I'm surprised there's been no discussion of this so far, but considering the Military Commissions Act passed in the Senate just as the Mark Foley story was breaking, I guess it's somewhat understandable. I myself didn't find out the whole story about it until very recently.

In a nutshell, the Military Commissions Act authorizes military tribunals and "tough" interrogations for anyone designated an "enemy combatant" -- basically, suspected terrorists -- and prevents such detainees from petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus. It's given the U.S. government everything it needs to hold Americans indefinitely without charges or legal counsel. This law is not merely wrong, it may be one of the worst laws passed in America's history. I'm not usually one to make such statements, but there it is.

If you're taken off the streets under this law and designated an enemy combatant, what recourse do you have? The definition of enemy combatant does not exclude American citizens. It's not farfetched that a journalist, activist, or opposition party member could someday (not necessarily during this administration) find themself on the wrong end of this kind of treatment.

This isn't about a particular distrust for George W. Bush. I think he's quite unlikely to use the law to detain legitimate journalists or activists. I'm also not naive enough to take it for granted that future presidents will always show that kind of restraint. There will be people running in both major parties' primaries who have very good chances to get the nominations and who scared me even before I knew they'd be getting this kind of power. And that's just in the short term. This law has no sunset provisions -- an amendment to add them failed. If it's not reversed, I have little doubt that someone will eventually misuse it.

You guys know I'm not one to sling mud at Bush. Plenty of times on this board, I've defended him from accusations I thought were spurious. So I want you all to understand that when I say that Bush has signed into law a flagrant violation of the Constitution, I'm not saying it because I want to smear him. I'm saying it because it's the truth.

Contrary to popular belief, and seemingly his own belief, George W. Bush's job is not to protect the United States of America. George W. Bush's job is to protect the Constitution of the United States. With the signing of this bill into law, it has become clear that he's failed to do his job.

America as we know it is done.

Yeah, this is pretty unsettling. And although journalists may not be in danger, I'm sure there are plenty of innocent muslims that have been taken into custody, as no system is perfect

I'm so leaving this country when im able to. I wonder if australia or canada would be better.. Probably Australia, farther away>.>

I agree, man, we should all just leave America. It's the responsible thing to do.

Damn you Americans are nuts.

Y'know, I don't know why, with all the possible problems that occurred to me regarding this law, the possibility of racial or religious profiling gone horribly wrong wasn't one of them. You're absolutely right.

As for journalists, you may be right, but it wouldn't be the first time, even if it has been a long time since the Alien and Sedition Acts.



Can't argue with that. We're insane to have let something like this pass.

Free's video is a good one, even if Olberman's trying a little too hard to be Murrow-esque. The things he's saying need to be said.

And defeatist attitudes help! Yes!

God this is apalling. I can only hope something in the way of an initiative online tries to tell Americans about this, or the "youth" (18-25) voters who have gotten so involved in politics lately realize what's going on and tries to tell everyone what this law is and what it represents.

I know my hope will be dashed, though.

Christ I hate Bush.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]And defeatist attitudes help! Yes!
[/QUOTE]I think you misunderstand. The fight was lost. Bush can do whatever the **** he wants now. NOW.

How, exactly, are people going to rounded up off the streets and called enemy combatants. That's not going to happen in the US, anyway. It's sketchy for everyone outside of the country for sure, but the effect in the US is going to be minimal at best.

No he can't. He's still gone in a little over a year, and he can only get so much done in between now and then. When he's gone, change will almost definitely come due to his unpopularity--if for no other reason than the new candidates using his unpopular policies as a platform to get themselves into office.

Seriously, grow a pair.

If you can indefinitely torture and imprison ANYONE YOU WANT INCLUDING AMERICAN CITIZENS FOR NO REASON, what the ****ing hell can't you do?

I'm not usre you guys understand the seriousness of this bill. Bush can solely declare anyone, ANYONE he wishes an enemy combatant then proceed to imprison them without a trial or even a reason.

I smell the ministry of love coming.

Time to leave oceania while you still can

He's going to have a very hard time declaring anyone an enemy combatant so for ****s and giggles. There is a fairly clear definition as to what an enemy combatant is and it's not Joe Schmo walking down the streets of some city in the United States.

