or have killed all Muslims who resisted deportation 2 years after 9-11(see,that shows what a candy as.s I am).

They are all subsversive elements within our society,there are not 2 Muslims in this nation who are loyal and desire an American victory over ISLAM and it stands to reason they would not be for us.

Palladin: I feel that you're trying to make this thing look softer than it appears. Section 9 is for cases of Invasion or Rebellion. I do not see us as being invaded; I do not see any cases for rebellion.

However, even during that era--for anyone that feels like reading this-- all one needs to do is read some of of the debates concerning what Lincoln felt that he was doing, and how others disagreed with him. And you can compare it to today. I found it to have a little insight, and I found the part with Roger Taney interesting as well.
Reply
#16
Are you saying that we are not being invaded today? I'm sure patrick will disagree here with you on this one. Plus, was 9/11 not an act akin to Pearl Harbor?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#17
John L Wrote:Are you saying that we are not being invaded today? I'm sure patrick will disagree here with you on this one. Plus, was 9/11 not an act akin to Pearl Harbor?
Good questions, John.

Of course we are not being "invaded today" in the sense we were in the war of 1812, or the war of....hhhmmmh, let's see, the war of the Spanish succession? No. Oh, you probably mean Pearl Harbor.

We - our patriotic ancestors in the USA - STOLE Hawaii from its professing Christian queen, who was shocked that her Christian brothers would rob her of her monarchy. Hawaii was not a state, only a very distant, nearly unreachable territory. And what was Oahu in 1941? I suspect it was little more than an air base, a naval base, a military fortress. Hawaii was an odd American outpost in a region that Japan felt it had a legitimate claim to having as its own "sphere of influence." After all, the USA already claimed two continents and the entire landmass of a hemisphere as its sphere of influence.

The bombing of Pearl Habor, the bombing of that antagonistic challenge to Japan's military sphere of influence was considered, by the nearly insane generals and admirals of Japan, to be a defense of what they considered their region. Oh, I take that back; they weren't insane at all; they did what generals and admirals are trained to do, and they controlled their emperor more than they worshipped him.

Now, maybe the above remarks seem to tolerate, condone or bless the Japanese for bombing Pearl Harbor. Of course not; those dastardly admirals gave no more advance notice of the bombing than the British did to the citizens of Dresden, or the Americans did to Hamburg, Tokyo, Hiroshima, etc.

But wait, you'll surely say: at least we killed all those civilians in those cities, without notice, because FDR had the courage to use the Constitution and ask Congress to declare war. Point well taken, but as subsequent history proved after 1941, all-out warfare has no rules, and operates without any ethics. In my warped opinion. S1

9/11. I'm sorry those people died, and obviously I never approved of the heinous crimes of 9/11. That event, however, has caused the fog of war to cloud your vision. War hysteria. War insanity. Any "reason" or any "cause" justifies what God wouldn't consider .....

Wait, I'm off subject. I see no resemblance between Pearl Harbor and 9/11. At least, no more resemblance than the wars against Vietnam and Iraq.
I'm often wrong. But I'm not always wrong!
Reply
#18
Quote: I do not see us as being invaded; I do not see any cases for rebellion.

So what do you call the millions of illegal aliens, bringing in drugs, weapons, slaves, explosives, sick puppies etc. The same condition in which according to the FBI Hezbollah has entered America. What do you call 9/11 they invaded and attacked.
Reply
#19
They have caught Hezbollah crossing our border. You may not feel that this is justification enough for Bush, but you will if 2-3 suicide bombers set themselves off in major cities.

Your quick summary does much to mischaracterize the situation. You have made it sound like Bush can accuse you of being a terrorist and you go to jail for life. That would truly be a horror story.

However, you are upset merely because they don't gain access to civilian courts.

Can anyone give me some insight into military tribunals? Are they "fair," or do they run over people's rights? Were there abuses during WWII? I guess my question is what aspect of military tribunals so concerns the left? Thanks.
Reply
#20
Grizz,

I disagree. We should simply hold a referendum and settle this once and for all,are we or are we not at war? Sodliers in the field might just say YES.

If the people vote NO,then we need to bring our soldiers home forthwith. If yes,the debate is over and Muslims ought to be deported forthwith. It's simple.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)