As you are probably aware, a few days ago, the most reprehensible bill ever was signed into American law by Bush. This law repudiates the most fundamental values, the very core of the American system of justice. Through eliminating the writ of habeas corpus, a fundamental human right before the law that originated some 800 years ago, the U.S. has proclaimed itself as an enemy of universal human rights, which means, effectively, that it has declared itself to be an enemy of humankind; moreover, it has repudiated the very core of its own Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights: it has become an enemy to itself.

It is quite obvious that the intention of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, along with the NSA's warrantless electronic surveillance program, is to "seek and destroy" all dissent of the Bush Administration. It represents nothing short of an attempt to establish a police state.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 represents the end of American democratic values, the end of the role of guarantor of human rights and justice and the rule of law - and the beginning of a police state that can arbitrarily throw anyone in prison, even American citizens, and keep them secretly shut up without legal representation, without knowing the charges or the evidence held against them, and without access or contact with ANYONE except the grand interrogators and torturers - without any hope at all for relief or release - except by the whim of King George.

It is indeed a betrayal of everything that the American Founding Fathers risked their sacred lives and fortunes when they declared a doctrine of inalienable human rights. Those American politicians who helped to pass this law are traitors of their own country and humankind.

History should record October 17, 2006 as the exact reverse of July 4, 1776. From the noble American ideal of each human being possessing "unalienable rights" as declared by the Founders 230 years ago amid the ringing of bells in Philadelphia, the United States effectively rescinded that concept on a dreary fall day in Washington.

At a crimped ceremony in the East Room of the White House, President George W. Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 while sitting behind a sign reading "Protecting America."

On the surface, the law sets standards for harsh interrogations, prosecutions and executions of supposed terrorists and other "unlawful combatants," including al-Qaeda members who allegedly conspired to murder nearly 3,000 people on Sept. 11, 2001.

"It is a rare occasion when a President can sign a bill he knows will save American lives," Bush said. "I have that privilege this morning."

But the new law does much more. In effect, it creates a parallel "star chamber" system of criminal justice for anyone, including an American citizen, who is suspected of engaging in, contributing to or acting in support of violent acts directed against the U.S. government or its allies anywhere on earth.

The law strips "unlawful combatants" and their alleged fellow-travelers of the fundamental right of habeas corpus, meaning that they can’t challenge their imprisonment in civilian courts, at least not until after they are brought before a military tribunal, tried under special secrecy rules and then sentenced.

One of the catches, however, is that with habeas corpus suspended these suspects have no guarantee of a swift trial and can theoretically be jailed indefinitely at the President’s discretion. Given the endless nature of the "global war on terror," suspects could disappear forever into the dark hole of unlimited executive authority, their fate hidden even from their families. While incarcerated, the "unlawful combatants" and their cohorts can be subjected to coercive interrogations with their words used against them if and when they are brought to trial as long as a military judge approves.

The military tribunals also could use secret evidence to prosecute a wide range of "disloyal" American citizens as well as anti-American non-citizens. The procedures are similar to "star chambers," which have been employed historically by absolute monarchs and totalitarian states.

Even after the prosecutions are completed, the President could keep details secret. While an annual report must be made to Congress about the military tribunals, the President can conceal whatever information he chooses in a classified annex.

When Congress was debating the military tribunal law in September, some Americans were reassured to hear that the law would apply to non-U.S. citizens, such as legal resident aliens and foreigners. Indeed, the law does specify that "illegal enemy combatants" must be aliens who allegedly have attacked U.S. targets or those of U.S. military allies.

But the law goes much further when it addresses what can happen to people alleged to have given aid and comfort to America's enemies. According to the law's language, even American citizens who are accused of helping terrorists can be shunted into the military tribunal system where they could languish indefinitely without constitutional protections.

Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter who commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission, the law states.
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 [presumably U.S. military allies, such as Great Britain and Israel], shall be punished as a military commission … may direct. …
Any person subject to this chapter who with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign power, collects or attempts to collect information by clandestine means or while acting under false pretenses, for the purpose of conveying such information to an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a military commission … may direct. …
Any person subject to this chapter who conspires to commit one of the more substantive offenses triable by military commission under this chapter, and who knowingly does any overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy, shall be punished, if death results to one or more of the victims, by death or such other punishment as a military commission … may direct, and, if death does not result to any of the victims, by such punishment, other than death, as a military commission … may direct.

In other words, a wide variety of alleged crimes, including some specifically targeted at citizens with "an allegiance or duty to the United States," would be transferred from civilian courts to military tribunals, where habeas corpus and other constitutional rights would not apply.

Thus, secrecy, not the principle of openness, dominates these curious trials.
Under the military tribunal law, a judge "may close to the public all or a portion of the proceedings" if he deems that the evidence must be kept secret for national security reasons. Those concerns can be conveyed to the judge through ex parte – or one-sided – communications from the prosecutor or a government representative.

