[highlander]

A lot has been written about the military commissions act of 2006 and what it's effects are on our constitutional rights. My understanding of the act is that it applies to

alien (non US citizens) enemy combatants

so, until you renounce your citizenship, you are still protected under the constitution.

But.... don't let your guard down. The other shoe hasn't dropped yet.

[Dreamtwister]

The other shoe dropped a long time ago. The PATRIOT act gives the government the right to strip anyone of their citizenship.

[venky]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dreamtwister', 'T')he other shoe dropped a long time ago. The PATRIOT act gives the government the right to strip anyone of their citizenship.

[gego]

The President can establish a review body (of his pals) to determine who is an unlawful enemy combatant.

Get some serious civil movement to do away with the power structure and you and you neighbors may easily make the list.

This is the danger; the power of government to determine who they choose to railroad without the benefit of jury or judge into detention or death.

Have not you noticed how laws intended for one supposed purpose then get used for purposes not originally intended. Look at the money laundering laws which were put in place to go after drug organizations. Now you are routinely charged with money laundering if you move money through the banking system that the government alleges was involved in a crime, or you may just have you money confiscated if you choose to use currency rather than checks.

[gego]

Here read this:

http://www.counterpunch.org/feingold09282006.html

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Feingold', '
')I am also very concerned about the definition of unlawful enemy combatant that is included in this legislation, and about the corresponding issue of the jurisdiction of the military commissions.

This legislation has been justified as necessary to allow our government to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other dangerous men recently transferred to Guantanamo Bay. Yet if you look at the fine print of this legislation, it becomes clear that it is much, much broader than that. It would permit trial by military commission not just for those accused of serious terrorist crimes, but also individuals, including legal permanent residents of this country, who are alleged to have "purposefully and materially supported hostilities" against the United States or its allies.

This is extremely broad, and key terms go undefined. And by including hostilities not only against the United States but also against its allies, the bill allows the U.S. to hold and try by military commission individuals who have never engaged, directly or indirectly, in any action against the United States.

[KhanCEO]

Osama Bin Laden still walks free. I'm betting a lot of money that we will never catch him.

The government uses 9/11 to trash our inalienable rights. Sweet Jesus, I hate these people.

[Dreamtwister]

Excuse me, that should be PATRIOT ACT II, specifically section 501.

It expands the powers in Title 8 USC Sec 1481 and Section 802 of Patriot Act I so that "intent to renounce citizenship" may be inferred by being a member (active or non active) in any organization the government has labelled as "terrorist".

Additionally, it allows the "intent to renounce citizenship" provision to anyone violating Title 18 USC Sec 2331

What this means is that if for example you show up at an anti-war rally and someone throws a garbage can through a store window, you have just participated in an act that fits the definition of domestic terrorism by (as per T18 S2331):

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')(5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that -
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation
of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended -
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion;

[gego]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dreamtwister', '
')
If you happen to be a member of...let's say...the ACLU, the entire organization can now be labelled as "terrorist". It's members may all be stripped of citizenship and arrested, it's finances siezed and it's records subject to review, including mailing lists for tracking down interested non-members and donors.

[neocone]

Mmmm... so can someone then give me the difference between the Soviet Union and America? Both had pretty similar constitutions.

When you were sent to a Gulag in Siberia, it was all within a rigid legal framework. You even had a lawyer defend you. Nonetheless you would pick up boulders and do slave work at -40. And the guard commander would have full authority to detain you past your assigned sentence too, all constitutionally approved.

Gorbatchev himself approved such a legal framework even at the hey day of his Pierestroyka reforms.

Ah the USSR... always duplicated (like now) but never truly matched!

[highlander]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but Patriot act II was never passed
Several parts were added to other pieces of legislation, usually pork barrel funding bills, but the most henious parts have not been codified (yet)

The point I was getting at was, should our constitutional rights ( habeas corpus) be applied to non-citizens?

and don't give me that crap about "all men created equal...unalienable rights"

or do

[venky]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he point I was getting at was, should our constitutional rights ( habeas corpus) be applied to non-citizens?

