5-4: Supreme Court backs rights for Gitmo detainees... - Page 3 - PhillyBlog

Mars · #21 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 03:03 PM

Here is some background...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus

As far as arbitrarily being labeled a "terrorist" or "enemy combatant" under the Military Commissions Act of 2006...alot of the provisions harken back to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. That act is now on exhibit in the Constitution Center as an affront to the Constitution. They have a couple of empty cases for the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act with a bust of Bush in the middle of the soon to be released exhibit...I got a sneak preview...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

Quote:

Unlawful and lawful enemy combatant

<B>"Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under chapter 47A – Military Commissions (of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (10 U.S.C. 948a (Section 1, Subchapter I))). The definition of unlawful and lawful enemy combatant is given in Chapter 47A—Military commission: Subchapter I--General provisions: Sec. 948a. Definitions

"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-Qaida, 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." ... "The term 'lawful enemy combatant' means a person who is — (A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States; (B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or (C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States." The Act also defines an alien as "a person who is not a citizen of the United States", and a co-belligerent to mean "any State or armed force joining and directly engaged with the United States in hostilities or directly supporting hostilities against a common enemy."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar...ns_Act_of_2006</B>

ChiefSalsa · #22 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Wolf

I ask again: do you think that the government should have the right to suspend habeas corpus and "disappear" whomever it wants to offshore detention centers?

If those being held are trying to blow stuff up, yes, I am more than comfortable with that.

Mars · #23 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefSalsa

If those being held are trying to blow stuff up, yes, I am more than comfortable with that.

I see you won't have any problems with Martial Law and dictatorship. This 4th of July watch out ..you might be renditioned to Egypt for TRYING or actually lighting a sparkler and some firecrackers....

ChiefSalsa · #24 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 03:32 PM

I am not trying to blow up a subway, and I am an American citizen.

I will take my chances. Pass the nachos.

Mars · #25 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefSalsa

I am not trying to blow up a subway, and I am an American citizen.

I will take my chances. Pass the nachos.

So was Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols and in McVeigh's case a Gulf War veteran. What's your background exactly..Pan Aryanism, Nordicism, Nativism???

Mars · #26 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 03:52 PM

Oh yeah....another one for the Constitution Center..

Quote:

Violent Radicalization - the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.[8]
Homegrown Terrorism - the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.[8]
Ideologically Based Violence - the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.[8

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent...on_Act_of_2007

ChiefSalsa · #27 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mars

So was Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols and in McVeigh's case a Gulf War veteran. What's your background exactly..Pan Aryanism, Nordicism, Nativism???

I have no idea what that contributes to the conversation.

McVeigh was an American who committed an atrocity against Americans on American soil. He was tried, convicted, and punished.

Your point?

Mars · #28 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 04:14 PM

My point is that people like yourself allude to all terrorists being foreign...McVeigh was one of our own. Even if we militarized the mexican border and started railing against illegals...this guy still would have done what he did. That's my point...

ChiefSalsa · #29 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 04:20 PM

I did not allude to anything. You are gerrymandering the conversation to fit your focus.

If you plan to blow up something up on American soil and you are American, you have Constitutional rights. If you are not American and you try to do that during a declared war, you do not.

MayfairMeat · #30 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Wolf

*facepalm*

Either you're a civilian and subject to civil laws, or you're a member of a military organization and subject to military laws. Prisoners held at Gitmo are either in US territory and subject to US laws or they are in Cuban territory and subject to Cuban laws.

All the Supreme Court did was say that this legalistic limbo that the Bush administration has been trying to create doesn't exist.

Or would you prefer that the US government be allowed to ignore habeas corpus and make people "disappear" into off-shore prisons, never to be see again?

Look at it this way.

If Iran did the same thing as we are doing in Gitmo, people would be screaming at the top of their lungs that we should nuke Iran because of the injustices.

And yet, Bush/Rice have done just that by trying to put these people in a limbo state where they'll never have to face a trial and can sit in jail forever.

Until now. Good work, SCOTUS. You ditched a Bush tactic that was bound to do nothing but create more militants against the United States as it is.