Bush's new bill allows imprisonment of us citizens forever

[redirish30]

U.S. citizens suspected of terror ties might be detained indefinitely and barred from access to civilian courts under legislation proposed by the Bush administration, say legal experts reviewing an early version of the bill. A 32-page draft measure is intended to authorize the Pentagon's tribunal system, established shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks to detain and prosecute detainees captured in the war on terror. The tribunal system was thrown out last month by the Supreme Court.



This is scary. This nutcase thinks he is above the law. Now I ask you, what would happen if clinton had tried this? IMPEACHMENT!

[BoogyMan]

How about some corroborating links to credible sources?

[Cobra]

I need a link, but if the law is about like what you described wouldn't it just be struck down as unconstitutional by the SC. He really can't go that far in the fight against terrorism, not with American citizens. The government doesn’t need that much power anyway, if they have something on you the civilian courts are enough and they should have to go through them with American citizens.

[redirish30]

This story was on the front page of democraticunderground.com check it out my friend.

[BoogyMan]

This story was on the front page of democraticunderground.comÂ*Â*check it out my friend.

DU??? Bwahahahahahhaha. I asked for a credible source. Got anything outside DU?

[redirish30]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060728/ap_on_go_pr_wh/detainee_rights


Check out the above site Boogyman. It's under yahoo as well. I don't make this stuff up. I report on what I see. Yahoo news is running it as well.

[BoogyMan]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060728/ap_on_go_pr_wh/detainee_rights

Check out the above site Boogyman. It's under yahoo as well. I don't make this stuff up. I report on what I see. Yahoo news is running it as well.

No problem, RedIrish30, thanks for the link to the info on Yahoo. Democratic Underground doesn't have a very good reputation and certainly doesn't count as a credible source.

Welcome to the forums. I look forward to some great discussions with you.

[redirish30]

Boogyman, do you consider yourself a Republican?

[BoogyMan]

Boogyman, do you consider yourself a Republican?

Yes, I do. Do you consider yourself a Democrat?

[redirish30]

yes I do Boogyman

[PittsburghAfterDark]

According to the draft, the military would be allowed to detain all "enemy combatants" until hostilities cease. The bill defines enemy combatants as anyone "engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners who has committed an act that violates the law of war and this statute."

Oh well, I say tough f'in sh_t.

I don't care if they're citizens or otherwise.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

[dsanthony]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060728/ap_on_go_pr_wh/detainee_rights


Check out the above site Boogyman. It's under yahoo as well. I don't make this stuff up. I report on what I see. Yahoo news is running it as well.


I've got no problem with this new law.

It applies only to the military, not the FBI or other police agencies. The military is prohibited from conducting police operations in the US. So, what this law says is that any US citizen captured in Afghanistan, Iraq or other place where the US military is conducting operations can be held as a terrorist suspect.

Makes sense. There were many US citizens who fought on the side of the Germans and Japanese. When they were captured on the battlefield, they were held as POWs and not given the "rights" they would have been granted as US citizens.

Alternatively, I'd say any US citizen captured on the battlefield should be executed as traitors.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Sedition and treason have seemingly become persona non grata.

Otherwise we'd be able to arrest half the Democrats in the House and Senate.

Okay, a third.

[rodeojones903]

yes I do Boogyman



Well, thats quite unfortunate. :D

[BoogyMan]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060728/ap_on_go_pr_wh/detainee_rights


Check out the above site Boogyman. It's under yahoo as well. I don't make this stuff up. I report on what I see. Yahoo news is running it as well.


I've got no problem with this new law.

It applies only to the military, not the FBI or other police agencies.Â*Â*The military is prohibited from conducting police operations in the US.Â*Â*So, what this law says is that any US citizen captured in Afghanistan, Iraq or other place where the US military is conducting operations can be held as a terrorist suspect.

Makes sense.Â*Â*There were many US citizens who fought on the side of the Germans and Japanese.Â*Â*When they were captured on the battlefield, they were held as POWs and not given the "rights" they would have been granted as US citizens.Â*Â*

Alternatively, I'd say any US citizen captured on the battlefield should be executed as traitors.


Extremely well said! :)

[dsanthony]

Extremely well said! :)


Thank you, sir.

