Thread: Bush Given Authority To Sexually Torture American Children

Originally Posted by ohflyingone

Remember all of those detention centers that are being built? Who do you think will fill them. Not illegals. it will be US!

OHFLY
Now that will depend on the SECOND AMENDMENT and how many Americans hold it close to their hearts. On a positive note, the percentages of Americans using the 2nd now is increasing and that's a positive for our side.

Yes, I've been following this on and off for about 15 years. The info pertaining to these camps & their plans was stuck in some documents from quite a few years back and no one believed me. This is the very reason why I have been so against much of the Patriot Act although there are some good parts in it.

We know that they can take a good piece of legislation and stick very damaging stuff in it....that's a given. However, at the risk of being a broken record, using discredited or dangerously anti-American people as a basis for credibility only gives us the reverse. There's plenty of accurate info for us to use that will bolster our case rather than weaken it.

Originally Posted by jp_48504

2ndamendsis,
You do realize that under this new la that you could be considered an enemy combatant?

Read the bill first and then tell me what you think.

The House resolution is HR 6166. The Senate bill is S 3930.
http://thomas.loc.gov/

Say goodbye to the Bill of Rights.

JP

as I said, I wasn't commenting on a bill I hadn't read AND I also stated that it might have bad stuff in it. That's not my argument.

Please understand, my urgency in posting was pointed at 'credibility' of the info we work with. The bill might be flawed but the messenger is without doubt flawed.

By very strange chance, information pertaining to Hersch & several members of Congress came across my desk this morning. Go figure........why today? Isn't that amazing? It brought to the forefront of my mind -again- the many twists and turns through the years that has gotten us to this horrible place.

I don't know how to explain this and keep my word that sources stay protected but in short:
Members of Congress, former & active military, administrations thru the past 3-4 decades, corporations, NGOs, Universities/intellectuals, think tanks and Intel players............they are all tied into one major focus. 2 sides playing off of each other to the end result we are fighting right here at Alipac. Connecting the dots just to this point has taken years and thousands of dedicated man hours. It's vitally important that we use credible sources {whether we like them or not so that's not the issue} to move this forward.

PS........JP

lol.......you know I'm going to read the Bill!

{need to be pain free so that I can focus properly--took aspirin}

Legal residents' rights curbed in detainee bill
By Farah Stockman
The Boston Globe, September 28, 2006
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/artic ... ll?mode=PF

Washington -- A last-minute change to a bill currently before Congress on the rights of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay could have sweeping implications inside the United States: It would strip green-card holders and other legal residents of the right to challenge their detention in court if they are accused of being ``enemy combatants.'

An earlier draft of the bill sparked criticism because it removed the rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees to challenge their detentions in federal court. But changes made over the weekend during negotiations between the White House and key Republicans in Congress go even further, making it legal for noncitizens inside the United States to be detained indefinitely, without access to the court system, until the ``war on terror' is over.

It is unclear who initiated the changes. The bill, which also sets up a new system of military trials for terrorist suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, passed the House yesterday and is expected to be voted on in the Senate today, before Congress breaks for midterm elections.

Human rights advocates yesterday lobbied against the bill.

``This would purport to allow the president, after some incident, to round up scores of people -- people who are lawfully here -- and hold them in military prisons with no access to the legal system, whatsoever, indefinitely,' said Joe Onek , senior policy analyst at the Open Society Policy Center, a Washington-based advocacy organization

Other last-minute additions to the bill include provisions that would broaden the definition of enemy combatant to include anyone who gives material support to enemies of the United States and its allies, and would prevent detainees who have been released from US custody from suing the US government for torture or mistreatment.

But the part of the bill that worries advocates for immigrants most is the one stating that ``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 who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.'

``Habeas corpus' is the legal mechanism that gives people the right to ask federal courts to review their imprisonment.

In the original bill, the section banning ``habeas corpus' petitions applied only to detainees being held ``outside the United States,' referring to the roughly 450 prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. But in recent days, the phrase ``outside the United States' was removed.

The White House did not respond to questions asking why the restriction was extended to people in the United States.

But at a press conference after the changes were made, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley praised the bill as ``a legislative framework that allows us to capture, detain, and prosecute and bring to justice terrorists.'

Human-rights activists believe the bill would do far more, including give the president greatly expanded powers to hold people indefinitely.

``What if they had this after Sept. 11 [2001] when they picked up all kinds of folks on immigration charges and material-witness charges and tried them in secret immigration proceedings?' said Jumana Musa, a lawyer with Amnesty International. ``Those people were deported. Now [if the bill passes], they could be detained indefinitely as enemy combatants.'

Eugene R. Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, added that: ``What it means is that certain categories of people are going to be second-raters in our legal system.'

