[Roy]

Actually, this is how it passed the house, with regard to the definition of an enemy combatant:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '1'). Unlawful Enemy Combatant:

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 enemby 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 enactment of the Miltary 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.

[Roy]

Which party most strongly favored this Act? In the senate the votes look like this:

Yay: 52 Republicans
Nay: 1 Republican (Chafee -R Rhode Island)
NV: 1 Republican (Snowe R Maine)

Yay: 12 Democrats
Nay: 32 Democrats

Nay: 1 independent (Jeffords I Vermont)

House Vote:


link

[dukey]

it is totally amazing that they got this through
Wars were once fought over things like this, now the people have been so stupid as to simply give them away.

[AgentR]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dukey', 'i')t is totally amazing that they got this through
Wars were once fought over things like this, now the people have been so stupid as to simply give them away.

[Dreamtwister]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dukey', 'i')t is totally amazing that they got this through
Wars were once fought over things like this, now the people have been so stupid as to simply give them away.

[gego]

Our soldier boys now need to be learning the goose step.

Can you say "Gestapo"?

It is always difficult to see where you are in history when you are looking at the present. It is only with the benefit of hindsight that you can see what has happened. The trend, however is always clear, and the trend has been, and is toward destruction of freedom and growth of government power.

This was a very stealth piece of legislation; it had burried in it the makings for unlimited terror to be unleashed upon any who oppose those in power, just by giving those in power, the ability to without question, define who is an unlawful enemy combatant. You should be afraid; those in positions of power like to use the power they have.

[peaker_2005]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lateralus', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AgentR', '
')And which party is it that wants to remove even your last semblance of the means to resist when they come for you?

[lateralus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('peaker_2005', '
')IMHO, I prefer the term "Reproblemocrats. Much more "fitting"...

[emailking]

Bush signed the bill into law today.

[gego]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gideon', 'I') read the proposed legislation and Omar's last response -

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')oth, if the President decides to call you an enemy combatant.

[emailking]

How does it erase the Bill of rights? I don't see anything about habeas corpus in the first 10 Ammendements. All I can find is that it is the result of a court order.

[Roy]

Habeus Corpus is not in the Bill of Rights, but in the Constitution itself.

The writ of habeas corpus in Article 1 Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, a section that pertains to the duties of the U.S. Congress, says that the U.S. Congress cannot take away the writ of habeas corpus except under circumstances of rebellion or invasion.

The actual language reads:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it." No case of rebellion or invasion exists and thus the U.S. Congress does not have the power to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus. A serious debate was held over this part of the law in the Senate but an amendment to take this out of the bill did not get enough votes to pass.

[gego]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('emailking', 'H')ow does it erase the Bill of rights? I don't see anything about habeas corpus in the first 10 Ammendements. All I can find is that it is the result of a court order.

[emailking]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gego', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('emailking', 'H')ow does it erase the Bill of rights? I don't see anything about habeas corpus in the first 10 Ammendements. All I can find is that it is the result of a court order."

It is in the body of the Constitution itself, Article 1, section 9:

[AgentR]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Roy', 'I')s there a rebellion or an invasion going on? I guess you could say yes, at least to the invasion. Although I suspect the framers didn't mean illegal immigrants, but foreign armies.

[emailking]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AgentR', '
')
1) Large holes left in NY, DC, PA
2) OTM's anyone, especially Arab OTM's crossing the Southern border illegally.

Just because they are being slow and not wearing the uniform of the Islamic Empire doesn't imply that they are simply benign refugees looking for work.

That would be the argument. It is both factual and sufficient.

[gego]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('emailking', '
')
Ok. That's not the Bill of Rights though, which are the first 10 Ammendments.

[Roy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hat would be the argument. It is both factual and sufficient.

[AgentR]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('emailking', 'R')emember, the appropriate standard of application is the original intent.

[Roy]

What the myopic supporters of the MCA don't seem to take into account is:

This law benefits them right now (in some obtruse way that I'm sure I could figure out if I watched Foxnews). But what if a D wins the presidency in 08, and decides to use it to round up people with firearms? Or people who are anti-gay? Or whatever goes against their liberal agenda?

The point is that the President and the SecDef decide what is an enemy combatant and what the apporpriate punishment is for that crime.

I feel this amount of power in the hands of two people goes against everything American. It would be supreme irony if that happened and said legislation backfired against those that supported it. Remeber that this law won't go away when W is living in exile in Paraguay.

I hope the Supreme Court has the intestinal fortitude to reject this piece of shit.