Bush's terror law: How does it affect US citizens?

[sidwill]

I see where this law affects non-citizens by effectively revoking habeas corpus but what specific provisions affect US citizens? I ask because a conservative freind continues to bring this point up claiming that non citizens shouldn't neccesarily have these protections ( I disagree) and I would like to point out to him specific aspects of this law which erode HIS rights.

Can anybody help?

[notadmblnd]

1. It covers anyone the pretzledent deems an enemy combatant

including US citizens.

[sidwill]

3. Can you link me on this

Can you provide a link or excerpt of the bill supporting that it also affect US citizens?

[notadmblnd]

7. Keith Olbermans video from MSNBC's Countdown

last night. It's probably up on UTUBE now.

[davekriss]

8. My understanding is...

...that, though any person, citizen or non-citizen, can be declared an enemy combatant and subjected to Bush's definition of what is not torture, citizens are still covered by the writ of habeas corpus. For a cite, I suggest simply reading the bill (now law) itself, just google up "Military Commissions Act".

Their next step? Recall Ashcroft's calls in the 2001-2002 timeframe suggesting any citizen who opposes the Bush Regime's agenda should be stripped of their citizenry?

Note, also, that the bill absolves the Bush Regime from the fact that, up to the signing, they were breaking very serious law (and, note, we hung people in Nuremberg for similar actions).

[ixion]

2. sure... you can start with the Declaration of Independence

and then continue with the Bill of Rights, and finish up with the Geneva Conventions, just for good measure.

http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

http://www.genevaconventions.org/


From the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."



From the Bill of Rights


Amendment VI

In ALL criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.




Note the use of the word 'all'. All means, by defintion: the entire collection of a set. In these cases ALL men, and ALL criminal prosecutions. It specfically doesn't say 'some' or just US citizens, or even so-called 'enemy combantants' (whatever that means). It says ALL, very clearly and distinctly.



From the Geneva Conventions:

humane treatment of prisoners of war

Prisoners of war must be humanely treated at all times. Any unlawful act which causes death or seriously endangers the health of a prisoner of war is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. In particular, prisoners must not be subject to physical mutilation>, biological experiments, violence, intimidation, insults, and public curiosity. (Convention III, Art. 13)

Prisoners of war must be interred on land, and only in clean and healthy areas. (Convention III, Art. 22)

Prisoners of war are entitled to the same treatment given to a country's own forces, including total surface and cubic space of dormitories, fire protection, adequate heating and lighting, and separate dormitories for women. (Convention III, Art. 25)

Prisoners of war must receive enough food to maintain weight and to prevent nutritional deficiencies, with account of the habitual diet of the prisoners. Food must not be used for disciplinary purposes. (Convention III, Art. 26)

Prisoners of war must receive adequate clothing, underwear and footwear. The clothing must be kept in good repair and prisoners who work must receive clothing appropriate to their tasks. (Convention III, Art. 27)


Prisoners of war must receive due process and fair trials. (Convention III, Art. 82 through Art. 88)





Note the part about due process.


There has never been ANY rational argument made for the Bush Cabal's flagrant violation of ALL of these doctrines. They have been violated in the extreme, and quite out in the open, IMO.

I think that's probably why Bush just bought a ranch down in Paraguay. He knows damn well that war crimes charges are going to be filed at some point... why? Well, because he (and many others) have committed grave violations of both US and international law, and have committed war crimes and Crimes against Humanity. And although they may be (sort of) on top of the 'spin' now, it may not always be the case.

[Crayson]

4. At least if you ever set foot out of the US...

Imagine other countries without habeas corpus.

Come to Europe for a vacation and vanish in jail never to be heard of again...?
Like the idea?

You certainly won't see me setting foot onto US ground within the next 10 years if ever I can avoid it.
Most people I know who liked the US since childhood (back when the US was cool and the Soviets were the bad guys ^_^ in the movies) are now turning their interests towards asian countries or Australia for both business and vacation.

[natrat]

5. it means if he wants to get rid of a whistleblower,reporter or

political opponent he can-legally

[fasttense]

6. This old article explains it.

"Under the terms of this law, the president may designate any person as an “unlawful enemy combatant,” to be rounded up by intelligence agents and jailed indefinitely without legal recourse. The law defines an “unlawful enemy combatant” as “an individual engaged in hostilities against the United States” who is not a regular member of an opposing army.

Given the Bush administration’s elastic view as to what constitutes “hostilities,” this definition has the potential to erase any legal distinction between an actual Al Qaeda terrorist, an Arab immigrant who makes a charitable donation to Lebanese relief, and an American college student who clashes with police during a protest demonstration against the Iraq war."

There is no clause in the law that stops the bushes from declaring you, or any US citizen, an unlawful enemy combatant. Once you are declared an enemy combatant, you can be whisked away for life.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/sep2006/tort-s29.shtml

[sidwill]

9. I'm not looking for commentary

especially from the "world socialist website", no offense but in a debate with a "freeper" using the WSW as a source is akin to a freep using Newsmax as a source.

I'm looking for specific language in the bill that is either intentionally vague thus possibly allowing HC to be revoked from a uS citizen or outright states that a US citizen could be deemed an enemy combatatant and thus lose his/her constitutional protections.

Does anybody have a source that actually breaks down the bill?

[onenote]

12. you won't find the language you're looking for

As has been pointed out in numerous other threads, the MCA is an abomination because it deviates from principals of due process and fairness that should be inviolable in our country and because it ignores international norms regarding the treatment of prisoners, thus endangering our own forces and making us less safe.

However, the notion that US citizens are deprived of rights under the law is unsupportable. WHile the term "unlawful enemy combatant" is broad enough to cover a citizen as well a non citizen, all of the provisions of the law apply to unlawful enemy combatants that are aliens. Why not just include the term "alien" in the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant"? The answer appears to be that the decision to designate someone as an unlawful enemy combatant is not subject to judicial review. If the term "alien" was part of the definition, then the determination that someone is an alien would also not be subject to review. HOwever, by separating the term "alien" from the definition, a citizen who is designated an unlawful enemy combatant can object to being covered by the provisions of the MCA on the grounds that he/she is an alien and a court can (and indeed must) review that claim.

[Eric J in MN]

10. US citizens can be labelled "unlawful enemy combatants"

`(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--

`(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.

Notice the "or."

Even someone who doesn't meet the vague section i can still be declared an "unlawful enemy combatant."

[lumberjack_jeff]

11. This is pretty good

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20061011.html

Sadly, Dorf does not make the observation of the fact that there is no opportunity for a US citizen to prove his citizenship once disappeared into the dungeon.