``You can't sneeze at the fact that citizenship has got to mean something,' Fidell said. ``But if I were a green-card holder, thinking about the other pressures that are being brought to bear on green-card holders, it could make me pretty nervous.'

Wartime decisions to hold people perceived as threats have often proved problematic. During World War II, the government held over 100,000 Japanese and Japanese-Americans in internment camps. (When they challenged their internment, the Supreme Court twice ruled against them. Decades later, however, the government acknowledged that the internment was unjustified and apologized.)

Jennifer Daskill, US advocacy director of Human Rights Watch, predicted that the Supreme Court would strike down the provisions in the current bill that would take away access to courts for legal US residents arrested in the United States. Still, she said, it could take years before the court rules on the issue, during which time many people could be imprisoned.

The provision would have an immediate impact on Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, so far the only known ``enemy combatant' held inside the United States.

Marri, a Qatari student arrested in 2001, has been held in a US military brig without charges for four years.

Like hundreds of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Marri has challenged his detention in federal court; passage of the new law would throw out his case.

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter , a Pennsylvania Republican, and Senator Patrick Leahy , a Vermont Democrat, have filed an amendment to the Senate bill under which detainees -- both inside Guantanamo Bay and in the United States -- would retain their access to the courts.

But it was unclear last night whether the amendment has enough support to pass. So far, moderate Republicans have not joined Specter and leading Democrats in supporting the amendment.

Senator Susan Collins, a Maine Republican who is considered a moderate, said she would not support Specter's amendment.

``Detainees from Guantanamo have clogged our courts with more than 420 lawsuits challenging everything from their access to the Internet to the quality of their recreation facilities,' her office said in a statement that called the lawsuits ``an abuse of our court system.'

Collins did not comment on the bill's restriction of rights for non-citizens in the United States.

And here lies the core issue....

``Habeas corpus' is the legal mechanism that gives people the right to ask federal courts to review their imprisonment.

NON CITIZENS have NO right to habeas corpus/Constitutional rights if they are 'enemy combatants' citizens of foreign countries. IE: prisoners in Gitmo should be tried by a military tribunal just as we've done forever.
This is NOT a law enforcement matter......it's a military issue. If they were captured on the battle field or within an extremist group, They should have access to nothing except a glass of water and a pot to __ in.

Habeas Corpus is an American right in our American legal system.

Now, here's the rub. Should that be overridden for the AMerican people within the legislation, just as the Patriot Act, it's dangerous.

Finally, as I've said before, their MO is to take a good piece of legislation and dump the bad shit into it. That's exactly how we've come to this horrible place.

OHFLY
good piece, glad you posted it.

It applies to anyone who is suspect, not that DHS would ever make a mistake and pick up the worng people.

Welcome to the Police State
Welcome to AMERIKA!

Originally Posted by jp_48504

It applies to anyone who is suspect, not that DHS would ever make a mistake and pick up the worng people.

Welcome to the Police State
Welcome to AMERIKA!

No, it does not apply to foreign entities on a battle field and never has.
Foreigners NOT in the US legally have no right to Constitutional rights either. This is one of the central points of this fight with the Illegals.

*** very, very shrewd to throw this to the Supremes as it now gave congress a chance to take away yet more of our Constitutional rights. What a hugely shrewd move! The dems threw it to the Supremes and the repubs finished it off in congress. HEY........WHAT A TEAM THEY MAKE.

2ndamendsis, Quote:
Furthermore, I could give a flying fig if they take all those so-called ENEMY COMBATANTS and stick em away never to see the light of day again. We are in a WAR and have been for more years than folks realize. Too damned bad that any of these administrations and Congress haven't had the courage to declare it properly! That's mistake #1.


My Hero!

I was just going to summit this article, but it seems you guys have already been talking about it.

According to Thomos.local.gov. it is the one jp is referring to. S.3930 and HR.6166

Those detention camps that crazybird and ohflyingone are referring to have me wondering also.

Remember all of those detention centers that are being built? Who do you think will fill them. Not illegals. it will be US!

Cohn: Rounding Up U.S. Citizens
By Marjorie Cohn



Because the bill was adopted with lightning speed, barely anyone noticed that it empowers Bush to declare not just aliens, but also U.S. citizens, "unlawful enemy combatants."

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 governing the treatment of detainees is the culmination of relentless fear-mongering by the Bush administration since the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Because the bill was adopted with lightning speed, barely anyone noticed that it empowers Bush to declare not just aliens, but also U.S. citizens, "unlawful enemy combatants."

Bush & Co. has portrayed the bill as a tough way to deal with aliens to protect us against terrorism. Frightened they might lose their majority in Congress in the November elections, the Republicans rammed the bill through Congress with little substantive debate.

Anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on Bush's list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies could be declared an "unlawful enemy combatant" and imprisoned indefinitely. That includes American citizens.

