Regarding the Military Commissions Act and US Citizens

[nam78_two]

I see two threads debating this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2436090&mesg_id=2436090

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2434725&mesg_id=2434725

First of, this act is revolting and despicable even if it cannot and never will be applied to a US citizen.

But on the question of whether it can be used against citizens, my understanding of legal issues is rudimentary, but it seems to me that when combined with the Patriot Act II, it can be used against citizens :shrug:?

Doesn't the Patriot Act II strip the citizenship of people found to be "materially aiding terrorists" whatever that means?

http://www.counterpunch.org/mariner03082003.html
Section 501 of the bill, deceptively titled "Expatriation of Terrorists," would allow the presumptive denationalization of American citizens who support the activities of organizations that the executive branch has deemed "terrorist." While it is already illegal to provide material support to such groups, even for their lawful activities, such support is grounds only for criminal prosecution, not for the loss of citizenship.

Right now I can only find this counterpunch article, but I have read this in the NYT and a few other places too before.


But again, I am confused by how the stripping of citizenship would work and so on.
Any thoughts?
I have no idea what is going to ensue from this legislation, but I am curious as to whether this is even possible.

[pooja]

1. wouldn't it follow then that giving money to gop would be aiding

terrorists... they seem to terrorize everyone these days... from young children to old people...

[pat_k]

2. "Rights Not Judicially Enforceable" -- there is no debate on this

The War Criminals Protection Act of 2006:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2432091">War Crimes Proven: "RIGHTS NOT JUDICALLY ENFORCEABLE"

[nam78_two]

3. Thanks for the link/nt

[pat_k]

6. The appalling provision that declares human rights not judicially enforcea

. . .enforceable has gotten FAR too little attention. It is mind boggling. I should probably put it on a card. Then, if anyone tries to defend the War Criminals Protection Act, I could just hand them the card and say: "Read it." "Now, Read it again."

. . .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.

[onenote]

4. the "Patriot II" language you cite was never introduced or enacted

It was in a draft bill that was leaked. It was never introduced. Never passed. Isn't law. Its simply, unequivocally not the law.

[nam78_two]

8. Thanks for the info

My head keeps spinning with all the shit the bastards are doing...
Hard to keep track of it all....
I was -ignorantly apparently-under the impression that that one had made it through :).
Following their crimes on the environmental front alone is a full time job ;).

[whistle]

5. Why is this bill called "Military Commissions Act"?

[pat_k]

7. Clearly a misnomer -- it's the "War Criminals Protection Act of 2006" nt

[doublethink]

9. We're on the same wavelength ..

Been kind of looking into this myself, but that provision (501) was leaked and I believe struck out of Patriot Act 2. Who knows if it was snuck into some other obscure bill? :shrug: Anyway found some other obscure law in these two articles a snip-it here ....

... A little known provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 USC 1481, that has been on the books for decades but is an even more rarely utilized statute than the treason law (and possibly may never have been used in an adversarial, involuntary case), allows for both naturalized and native-born US citizens to be stripped of their citizenship if they engage in certain activities. Among the most notorious such activities, as defined in subsection (a)(7) of the statute, are: “committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.” -snip-

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2006/10/terrorists_traitors_and_citize.php

and the law 8 USC 1481 here ..... http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=8&sec=1481

Guess it's all up to Bush .... he is the decider you know. :sarcasm:

Anyway I wouldn't doubt he put a 'signing statement' to the bill we are all debating.... stating he could include U.S. native born citizens if he so pleased. Again :shrug: Peace.

[nam78_two]

10. Thanks for the links

Thats interesting...This stuff is very confusing :shrug:

[doublethink]

11. Your welcome ......

good luck in your research, is a bit confusing isn't it? :crazy: If I find anything else worth a hoot I'll post it in your thread, you do the same and I'll bookmark it for further reference. Peace again and try to stay sane through all this. :)

[nam78_two]

13. yup

:hi:
Thanks...

[BelgianMadCow]

12. Ah yes, the signing statement - we were all looking for it

a couple of days back. Is it out yet?

[doublethink]

14. Haven't seen it yet myself ....... but .....

I'd almost post a bet that he included a 'Signing Statement' to this thing. Which would make all our research on this .... well kinda a mute effort. :( But you can never learn enough huh! So we will continue ..... Peace. :)

[BelgianMadCow]

15. I think the odds are good on that bet

as I was trying to find back the resource to see al signing statements, which was posted on the earlier thread looking for just that, I came across these examples :
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/

[nam78_two]

16. Yeah its going to be interesting to find out what his

signing statement on this one is...

[doublethink]

17. Here's another link .....

to his signing statements through Oct 17th 2006, that would be ... the day before yesterday .... nothing there at the bottom of the page on this bill ... hmmmm, just the defense bill for 2007.

http://coherentbabble.com/signingstatements/TOCindex.htm#2006

[doublethink]

18. DU'er Harvey Korman ......

has his ducks lined up in the following post concerning 'Case Law' ... and is the best possible scenario I've seen yet on how this could work out ..... link here ..... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2894955 Peace again.