The judge also can exclude the accused from the trial if there are safety concerns or if the defendant is disruptive. Plus, the judge can admit evidence obtained through coercion if he determines it "possesses sufficient probative value" and "the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence."

The law permits, too, the introduction of secret evidence “while protecting from disclosure the sources, methods, or activities by which the United States acquired the evidence if the military judge finds that ... the evidence is reliable.”

During trial, the prosecutor would have the additional right to assert a "national security privilege" that could stop "the examination of any witness," presumably by the defense if the questioning touched on any sensitive matter.

The prosecution also would retain the right to appeal any adverse ruling by the military judge to the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia. For the defense, however, the law states that "no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever … relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions."

Further, the law states "no person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories."

In effect, that provision amounts to a broad amnesty for all U.S. officials, including President Bush and other senior executives who may have authorized torture, murder or other violations of human rights.
Beyond that amnesty provision, the law grants President Bush the authority "to interpret the meaning and the application of the Geneva Conventions."

In signing the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Bush remarked that "one of the terrorists believed to have planned the 9/11 attacks said he hoped the attacks would be the beginning of the end of America." Pausing for dramatic effect, Bush added, "He didn’t get his wish."

However, because the Military Commissions Act betrays one of the core values of human right, perhaps the terrorist did "get his wish."

That the terrorists succeeded in causing wide-scale and horrific civilian death and destruction on September 11th, the likes of which was never before seen on U.S. soil, cannot be overstated. But that by no means suggests, as the administration would have it, that history is irrelevant to our response. To the contrary, history, particularly 200 years of this nation's constitutional history, should be our guide.

Pursuant to the habeas-stripping provision, any non-U.S. citizen who has been or will be swept up by the military, the CIA, or our allies and transferred to a secret black-site or Guantanamo Bay, or rendered to another country where they are held and interrogated at the behest of the U.S. government, may no longer have any recourse to a U.S. court. As a result, the administration will have no obligation to put forward to an independent branch of government even a minimal explanation of the basis for a potentially indefinite detention. Nor will there exist any mechanism to check military or CIA abuses, including torture, of detainees. Whatever rights to humane treatment under the Geneva Conventions that remain following the "compromise" between the White House and the Republican Senators (and there is serious question as to whether this was indeed a compromise or a capitulation to the White House) will be meaningless since the habeas-stripping provision unquestionably ensures that those rights will find no day in court and no remedy.

This change works a significant destruction of our constitutional heritage for at least two reasons. First, the U.S. Constitution establishes as a fundamental structural premise that there will be three independent branches of government that serve as checks and balances upon each other. Removing entirely the independent judiciary from any role in checking the conduct of the Executive and Congress is a substantial alteration to that structural premise. Second, the writ of habeas corpus has, since this country's founding, served as a particularly important guardian of liberty. Throughout our history, when the government has captured and detained individuals, the "Great Writ" has served the basic function of guarding against arbitrary government in the form of unjustified and secret detention. Here is how Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 84 (quoting Blackstone) powerfully described the critical importance of the writ of habeas corpus:
To bereave a man of life - without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.

Moreover, these objections to the removal of habeas corpus are not merely academic debating points. We now know with certainty that the U.S. has detained for years innocent men at Guantanamo Bay, such as the five ethnic Uighurs who arrived there after being sold by Pakistani tribesmen for a bounty and the U.S. labeled them enemy combatants with no evidence supporting that designation. It was in part because of the existence of habeas corpus jurisdiction and the pressure of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the Rasul v. Bush case, which held that non-citizens detained at Guantanamo had a right to file habeas petitions, that these men gained their freedom. The habeas-stripping legislation will overrule Rasul v. Bush, making future challenges to wrongful and indefinite detention impossible. We also know that innocent men such as Maher Arar and Khaled El-Masri have been tortured in the process of secret detention and extraordinary rendition either by or at the behest of the U.S. government. The habeas-stripping provision will eliminate any opportunity for the judiciary to ensure that existing and future detentions are not grounded on torture or other abuse.

September 11th will be seen for all time to come as a horrific day that marks substantial and painful loss to America. Let it not also be the day, as the Bush administration would have it, that heralded the loss of the fundamental principles and structure of our Constitutional heritage. Any member of Congress who signed onto the habeas-stripping legislation of the Bush administration must ask themselves whether history, indeed, starts today. The answer must be no.

For, if the answer is "yes," the terrorists have indeed "gotten their wish."

Resources: http://www.consortiumnews.com .

Also:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/20...-of-habeas.php

President Bush is not the first president in American history to suspend habeas corpus. We are in an unconventional war on our own soil. We are told daily by the liberal press and others that our country is already over run with sleeper terrorists, waiting to strike. It was reported this week that many terrorists have made it into the U.S. through the weak border with Mexico. (duh) The government needs the ability to apprehend and detain as many of these terrorists as possible without risking further overwhelming garbage in the legal system. Thus- suspension of habeas corpus. It is nothing than can not be reversed in the future, just as it was after the American civil war. president Bush will be out of office in two years and who ever is elected will determine if habeas corpus can be restored. Don't make it some huge conspiracy to undermine society in general.