The bill also strips habeas corpus rights from detained aliens who have been declared enemy combatants. Congress has the constitutional power to suspend habeas corpus only in times of rebellion or invasion. The habeas-stripping provision in the new bill is unconstitutional and the Supreme Court will likely say so when the issue comes before it.

Although more insidious, this law follows in the footsteps of other unnecessarily repressive legislation. In times of war and national crisis, the government has targeted immigrants and dissidents.

In 1798, the Federalist-led Congress, capitalizing on the fear of war, passed the four Alien and Sedition Acts to stifle dissent against the Federalist Party's political agenda. The Naturalization Act extended the time necessary for immigrants to reside in the U.S. because most immigrants sympathized with the Republicans.

The Alien Enemies Act provided for the arrest, detention and deportation of male citizens of any foreign nation at war with the United States. Many of the 25,000 French citizens living in the U.S. could have been expelled had France and America gone to war, but this law was never used. The Alien Friends Act authorized the deportation of any non-citizen suspected of endangering the security of the U.S. government; the law lasted only two years and no one was deported under it.

The Sedition Act provided criminal penalties for any person who wrote, printed, published, or spoke anything "false, scandalous and malicious" with the intent to hold the government in "contempt or disrepute." The Federalists argued it was necessary to suppress criticism of the government in time of war. The Republicans objected that the Sedition Act violated the First Amendment, which had become part of the Constitution seven years earlier. Employed exclusively against Republicans, the Sedition Act was used to target congressmen and newspaper editors who criticized President John Adams.

Subsequent examples of laws passed and actions taken as a result of fear-mongering during periods of xenophobia are the Espionage Act of 1917, the Sedition Act of 1918, the Red Scare following World War I, the forcible internment of people of Japanese descent during World War II, and the Alien Registration Act of 1940 (the Smith Act).

During the McCarthy period of the 1950s, in an effort to eradicate the perceived threat of communism, the government engaged in widespread illegal surveillance to threaten and silence anyone who had an unorthodox political viewpoint. Many people were jailed, blacklisted and lost their jobs. Thousands of lives were shattered as the FBI engaged in "red-baiting." One month after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, United States Attorney General John Ashcroft rushed the U.S.A. Patriot Act through a timid Congress. The Patriot Act created a crime of domestic terrorism aimed at political activists who protest government policies, and set forth an ideological test for entry into the United States. In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of the internment of Japanese and Japanese-American citizens in Korematsu v. United States. Justice Robert Jackson warned in his dissent that the ruling would "lie about like a loaded weapon ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need."

That day has come with the Military Commissions Act of 2006. It provides the basis for the President to round-up both aliens and U.S. citizens he determines have given material support to terrorists. Kellogg Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Cheney's Halliburton, is constructing a huge facility at an undisclosed location to hold tens of thousands of undesirables.

In his 1928 dissent in Olmstead v. United States, Justice Louis Brandeis cautioned, "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." Seventy-three years later, former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, speaking for a zealous President, warned Americans "they need to watch what they say, watch what they do." We can expect Bush to continue to exploit 9/11 to strip us of more of our liberties. Our constitutional right to dissent is in serious jeopardy. Benjamin Franklin's prescient warning should give us pause: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

October 2, 2006

Marjorie Cohn, a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, is president-elect of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists. Her new book, Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law, will be published in 2007 by PoliPointPress. Source: Mathaba.net

http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=10999



This is what I pulled up on The Military Commissions Act of 2006 from Thomos.local.gov.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1000 Bills from the 109th Congress ranked by relevance on "The+Military+Commissions+Act+of+2006 ".
12 bills containing your phrase exactly as entered.
0 bills containing all your search words near each other in any order.
122 bills containing all your search words but not near each other.
866 bills containing one or more of your search words.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Listing of 12 bills containing your phrase exactly as entered.

1 . Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)[S.3930.ENR]
2 . Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)[H.R.6166.EH]
3 . Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Introduced in House)[H.R.6166.IH]
4 . Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Introduced in House)[H.R.6054.IH]
5 . Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Reported in House)[H.R.6054.RH]
6 . Terrorist Tracking, Identification, and Prosecution Act of 2006 (Placed on Calendar in Senate)[S.3886.PCS]
7 . Bringing Terrorists to Justice Act of 2006 (Placed on Calendar in Senate)[S.3861.PCS]
8 . Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Placed on Calendar in Senate)[S.3901.PCS]
9 . Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Introduced in Senate)[S.3930.IS]
10 . Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Placed on Calendar in Senate)[S.3930.PCS]
11 . To authorize military commissions to bring terrorists to justice, to strengthen and modernize terrorist surveillance capabilities, and for other purposes. (Introduced in Senate)[S.3929.IS]
12 . To authorize military commissions to bring terrorists to justice, to strengthen and modernize terrorist surveillance capabilities, and for other purposes. (Placed on Calendar in Senate)[S.3929.PCS]