Oh please. If Americans don't give a **** about their fundamental rights, they're not going to give a **** about a few citizens getting ****ed by the gov. That is, if they ever even find out about it. Never underestimate American Apathy. Look at what you already let happen.

Joe will be walking down the street. The DHS will need to fill their quota for the day, so they beat Joe up and drag him off to Gitmo. President Bush calls Joe a terrorist. Americans everywhere cheer while Joe is rotting in a chainlink cage being slowly tortured to death.

Remember the end of 1984? How about the end of RotS?

Here it is:



An unlawful enemy combatant, essentially, is anyone a military tribunal wants to apply the label to. And if the President doesn't like the tribunals he's got, he can make a new one. They needn't even be directly engaging in hostilities; "material support" is enough. Is a newspaper that publishes a leaked story about a government anti-terror program "supporting" those who would harm the country? Bush has made comments to that effect in the past. That's worrisome.

I guess it's not very smart to by KNO3 right now for the purpose of making smoke bombs.

I don't think you guys quite understand this new bill, and it drives me nuts. I'm not too sure on all the details either, but section 948c of title 10 of the United States Code states, as per the Act, "Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter." Section 948d of 10 USC states, "A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001."

From what I understad, the bill concerns the government's detention and treatment of ALIEN prisoners. The confusion comes from when Bush applied the term "unlawful enemy combatant" to some american citizens prior to the bill, but the bill clearly specifies that all this **** applies to alien UEC's.

So please, before you shout "OMFG AMERICAN CITIZENS RIGHTS PWNED", read a little bit you jerkoffs.

thats right ragna, people who don't live in the US are more like animals than actual human beings once you get down to it

Yes. How many of you here actually read the law before going one your "OMG! Bush and America suck!" trirades? Oh, that's right. None of you did.

I don't need to read, you'll always be nuts.

Damn you Americans are nuts.

It started with the PATRIOT ACT, continued with the REAL ID act, even more with the records ISPs must keep of all traffic on their servers for two years, continues with this. Anyone who tells you Americans are free is a complete moron.

I never expressed an opinion on the passing of this act, I merely presented and hopefully clarified the scope of the act.

Heh, funny, I knew someone would jump on me like this.

EDIT: Meh, sorry 'bout being pissy. I agree, the act's still ****, but I think this general statement holds: that some rights do need to be taken away in order to ensure the safety of this, or any, "high risk" country. Some of the rules set in our consitution seem too ideal for this day and age... It's been a rough week is all. You're a good guy thrawn. But I guess that doesn't really mean much coming from a fellow massassian.

The point is that with every passing week, it seems, another right is infringed upon by our government. I wasn't going to comment precisely because I haven't read the law itself, but having read what was posted here, now, I can say this:

Okay, so american citizens are not really at risk. Did you know that my dad is not technically a citizen? He has a green card, but he's not a citizen. He's lived here since he was 6 or 7 or around there, but he's Canadian. That makes him subject to this law. I hate to break it to you guys, but non-us citizens are people too, and deserve certain rights.

Aliens can also be considered citizens in the making. People who are working towards their green card, etc etc.


As long as you can still say this, we are free. We do not have complete freedom, no, and the laws passed as of late are...horrible to say the least. But we can still reverse them, we can still speak our minds, and that being said we can change what few wrongs that have been committed. Even so, we are still free.

Shut up Ragna. Habeas Corpus need not be tossed asside for anyone. The language of this bill is horrifying. OK, so maybe Joe MIGHT not be taken off the street; ok. Jose will. Our bill of rights expresses the rights of mankind. This bill is bull****. Pure and utter bull****.

And I'm suddenly a lot more angry and a lot more anti-bush than I was 10 minutes ago.

Hmmmm...
Now, I'm not... advocating anything, okay... but... it occurs to me... that this is rather unnaturally skewed towards foreign terrorist threats... yes, there's the whole tribunal thing...
Huh...
I... I think... something needs to change. Rapidly. A good push from congress (I wonder what my rep's email address is) would hopefully do it...
But, you know, if it doesn't... there's other options to employ.
Both to make a point and to actively retalliate...
I dunno. Bad mojo all around.

