actually the law is so large that if someone comes taking money for charity door to door, and you give them money, if any of that makes it to enemy forces you can have your nationality stripped from you, and find yourself being labeled an emeny combatton, oh ya, and they don't even have ot tell you why.

Also Mike, did you know German POW camps where cleaned up for inspection ao that the UN found no issues? but when Allied POWs came home from war, they told the true stories.

so ya, you can't really trust anyone there

__________________

Outside of a lawyer in Washington, nobody really knows if their rights are being violated. It's not as if I can just call the FBI and ask if they've done any warrentless searches of my home.

So the US government releases known terrorists? That's the funny thing about those releases. If they're terrorists, why'd we let them go? The truth is that not all men in Gitmo are terrorists.

Tell that to Maher Arar, the Canadian that was taken into custody in the US and shipped to Syria to be tortured. Was he a terrorist? No. This paragraph is telling too. You must not have read the MC Act, because if you did, you'd realize that American citizen enemy combatants cannot be tried under military tribunal, even though they still lose any rights to habeas corpus.

You got me! I did read most, but between my 10 hours of military and running 4 websites I didn't spend 4 hours analysing it. Thanks for strengthening my argument that this first post is crap Doutes. The title of this article is bogus.

"..that U.S. citizens detained as "unlawful combatants" would still have habeas rights and could challenge their indefinite detention."

While formally opposed to the Act, Human Rights Watch has also concluded that the new law limits the scope of trials by military commissions to non-U.S. citizens including all legal aliens. [10] CBS Legal expert Andrew Cohen has commented on this question and writes that the "suspension of the writ of habeas corpus – the ability of an imprisoned person to challenge their confinement in court—applies only to resident aliens within the United States as well as other foreign nationals captured here and abroad" and that "it does not restrict the rights and freedoms and liberties of U.S. citizens anymore than they already have been restricted".

U.S. citizens can still challenge their detention.

Don't speak on a military base or you might get sent to Gitmo! Be careful everyone! You have been warned, George Bush will send you to Gitmo for speeding, especially if you are a Democrat.

This is one of the weakess arguments I have heard. Democrats want you to be afraid of President Busn and Republicans want you to be afraid of terrorists. Terrorist get lest scruitiny than Bush in Democrats eyes. I will take my chances with President Bush protecting the U.S.

Doutes has helped me prove that U.S. citizens DO NOT lose their rights under this act.

__________________
Visit USFK Classifieds, the FREE classifieds in Korea!

Quote:

Outside of a lawyer in Washington, nobody really knows if their rights are being violated. It's not as if I can just call the FBI and ask if they've done any warrentless searches of my home.

So, out of 300,000 people in America, not a single person has come forward from prison and said, "The government sent me to prison using the Patriot Act which is constitutional?"

Doutes, if the FBI was spying on Americans and using wiretaps based on the Patriot Act, wouldn't they use the evidence in court? Then wouldn't the ACLU and other lawyers complain?

The Patriot Act has been around for 5 years and you can't sow me anyone that claims their rights have been violated by the Patriot Act? After all the crying by John Kerry and other leading Democrats? Believe me, if there were any violations Ted Kennedy and the ACLU would make sure you knew about it. Reminds me of the, "If Bush gets elected you will get drafted and sent to Iraq." Anyone of the 300,000,000 Americans get drafted?

Quote:

So the US government releases known terrorists? That's the funny thing about those releases. If they're terrorists, why'd we let them go? The truth is that not all men in Gitmo are terrorists.

No Doutes, everyone at Gitmo didn't do anything. Much like our prison system. They are all innocent and were rounded up in American cities. If Democrats get their way, yes all terrorist will be released from Gitmo to kill U.S. citizens. Currently, the fear of many at Gitmo is that they have released people from Gitmo knowing that they will simply be fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan a few months later. Yes, the U.S. has released people at Gitmo because they were too old or sick. Terrorists? I don't know what they did. They did fight against the U.S. in civilian clothing in Afghanistan and the Geneva Convention would consider them an illegal combatant or terrorist. Many placed IEDs with little concern for civilians, so yes they were terrorists.

There were several Democrats that voted for this. It is time for Dean and Pelosi to throw them out of the party like they did to Lieberman.

__________________
Visit USFK Classifieds, the FREE classifieds in Korea!

Now let's take a look at the Geneva Convention, since Democrats claim Bush totally ignored that as well.


1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.


To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Anyone care to convince me that the Taliban and insurgents in Iraq followed these rules? Should I post the 100s of beheadings, IEDS and attacks on civilian videos? Why do Democrats AVOID talking about the crimes of the insurgents, but spend all of their time attacking President Bush? It's because hatred blinds you into one direction.

Now let's look at Article 4.


Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

The insurgents in Iraq do not carry arms openly, do not have a fixed, distinctive signs or follow the laws of war. So, they DO NOT get rights under the Geneva Conventions.

Number 6.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

I can buy the spontaneously taking up arms after a few months. But years later? And do they keep their arms in the open? No.

While we are at it the ACLU and Democrats better find a way to pay them in Swiss Francs.


Article 60

The Detaining Power shall grant all prisoners of war a monthly advance of pay, the amount of which shall be fixed by conversion, into the currency of the said Power, of the following amounts:

Category I: Prisoners ranking below sergeant: eight Swiss francs.
Category II: Sergeants and other non-commissioned officers, or prisoners of equivalent rank: twelve Swiss francs.
Category III: Warrant officers and commissioned officers below the rank of major or prisoners of equivalent rank: fifty Swiss francs.
Category IV: Majors, lieutenant-colonels, colonels or prisoners of equivalent rank: sixty Swiss francs. Category V: General officers or prisoners of equivalent rank: seventy-five Swiss francs.

I have reviewed the Geneva Conventions several times when I was a SERE refresher trainer for two years at a fighter squadron. It drives me crazy when idiots on TV state that these people are not be treated properly under the Geneva Conventions. If they actual read the Conventions regarding POWs, they would see that since they do not fight for a country, wear civilian clothing while fighting, do not wear a mark, hide their arms and commit war crimes they do not get Geneva Convention rights.

Read more on the Geneva Conventions here.

__________________
Visit USFK Classifieds, the FREE classifieds in Korea!

You are attributing too much comparison to my statement. I am not comparing wars, that would be futile. My statement is defined by the context of the suspension of habeas corpus and the outburst of resentment against President Bush. I was merely pointing out that he is not the first president in U.S. history to take such action. There are times in a countries history when such things may be needed to provide for the protection of a nation. Our system is such that these things can be undone when they are no longer needed. As for how long the war on terror will last, that is mere speculation by paranoid minds.

__________________
Turk Quid Pro Quo

Mike,
I don't question your interpretation of the Geneva Conventions nor do I contest that those folks being held in Gitmo are unlawful combatants... although there are arguments for Taliban fighters being afforded combatant status. However, what rights do these prisoners have on a legal basis? None? or basically whatever the prisonkeepers deign to allow them to have.

I consider habeus corpus one of the vital principles of freedom and democracy... shouldn't our Bill of Rights apply to those detainees? In principle if not in legality. I don't think every single one of those detainees are terrorists. If they were, there would be some sort of charge by now. It's been over five years for some of them. For how long can you suspend human rights and justice on the basis of suspicion. If you were incarcerated without any charges for even 24 hours, you'd cry foul. But because these people are possible terrorists it's entirely ok to hold them indefinitely? That's a huge miscarriage of justice.

I don't care what the other side does to support or deny the Geneva Conventions. I do care how we treat people. Because that is what freedom and liberty is about. Not basing our actions or morals on a comparative analysis on the wrongful actions of the 'other'. I see you doing that a lot, talking about all the heinous actions of terrorists and somehow moralizing our own inequities and wrongs because we haven't done as much wrong as they have.

Well said, Bob. Mike doth protest too much, so he becomes his own worst enemy. The disinformation and facts twisted out of context are too overwhleming to respond to it all. The significance of habeas corpus and the Geneva Conventions is that they are a reflection of fundamental American values that are also meant to be extented as universal human rights. It's plain hypocritical to say that we believe in human rights for Americans, but we're not willing to extend them to others. Yes, the Military Commissions Act is primarily directed towards non-citizen "unlawful combatants" but it also contains provisions that have ominous implications for citizens as well. The part that I italicized in the original article contain those provisions. Consider this provision, for example:

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. …


So, what does it mean "in breach of an allegiance of duty to the United States?" Could this possibly refer to an American citizen who "aids an enemy of the United States?" What is "aids" and what is "enemy?" These terms are not so clearly defined.

Mike asks, "What American citizen has been prosecuted under the Patriot Act?" as if because no one knows about it, it must be that it hasn't happened. However, that in the law which seems to be only theoretical can later be applied in a not-so-theoretical way. First, all the ducks have to be lined up in a row. What the Nazis did in Germany to undermine rights within the law didn't happen overnight. The Germans were one of the most educated people in the world at the time. They wouldn't have allowed it to happen if it were so obvious. Instead, it quietly, sneakily worked its way as a process that took place over years so that people wouldn't even notice, and then when they finally did wake up, it was too late. Once Big Brother finds an opening to take away habeas corpus, it may not act all at once, but eventualy, the dissenters who criticize the Bush Administration may be quietly whisked away, and it will all be legal. No one will know where they disappeared to or why that person suddenly disappeared, and the mafia-like government will deny any involvement, and then if finally confronted with undeniable evidence of it, will claim that it had the right all along under the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

As for any comparisons concerning the suspension of habeas corpus by Lincoln with this despicable act of Bush, it's absolutely ludicrous. For one thing , Bush is no Lincoln and the U.S. Civil War is not the Iraq Civil War. Lincoln was faced with outright rebellion, armed rebellion and seccession in a civil war within the U.S. and even so, his act was highly controversial then and still is - even today.

