U.S. President George W. Bush signs S. 3930, the Military Commissions Act of 2006
 

U.S. President George W. Bush signs S. 3930, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, in the East Room of the White House in Washington October 17, 2006.

American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Anthony D. Romero said, "The president can now, with the approval of Congress, indefinitely hold people (americans included) 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." [21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar...ns_Act_of_2006

Go USA... :thumbsup :disgust

wow... Only in America

bush is a fuckin piece of shit

land of the free :mad:

:1orglaugh

:disgust :disgust :disgust

And so the witch hunt begins.

more like continue ....

Please read the bold statement at the top of the page " The factual accuracy of this article or section is disputed. "

If an article links to this page, it is because someone is concerned that the article may be significantly inaccurate. Such articles have the {{disputed}} warning at the top:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute

---------

there is a strong chance it is a fake news report

Keith Olberman did a great commentary about this last night.

Video clip and transcript here:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/1...-are-lies-sir/

lol.. are you denying now that bush signed it? Do your google before you debunk this thread.

Here's the link directly from the whitehouse (with the necessary bullshit propaganda)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0061017-1.html
Here's the document
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...0enr. txt.pdf

Associtated press link:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...LATE =DEFAULT

Civil libertarians and leading Democrats decried the law as a violation of American values. The American Civil Liberties Union said it was "one of the worst civil liberties measures ever enacted in American history." Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin said, "We will look back on this day as a stain on our nation's history."

"It allows the government to seize individuals on American soil and detain them indefinitely with no opportunity to challenge their detention in court," Feingold said. "And the new law would permit an individual to be convicted on the basis of coerced testimony and even allow someone convicted under these rules to be put to death."

It's pretty simple.. from now on everything has gone to hell. We will see how many people will realize that people are going to get fried now on the chair cause they got tortured into confessing they wanted to kill the president. Im sure they can make you confess it? And if you think that law enorcement agencies will never do that - cause they don't abuse their powers, I wish you good luck.

if the ACLU wasn't blinded by it's hate for America and love of muslims, they might have a value.

fair enough - I merely clicked on the link provided and saw that it wasn't confirmed - I don't have time to search all the pages related to a story that is among many stories of what this guy is doing. There comes a point in time where you simply breath a sigh and pray time goes by fast enough for the next election. You can only be hit with bad news so often until you get numb and carry on with your work

yup. we need laws to protect our enemies, not capture them.
We've persecuted these peaceful muslims for far too long!

Looks like King Bush has done it again.

Me tarzan you jane, kill bad chicken

The Land Of the free my ass!

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh
What the fuck is THAT from lol?

gad that just buoyed my day ... especially after reading about that crazy new law...

It just came to me when I saw her answer ;)

You guys can put people in jail based ONLY on hearsay evidence?

How fucked up is that????

Yea no one saw this coming.

Power Grab 06'

A republican will be in office in 08', mark my words

Or should i say,....a republican owned by the bush admin will be put into presidency in 08'

if you voted for him you suck

kinda funny when people who don't live in the U.S critique everything, but almost all would come here if they could and live... So what does that say.... ? Must be good where you are?

i say good... The other guys do the same shit and worse...

lol, so true :1orglaugh

you're an idiot.....they already have enough power to kill terrorists

this is just another military & govt power grab

maybe you forgot why people came over here in the first fucking place

to escape this bullshit in europe

p.s. teasumgirls....you might be retarded when it comes to politics, but your girls are smoking hot...nice job!

http://www.xxxdvddepot.com/gfy/300906bushhitler.jpg

Naturally, we are told this ?arrogation of all power into the hands? of the unitary decider will apply only to ?foreign nationals,? that is to say Muslims. Hitler said much the same.

The enemies of the fatherland were foreigners?and their German fellow travelers?members of the comintern (communist international), Hitler declared, and such subversion required austere measures, including interning thousands in concentration camps, subjecting them to interrogation, torture, and summary execution.

As Marty Lederman points out, the so-called ?military commissions bill,? if read literally, ?means that if the Pentagon says you?re an unlawful enemy combatant?using whatever criteria they wish?then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to ?hostilities? at all.?

This definition is not limited to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. It?s not limited to aliens?it covers U.S. citizens as well. It?s not limited to persons captured or detained overseas. And it is not even limited to the armed conflict against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, authorized by Congress on September 18, 2001. Indeed, on the face of it, it?s not even limited to a time of war or armed conflict; it could apply in peacetime.

For some, it is a relatively easy task to dismiss Lederman out of hand as a paranoid crank, or possibly another conspiracy nut.

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.??

Nazi Germany provides a historical example of what we can expect in the months ahead. William L. Shirer, author of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, explains how tribunals operated under fascism.

Hitler?s courts consisted of three judges, who invariably had to be trusted party members, without a jury. A Nazi prosecutor had the choice of bringing action in such cases before either an ordinary court or the Special Court, and invariably he chose the latter, for obvious reasons. Defense lawyers before this court, as before the Volksgerichtshof, had to be approved by Nazi officials. Sometimes even if they were approved they fared badly. Thus the lawyers who attempted to represent the widow of Dr. Klausener, the Catholic Action leader murdered in the Blood Purge, in her suit for damages against the State were whisked off to Sachsenhausen concentration camp, where they were kept until they formally withdrew the action.

Under Bush?s Detainee bill, however, the secretly accused, snatched off the street and disappeared in classic Gestapo fashion, will not be allowed to select an attorney?one will be appointed by the Inquisition.


article


love that freedom country ....

Reason number 18,889,872,921 to MOVE OUT OF THE US!

Well Bush or not... I still love this damn country :)

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.


-------

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.

ahhhh, but far more of us (as evidenced by the last election) aren't fooled into believing that procecuting the war on terror means giving up democracy and due process.

It takes a very "special" person to hide in his closet thinking the government is coming for them because we pass laws to stop coddling terrorists.

Pleasurepays.. what a joke... you can copy and paste what someone wrote on wikipedia can you? Wow! And write in big letters..!

What else do you know about this act?

How about this?

Subsection 4(b) (26) of section 950v. of HR 6166 - Crimes triable by military commissions - includes the following definition.

"Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct."

For an individual to hold an allegiance or duty to the United States they need to be a citizen of the United States. No?

Let me give you my rational analysis, you said (and this times it's a normal font, I'm not blind):

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.??

and anyone who knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States would be an enemy of the United States. No?

silly liberal newspapers. Gee, I guess next we won't be able to prosecute spies if they hold American Citizenship.

Exactly... :thumbsup So, I assume you agree with this below...?

The Government can 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.

IF the governement say that the person, a US citizen , knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States

So in other words, you agree with the first post? No?

America is now officially a police state.

the government at it again...:(

Shit I gotta move

Really shitty news

Fortunately, the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, brilliantly established the concept for our government with a system of checks and balances by creating 3 primary branches of power, the Executive, the Congress, and the Judicial, aka the US Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court will surely toss this new law out the window and into the trash can where it belongs.

http://www.illinoisfamily.org/conten...20Building.jpg

Anyone who knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States belongs in jail.
imagining that this is somehow a problem to American citizens is silly

Where is my red coat???http://www.velorution.biz/images/Vel...at%20small.jpg

First off, US citizens can be put in jail without proofs or fair trial.. Agree with that?

Second, "knowingly aids an enemy of the United States" ... Are you sure you know what that means? Leaking info about secret prisons? Protesting against the war? etc.. etc.. Slippery slope no?

try info wars dot net

if you have to lie to make your point, why bother?

nope. I'm all for those people being in jail.:thumbsup