[redirish30]

you people would have no problem with it. You can't just take aways right to be represented, a trial by jury, etc. That is BS! What would happen if you all had your rights taken away from you? What if Clinton had taken away citizens rights? Impeachment! What would happen if clinton illegally wiretapped somebody? Bush gets away with breaking so many laws it is pathetic. What would the scandal be if clinton had flipped people off in another country? It's all good for you guys because your party is in control of the government. WHen the shoe is reversed, you all better not cry about a single thing.

[Rider]

Redirish30- When we start talking about actions taken by individuals during wartime the rules change. There is always so much hyperventilation over any proposal by the administration or congressional Republicans that reasonable debate just flys out the window. If, under this law federal agents started sweeping the streets for dissidents and political enemies the uproar would be deafening. But that's not what this is all about. It's about the handling of terrorists and other combatants actually captured during hostilities or in active support of those combatants. The politicizing of this war by the Democrats has severely damaged our ability to defend ourselves. Politics used to stop at the water's edge, but no more. The left in this country has changed that forever; sadly.

[BoogyMan]

Redirish30- When we start talking about actions taken by individuals during wartime the rules change. There is always so much hyperventilation over any proposal by the administration or congressional Republicans that reasonable debate just flys out the window. If, under this law federal agents started sweeping the streets for dissidents and political enemies the uproar would be deafening. But that's not what this is all about. It's about the handling of terrorists and other combatants actually captured during hostilities or in active support of those combatants. The politicizing of this war by the Democrats has severely damaged our ability to defend ourselves. Politics used to stop at the water's edge, but no more. The left in this country has changed that forever; sadly.


Wow, Rider, this is an impressive, reasoned, and honest post that is devoid of invective. Well done and right on target! :)

[Nathan Brazil]

To the people cheering this measure:

Would you trust Hillary Clinton with the power to declare persons terrorists and thereby lock them up forever?

If not, explain why would you trust anyone with that power.

[Rider]

Thanks Boogyman.

Nathan,
I get your point and it does make me shudder. IMHO the FBI files scandal was the most serious betrayal of public trust and abuse of executive power in our history. It was also the most astounding example of Democrat/Media complicity to date.
What are we to do then? If we decided to put these cretins through our court systems Jihadists and their sympathizers the world over would be dancing in the streets. I wish Bush would grow a pair and ignore the court's ruling, which any lay person can see is clearly fantasy. It wouldn't be the first time that a president ignored SCOTUS.

[Cobra]

I wish Bush would grow a pair and ignore the court's ruling, which any lay person can see is clearly fantasy.
Yes ignore the SC court and congress too if the whipped republicans controlling it ever stand up to Bush on anything, who needs separation of powers. The terrorist might get us, yep we need strong dictator to save us.

I disagree Rider, even Bush has to follow the law. Detaining people indefinitely without due process goes against the very fiber of the Constitution. If the government thinks they're terrorists, fine, prove it before an impartial tribunal.

[Nathan Brazil]

Thanks Boogyman.

Nathan,
I get your point and it does make me shudder. IMHO the FBI files scandal was the most serious betrayal of public trust and abuse of executive power in our history. It was also the most astounding example of Democrat/Media complicity to date.
What are we to do then? If we decided to put these cretins through our court systems Jihadists and their sympathizers the world over would be dancing in the streets. I wish Bush would grow a pair and ignore the court's ruling, which any lay person can see is clearly fantasy. It wouldn't be the first time that a president ignored SCOTUS.


What are we to do about it? We're supposed to follow the Constitution, and apply equal protection of the law to all persons.

Is that difficult? So what if towelheads are dancing in the streets? We're not animals like them, are we? The guilty ones get hanged with pig rawhide after a bath in pork lard.

[Old Corps Gunny]

"Enemy combatants until hostilities cease." Pretty self-explanatory: personnel engaged in hostile actions against the United States. At least we detain them, in many other countries they would be executed out of hand. As far as I'm concerned, any US citizen who takes up arms against the US is a traitor and gives up his rights as a citizen. While I suppport the right to freedom of expression, I do NOT consider that to include providing material aid and comfort to those engaged in hostilities toward the US, and they should be charged and tried for treason.

[Rider]

Okay, Okay... you're all right. Defying the SC wouldn't be the best course of action. But really, the SC keeps coming up with these rulings that are so obviously bogus and nothing more that the personal opinions of a handful of unelected men. The Geneva Convention very specifically defines who lawful combatants are and the detainees are definitely not. It's decisions like this that has made the appointment of justices a heated battleground. If judges at all levels would do their job and nothing more no one would be terribly concerned who was appointed to the bench.