So, put this into perspective. There's no comparison between Bush and Lincoln, and the justifications given by those who supported this abomination of a law are completely flawed. Even Lincoln's justifications are considered by many as flawed, but there's no comparison with the dilemma Lincoln was faced with and Bush's phoney "war on terror." The only war is the civil war in Iraq, brought on by Bush's illegal invasion. As for the war against those who were responsible for the 9-11 atrocity, Bush gave up on that war immediately afterwards when his first decision was to give a free pass out of the country to Bin Laden's family and friends while all other Americans were denied those travel privileges. Bush also betrayed the so-called "war on terror" when he allowed Bin Laden to escape at Tora Bora. Bush betrayed the war on terror again when he secretly escorted 4-5000 Pakistani troops who had been fighting side by side with the Taliban. (See Seymour Hersh's Chain of Command) Who knows how many al qaeda hitched a ride on American helicoptors alongside their Pakistani and Taliban brothers? Then Bush betrayed the war on terror yet again when he decided that Saddam Hussein was more important than Osama Bin Laden. After all, how much oil is Osama sitting on in that Afghan cave? How many lucrative deals can be cut for Haliburton if Osama is caught or killed?

Bush is a traitor and a war criminal who should be facing impeachment proceedings right now, to be followed by a war crimes tribunal under the International Court. That will be his legacy. Even if he manages to escape justice, as the powerful are often able to do, the charges will remain, and his illegitimate presidency will stand as the worst ever in American history, as a complete abomination to the very name of the office for which the traitor pretends to stand for.

Here's a brief explanation of Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus for your reference:

As the Civil War started, in the very beginning of Lincoln's presidential term, a group of "Peace Democrats" proposed a peaceful resolution to the developing Civil War by offering a truce with the South, and forming a constitutional convention to amend the U.S. Constitution to protect States' rights. The proposal was ignored by the Unionists of the North and not taken seriously by the South. However, the Peace Democrats, also called copperheads by their enemies, publicly criticized Lincoln's belief that violating the U.S. Constitution was required to save it as a whole. With Congress not in session until July, Lincoln assumed all powers not delegated in the Constitution, including the power to suspend habeas corpus. In 1861, Lincoln had already suspended civil law in territories where resistance to the North's military power would be dangerous. In 1862, when copperhead democrats began criticizing Lincoln's violation of the Constitution, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus throughout the nation and had many copperhead democrats arrested under military authority because he felt that the State Courts in the north west would not convict war protesters such as the copperheads. He proclaimed that all persons who discouraged enlistments or engaged in disloyal practices would come under Martial Law.

Among the 13,000 people arrested under martial law was a Maryland Secessionist, John Merryman. Immediately, Hon. Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States issued a writ of habeas corpus commanding the military to bring Merryman before him. The military refused to follow the writ. Justice Taney, in Ex parte MERRYMAN, then ruled the suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional because the writ could not be suspended without an Act of Congress. President Lincoln and the military ignored Justice Taney's ruling.

Finally, in 1866, after the war, the Supreme Court officially restored habeas corpus in Ex-parte Milligan, ruling that military trials in areas where the civil courts were capable of functioning were illegal.


Copyright, 1999
American Patriot Network

For more on the controversy of Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/813646/posts

http://www.csulb.edu/~crsmith/lincoln.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/young-andrew7.html

People who want to bring an end to the United States as it now exists are living among us. It is apparent that we have a weak border system that allows millions of people to illegally enter our country, only a complete moron could possibly disagree with that. It is therefore conceivable that we have armed and ready terrorists in our country, waiting for the time to strike. They don't care about dying, they will kill everyone they can, mothers, children, brothers and sisters as they make their Islamic hero's journey to the heavenly virgins that await them. This is real and ingrained into their psyche from very early in life. The legal system is not set up to deal with war on our home soil. When war comes home to us, we need new mechanisms. Suspending habeas corpus will allow many of these terrorists to be detained before they can act, hopefully. When the jihadist comes running down your street, your mothers street, your sons or daughters street, shouting Allah Akbar! and firing his automatic weapon into their front living rooms, will you be so concerned about your ideology of human rights for these people then? Innocent people may be caught in the dragnet. Would you advocate the wholesale chaotic destruction and breakdown of the only country that has offered hope to the downtrodden of the world so that you would not violate someones civil rights? Wake up and smell the coffee.

__________________
Turk