10-19-2006, 12:13 PM
|
|
|
Confirmed User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Anarcho-capitalist libertarian
Posts: 378
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleasurepays
amazing that you people think Bush is an idiot, when you are nothing more than a mindless, reactionary turd incapable of independent thought or rational analysis.
|
Let me give you my rational analysis, you said (and this times it's a normal font, I'm not blind):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleasurepays
The text of the law states that it's "Purpose" is to "establish procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission."
Any Court interpreting this law should observe the word "alien." and therefor not apply this law to a U.S. citizen.
This law would also be unconstitutional, in violation of the Fifth Amendment, if applied to a citizen. However, the Fifth Amendment does not apply to aliens. See Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 784.
|
You think this is the first violation of the Fifth Amendment? Anyway,
so you think it's not targetted to american citizens?
Section 948a of title 10 of the United States Code, as added by the Act, defines an "unlawful enemy combatant" as:
`(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.
This definition does not exclude American citizens. Prior to the enactment, the phrase "unlawful enemy combatant" was applied by the Bush administration to at least 3 American citizens. See John Walker Lindh, José Padilla, Yaser Hamdi.
Need more?
However, even the Los Angeles Times warns of the draconian aspect of this law. ?[T]he bill also reinforces the presidential claims, made in the Padilla case, that the commander in chief has the right to designate a U.S. citizen on American soil as an enemy combatant and subject him to military justice,? writes Bruce Ackerman, a professor of law and political science at Yale.
This atrocious, Hitlerian bill authorizes ?the government to seize and detain indefinitely, without charge or trial, anyone who ?purposefully and materially supported hostilities? even if not engaged in armed conflict, including U.S. citizens arrested inside the United States,? explains Human Rights First.
?Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said that by including those who ?supported hostilities??rather than those who ?engage in acts? against the United States?the government intends the legislation to sanction its seizure and indefinite detention of people far from the battlefield,? notes the Washington Post.
?In short,? writes John Dean, ?this could include anyone the federal government (Bush and Rumsfeld will delegate and re-delegate this authority) labels ?an unlawful enemy combatant.?? |
|
|