__________________
Turk Quid Pro Quo

I agree that kafkorea's post has the big brother ring to it. As with anyother law that is of simular type once it gets to the level it is being abused it will be recinded may take a while as government=slow

__________________
Just my humble opinion!

I might read these articles if they weren't so loooonnng!

Kafkorea, please only post the first few paragraphs and link to the rest of the story. The author could get angry if you post the entire article on a forum without his permission.

__________________
Visit USFK Classifieds, the FREE classifieds in Korea!

I don’t agree with this new law. It is too vague and that scares me. The one thing that keeps me from worrying too much is that I still have my right to vote, for now. Its election time next month and I am very glad that it looks as if we will have a complete regime change in congress. I used to be a die hard republican...that was until the last couple years. Now I am in search of a party that is not corrupted and bought off by big business. A party that is for the people and not for there own profit and glory. Does such a party exist? I can only hope.

__________________
Athlon 64 4800 X2
Thermaltake Big Typhoon CPU cooler
Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe
2GB Corsair PC3200
BFG 7900GTX 512MB
Antec P180 Case
Antec 550w Truecontrol 2.0 PS
Dell 24" Widescreen LCD

the fact that someone can point at you, call you an enemy combatton and though you in jail without have proof just scres the fsck out of me!

__________________

This may be the the biggest piece of nonfactual information I have ever read. Have any of you read the Military Commissions Act of 2006? Or are you simply reading the garbage in the fist post?

I find it funny that people take OBVIOUS bias information and take it as a fact. The truth is most people are too lazy to read the Patriot Act or the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to actual find the truth.

Here is what it says.

Section 948b of title 10 of the United States Code, as enacted by the Act, provides (in part):

(a) Purpose.--This chapter establishes 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.

Anyone notice the word unlawful combatant? That is a criminal found on the battlefield. You kow those guys planting IEDs and beheading civilians? Here is the definition under the act.

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.

So, cali_guy76 and Taichan, unless you are part of a illegal force fighting against the United States you can not be tried under this. Just a suggestion, but reading the Acts that you are claiming you are so "scared" of would be a good idea before confirming garbage like this first post.


Is this act any different than the Geneva Convention?

`(g) Geneva Conventions Not Establishing Source of Rights- No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights.

That's right! If you DO NOT wear a uniform and commit unlawful acts you LOSE your rights under the Geneva convention.

Additionally, the law was passed 65 to 34 in the Senate and 270 to 170 in the House. Do the math and you will see MANY Democrats voted for this.


Oh yeah, then there are those silly professors of Law:

Former Administration Justice department official and current professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, John Yoo, has also commented on the Act calling it a $)C!0stinging rebuke!1 of the Supreme Court overstepping its boundaries in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ruling, calling the ruling !0an unprecedented attempt by the court to rewrite the law of war and intrude into war policy.!1 Yoo goes on to cite Johnson v. Eisentrager, in which the court decided that it would not hear habeas claims brought by alien enemy prisoners held outside the U.S., and refused to interpret the Geneva Conventions to give new rights in civilian court against the government

Do the research and you will see this is a GOOD law. What do Democrats have to say about it?


In the House debate, Representative David Wu of Oregon offered this scenario:

Let us say that my wife, who is here in the gallery with us tonight, a sixth generation Oregonian, is walking by the friendly, local military base and is picked up as an unlawful enemy combatant. What is her recourse? She says, I am a U.S. citizen. That is a jurisdictional fact under this statute, and she will not have recourse to the courts? She can take it to Donald Rumsfeld, but she cannot take it across the street to an article 3 court

Weak arguments like this are why Democrats are not in power. If a person walked a military base and did nothing, would the U.S. military grab a person and hold a tribunal? That is the silliest argument I have ever heard of. Does anyone actual feel scared of a military tribunal at Osan? How about Yongsan?

It drives me crazy how liberals attack Bush on this, but never seem to complain about the 70 civilians in Iraq that were killed yesterday by these unlawful combatants. They would have these criminals get John Edwards as their lawyer and get them off. No wonder why Stalin called them "Useful Idiots."

__________________
Visit USFK Classifieds, the FREE classifieds in Korea!

Mike, the act does not state that you must be caught on the battlefield or have planted a bomb. All you have to do is have "materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents." That's an awfully large definition. We know from history that you need not be captured on the battlefield or even overseas. The over 3 year long detention of Jose Padilla or the detention and rendition of Canadian, Maher Arar shows that the definition of enemy combatant is more flexible than what you're positing.

Turk, the Civil War is not comparable to the War on Terror. Outside of the fantasies of a few Southern folk, the Cival War came to an abrupt end in 1865. The War on Terror will not end until terrorism ends, that will probably be never.