-On a related note, I wonder how this might interact with a re-instatement of the Draft. Just, you know, throwing thoughts out there. (Me hugs Amend. XXII, last beacon of fluffy hopefulness in a world going mad)

Again, you ****ing idiot. I didn't express any opinions in my goddamn post. If you weren't such an antagonistic *******, maybe you'd see that I was just annoyed at the fact that some people here were misinformed.

This pic always reminds me of Kirby.


-Just trying to lighten the mood. Also, In Befo' the Lock.

Haha. Quick to blame Bush when it was the Senate that passed this bill. It would behoove of me to actually click the link.

I swear I wish I could really really really rule the United States as a fascist dictator for a week just to show you call what a totalitarian state is like.

He signed it though.

Yes, I strongly disagree with this, but ragna is right, this only applies to non-citizens. And if any of you care to do a little research, you would know that the US government, as well as any other government, has been taking people off the streets illegally for a very long time. This just makes it legal, which is disgusting, but it doesn't really change any behavior of the government.

Also, I don't know if any of you know this, but Lincoln suspended habeus corpus rights during the civil war.

I am one of the people that thinks people are cute when they call bush a fascist dictator and worse than hitler.

He's no hitler: He's just ****ting on the foundations of our free nation. I'm not saying that makes him the worse thing in the world, I'm saying that it makes him real easy to hate. He could do with less ****ting on the things that make America what it is.

Oh and ragna: Maybe I jumped too quick on your statement, but it seemed like you were throwing away the severety of this bill: It might not effect all American rights (But that isn't to say otherwise. It could probably be fudged to be used against perfectly american citizens) it effects a gigantic portion of people who live here. To say "Now now, it doesn't effect americans..." seems a little heartless to me. Apologies if I've read too much into your words.

Isn't there something in your constitution about how the congress cannot suspend habeas corpus unless it's necessary for the protection of its citizens in times of rebellion or invasion?
Last I checked neither of those criteria had been met.

Yeah, this is bad, very bad.

I remember being absolutely convinced that Bush wouldn't be re-elected because he was so impopular... why do I feel the same way now?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not just trying to bash Bush, I'm seriously worried.

Several weeks ago Bush finally admitted that the CIA have been secretly transporting and holding prisoners on secret locations throughout the world. These detention centers are generally in countries where torture is practised.

When the first reports about the existence of these secret transports and facilities surfaced, the European governments asked for clarification. Thusfar, Rice has always denied the existence of these facilities.

Needless to say that the European governments are shocked that the US have been dishonest with their allies. Not only is their trust shaken because of the withholding of information, but especially because these are illegal practises. We're talking grand scale human rights violations.

People are slowly starting to see that this government will do whatever it takes to get their way, and it's just scary. Not only do they start questionable wars, they don't take the international legal order seriously. By the looks of it they don't take any legal order seriously. They'll just bend everything, including fundamental laws and rights, to their will. This new bill is another frightening example.

The stupid Dutch government should move our troops out of Afghanistan right away, but no... they're just a bunch of monkeys that'll do whatever the US say. As far as I'm concerned, the Netherlands should have no part in America's shady practises surrounding the treatment of 'enemy combatants'.



I couldn't agree more.

I love it. "Our country is screwed. I was glad to be an American when what was going on happened to be what I agreed with. But now that I don't agree and things aren't going my way... I'm out of here!"

I guess the opposite would be putting you at risk of indefinite imprisonment.

Well he can't be reelected unless he mananges to swing 2/3 of Congress and 3/5 of the states to overturn the 22nd Amendment.

There's a lot of talk going around about this, and I thought I remembered hearing that this bill could be used to try an American citizen such as John Walker Lindh or Jose Padilla. Upon rereading it does appear that's not the case, but it's a technical distinction at best. The bill allows the President (any President), in theory, to create a tribunal of his cronies with the power to apply the enemy combatant label. The civilian courts, from what I can see, are not a part of this process. So if an innocent Arab Muslim who's been a citizen of the United States for years is taken from his home one night on suspicion of being a terrorist, and they designate him an alien enemy combatant despite his citizenship, how does he get a court hearing to set things straight? Out of the goodness of his detainers' hearts? Maybe, but I doubt it.