Constitution 1787-2006 (RIP)

[Hulsey13]

The Constitution of the United States of America
1787-2006
RIP

A bit dramatic? Not even close.

Yesterday, the President signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006. There are so many things wrong with this law that I can't possibly cover them all. But this law removes so many fundamental liberties that it will be judged, by history, as a shameful moment in our country's history. (And the torture provisions? Another blog rant for another time.)

Of course, anyone who disagrees with this law is instantly branded as weak and against national security. The Republican Party Chairman described the Democrats who voted against the bill as, "... voting against interrogating terrorists." No, I believe their votes were against abandoning all that this nation has held dear for 200+ years in an atmosphere of fear and hysteria. There is no desire to "pamper" terrorists. There is only the belief that every American is entitled to the rights afforded by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and that no single person, to include the President and the Secretary of Defense, can declare a citizen of this nation beyond the rule of law.

It is easy to discuss and support liberty and freedom and democracy and the rule of law in times of peace and for those with whom we agree. It is another matter entirely to support and defend these things during times of conflict or for those with whom we disagree. I believe that those who would harm this nation deserve a fair trial and the full protection of the Constitution, not because of who they are but because of who we are. And when given a fair trial, if convicted, they deserve swift and appropriate punishment for their crimes.

Let me make that opinion clear, lest it be misinterpreted. Convicted terrorists - those who would seek to destroy American lives - deserve to be put to death. And though they do not deserve the full protection of the American judicial system, they should have it. Because to provide them less would be to tear away at the very fabric of what makes this nation great.

As Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

And here, lifted entirely from Wikipedia, is an overall criticism of the law:

The Act has been denounced by critics who assert that its wording authorizes the permanent detention and torture (as defined by the Geneva Conventions) of anyone - including American citizens - based solely on the decision of the President.<10> One has described it as "the legalization of the José Padilla treatment" - referring to the American citizen who was declared an unlawful enemy combatant and then imprisoned for three years before finally being charged with a lesser crime than was originally alleged.<11> A legal brief filed on Padilla's behalf alleges that during this time he was subjected to sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, and enforced stress positions.<12>

Amnesty International said that the Act "contravenes human rights principles."<13> An editorial in The New York Times described the Act as "a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts."<14>

American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Anthony D. Romero said, "The president can now, with the approval of Congress, indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions." <15>

And here are more references:

habeas corpus (Lat. "you have the body")

Prisoners often seek release by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another's detention or imprisonment.

Courtesy of www.lectlaw.com.

Military Commissions Act of 2006

(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.

Courtesy of The Library of Congress.

[Sugar Smack]

1. Wow...just WOW. Welcome to DU. That was spectacular.

:wow: :applause:

[mod mom]

2. GET THIS OUT TO THE PUBLIC!

I don't think a lot of people are understanding what is going on. I have adopted a few political blogs that both sides of the aisle post on in Ohio. Here is my latest post:

How low will a desperate candidate go? Just wait until Ohio gets the shocking results of a flip in results and hears it spinned that this tactic worked. Blackwell worked hard at suppressing the vote and fulfilled his role at Co-Chair Bush Cheney '04 (ie delivering the vote BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY) and diverting the will of the Ohio voter in '04. Now he is fighting for his political life while being behind by 2 to 1. If anyone thinks he will play fairly this time, they are in for a rude awakening.

The Republican party has been taken over by a cancerous group of neocons who are willing to do whatever it takes (including stealing elections) to remain in power. What happened to the promises of restoring integrity (Abramoff, Delay, Ney, Taft, Noe, Cunningham, Ken Lay,Foley, Goss....) , fiscal conservancy (just have to look at the huge deficit and reckless pork) and security (they ignored warnings on 911, misled the public and congress about Iraq, they have failed to implement the 911 commission recommendations, and turned over port security to the UAE (Dubai World Ports).

If you are wndering why there has been little opposition in congress to this dictatorial power, just remember the NSA spying and anthrax attacks. This is a rogue administration. Habeus Corpus(the right of the accused to a trial and knowledge of the crime in which they are charged) has stood in civilized nations since the year 1215. Yesterday Mr Bush signed his name to end habeus corpus. Now Americans can be detained at the will of the president without the right to trial. Time to defend the constitution, the Geneva Convention and Habeus Corpus!

Wake up! Investigate what is really going on! Fear and terror are being used to support to tramble the constitution! Blackwell and his vote counting has been a tool to this extreme power grab.

LET'S GET THIS INFORMATION OUT TO THE PUBLIC!

[erinmblair]

4. I am mad!

One of my ancestors SIGNED the Consitution! Damn Bush!