[Dreamtwister]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('highlander', 'C')orrect me if i'm wrong, but Patriot act II was never passed
Several parts were added to other pieces of legislation, usually pork barrel funding bills, but the most henious parts have not been codified (yet)

[Jellric]

This is a very important discussion. We should all try to understand exactly what is going on here with this bill. My feelings on the Military Commisions Act have have seesawed back and forth since I first learned of it. Initially I was very disturbed.

When I learned that removing habeus corpus applied only to aliens I was somewhat relieved in that it was not as bad as I had thought, but now I learn of the possible abilility to strip citizenship. Maybe someone can bring some clarity there.

I do know that the DOD or President can decide for themselves whether someone is an unlawful enemy combatant* and subject them to what amounts to a kangaroo court. Remove habeus corpus and they can imprison someone, never bring them to trial thereby making them rot in jail indefinately.

If you add to that the ability to strip citizenship, effectively making one an alien, together with a loose definition of what makes one a terrorist it equals big, big trouble for anyone who is not a Bush bootlicker.

The question I am now led to is can the government actually strip one's citizenship under existing law?

*Military Commissions Act 2006, definition of "unlawful enemy combatant":

"948a(1)(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."

[Dreamtwister]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jellric', 'T')he question I am now led to is can the government actually strip one's citizenship under existing law?

[TommyJefferson]

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership published this excellent essay yesterday:

http://www.jpfo.org/alert20061023.htm

Habeas Corpus is effectively GONE for U.S. Citizens.

------------------------------------------------------------------
[excerpted]

October 23, 2006

Trading Liberty For Safety

"The removal of Habeas Corpus only applies to aliens."

True, as far as it goes. Now what happens if you're picked up as an "alien"? You can't prove otherwise because without the right of Habeas Corpus, you cannot demand to go to court to make your case.

Or you could simply be declared a UEC, or "unlawful enemy combatant". Section 948(a) of the MCA defines "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. (11)

Note that this definition (much broader than previously-used definitions) contains NO exception for American citizens. And the Second Circuit Court of Appeals previously upheld the UEC label as meaning you are no longer under the protection of the Bill of Rights (12). All the government would have to do at your habeas corpus hearing is provide some evidence that you have engaged in some act of terrorism (maybe you donated to an organization "suspected of terrorist ties"...).

Jacob Hornberger -- another conservative -- points out:

"How does an American who is labeled an enemy combatant ultimately get tried? Answer: he doesn’t. Under the Military Commissions Act, trial by military tribunal is limited to foreigners. So, even though Americans still have the use of habeas corpus (so far) to test whether their detention is lawful, if the Supreme Court ultimately upholds the “unlawful enemy combatant” designation for people accused of terrorism, Americans will be returned to indefinite military custody as “unlawful enemy combatants” if the government has provided some evidence of terrorism at the habeas corpus hearing." (13)

[highlander]

I liked the backdrop to Olberman's commentary. It was a gravestone inscribed

Habeus Corpus 1215-2006

While the beginning of the bill said it applied to aliens, the text was indeed broad enough to give authority to detain anybody as an illegal enemy combatant. Sure hope I am not the one who gets to test this.

[gego]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('highlander', '
')
While the beginning of the bill said it applied to aliens, the text was indeed broad enough to give authority to detain anybody as an illegal enemy combatant. Sure hope I am not the one who gets to test this.

[TommyJefferson]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('highlander', '.')..the text was indeed broad enough to give authority to detain anybody as an illegal enemy combatant. Sure hope I am not the one who gets to test this.

[venky]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TommyJefferson', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('highlander', '.')..the text was indeed broad enough to give authority to detain anybody as an illegal enemy combatant. Sure hope I am not the one who gets to test this.

[TommyJefferson]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('venky', 'T')hat is despicable in itself. Imagine yourself in a foreign country; if you are picked off the streets and you have no course to appeal your being held.......