~Erin

[Arkham House]

10. Welcome to DU!

...that's cool about your ancestor...which one?...:hi:

[mod mom]

21. Turn your anger into action and fight for what your ancestor helped create

and welcome to DU!

:hi:

[mod mom]

3. Excellent post and a big hearty welcome to DU, Hulsey13!

:patriot:

[Hugin]

5. It died in 2000 when the SCOTUS implanted a moll in the Unitary Executive

Office.

[mod mom]

8. Yep, FRAUDULENT ELECTIONS HAVE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES!

[peacetalksforall]

6. I am as old as some of the old guys leading, make that destroying

our nation. We should be sharing the same love for our Constition. Supposedly, we were taught from the same book. It is obvious that these destroyers hate our country.

Where did they come from? Pure evil reigns. How did they get where they are?

And what can we do?

How many Democrat leaders voted for this to happen?

I feel I'm in a scene with a cast of millions asking what's to become of us.

Habeus Corpus, our vote, freedome of speech, dissent, and movement.

Stolen.

By haters.

[Hosnon]

7. I really don't agree with this. A statute cannot "kill" the Constitution.

Sure, the statute may be Unconstitutional but that doesn't necessarily put the Constitution in jeopardy.

Furthermore, I do not agree with these critics:

The Act has been denounced by critics who assert that its wording authorizes the permanent detention and torture (as defined by the Geneva Conventions) of anyone - including American citizens - based solely on the decision of the President.

This has been discussed in other threads and I still haven't been shown how the Act applies to more than just aliens.

The statute states:

No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States...

I simply don't see how it can apply to U.S. citizens when the class is specifically limited to aliens from the beginning.

[Hulsey13]

9. This definition is ANYONE, citizen or not.

Sec. 948a. Definitions

`In this chapter:

`(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);

[Hosnon]

13. But that definition is still a subset of "alien":

Subsection (B) of the statute quoted in my first reply:

{who}...has been determined by the United States ... as an enemy combatant ....

An "enemy combatant" can be either lawful or unlawful. The "person" in the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" is still a subset of the class designated as "alien" (edit: ... if habeas is to be denied.

Habeas has only been denied to alien-enemy combatants, not U.S.-citizen-enemy combatants.)

[Hulsey13]

16. Applications to citizens

The MCA greatly expands the definition of enemy combatants, because it greatly expands the definition of "unlawful enemy combatants." If the government may detain any enemy combatants, a fortiori it may detain unlawful ones. The new definition is fuzzy: it includes citizens who "materially support" hostilities against the U.S. or whom the DoD says are unlawful enemy combatants.

(From http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/09/does-military-commissions-act-apply-to.html)

[Hosnon]

17. Yes. The government can label citizens as enemy combatants. However,

only those enemy combatants that are aliens have been denied habeas corpus.

The statute requires that one BOTH be an enemy combatant AND an alien for habeas to be denied. A U.S. citizen cannot, by definition, satisfy that requirement.

[Hulsey13]

18. About those aliens...

While defending my interpretation that this law can be applied to citizens of this country, I realized that I am missing one of my own points.

Alien or citizen, every person who stands accused by this nation of a crime deserves the protection of our Constitution. That we honor humanity and hold a basic respect for a person's rights and liberties is what makes this nation great.

And, those discussing intelligently here on DU as the exception, how can people claim that giving them rights as human beings makes those who applaud it "weak on defense" and "pro-terrorist"?

In a nutshell, I disagree with classifying other human beings as "less than," rather than proving their crimes in a court of law. Arguing over whether this applies to citizens or aliens misses the point, and seems a bit like making beds in a burning house.

(And there is no sarcasm meant above. I really do appreciate DU as a place where people can disagree, but do respectfully.)

[Hosnon]

19. Well I most definitely agree here. I think habeas corpus is perhaps the

most important human legal right.

I do not agree with this statute and think that it should be repealed as soon as possible.

However, the act, as it stands, does not appear to me to deny any U.S. citizen the right of habeas corpus.

[Hosnon]

20. And Welcome to DU! Sorry the welcome is belated...I missed your

post count.

Great first thread!

:toast:

[peacetalksforall]

11. Do you mean legally or by practice of this regime? These

one-uppers who commit the crime before they fix the law are not going to wait for anyone. Yes, they fully intend to use it on citizens. One-uppers apply their own nuance because they cannot live with dissent. To heck with judges and juries. They are their own judges and juries. It'sthe year 1006. That's one zero zero six.

[Hosnon]

14. Yes, I mean legally. And the Executive branch could detain anyone

indefinitely without allowing for the writ even before this act...in practice.

[w8liftinglady]

12. Great Post!Welcome to DU!

[Xenotime]

15. Great post. This act will be the downfall of our country.