Military Commissions Act

[John Terry]

Police state..............??

It must be when you consider that this gives the president the extraordinary authority (in violation of the Constitution) to designate anyone an enemy of the state on his say alone with no corroborating evidence.

It amongst other things amounts to the annulment of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the loss of habeas and due process, the removal of checks and balances and separation of powers, and the end of republican government replaced by congressionally and judicially allowed tyranny.


Looks like you all 'enemy cobatants' now!


Whats your take on this?

[Sponsored Links]

[Scooter]

The Liberal view is that this is an erosion of civil rights.

The conversative view is that this is necessary and the bomb throwers have no rights.

As is usually the case, the truth is somewhere in between.

Clearly, this is an unconventional war with "combatants" attacking various countries and facilities without uniforms, without a declaration of war, and without playing by all the western "rules" of war. I do understand that the rules of war only work if both sides agree to play by them.

I do believe that in some narrow circumstances there may be a person who has such extraordinary knowledge of the terrorists, that they must be treated differently, e.g., not brought within the criminal justice system, and held outside.

So far, I remain unconvinced that this is appropriate to date. We successfully prosecuted the Sheik in the 1st World Trade Bombing, and the whacko from Minnesota that wanted to be one of the 9/11 bombers but was too stupid, and another guy who came in from Canada to blow up something in LA. I forget all their names. If these bomb throwers can be sucessfully prosecuted, I am not seeing the necessity of the Act.

I caution everyone that we know nothing. The Act could have saved thousands of lives, or none. This President won't tell us citizens anything. He only speaks through Fox News.

[Big AL]

John,
It comes down to trusting your government.
I tend not to be an extremist, and if you'll look at the act from a middle-ground perspective, you'll see it's need.
We as Americans expect our government to protect us, and to that end, there are "things" which we must trust that government to conduct/oversee in secret...especially when revealing the details could cause further harm to it's citizens.
As Mr. Spock said, "The good of the one, cannot outweigh the good of the many."
:usflag:

[sdaniels7114]

Yeah but the government always seems to get around to messing with the many if iron clad protections for the one aren't maintained. I can't imagine it would be real hard to gain convictions of terrorists. I'd expect that the hardest part would be finding 12 jurors who didn't wanna skip right over the trial part and just execute any defendant of Middle Eastern descent.

[jvcstone]

My take on this is that every time we let part of our constitution be whittled away, ignored, or flat out compromised, we let it become easier to do it again, and again. Warrantless monitoring of phone conversations might be a good thing in hunting down terrorists, but it is only a short step from that to monitoring every ones phone conversations, or monitoring our financial transactions, or watching our every move. How about a national ID card that conveniently contains a computer chip that you never can get away from. How about if anyone can be held incommunicado just because some government entity wants that. Any of the stuff this administration says it needs to do in order to protect us from terrorists can be, and will eventually be used against others of us who just happen to believe a little different, or look a little different, or whatever the excuse dujour is. But then that wouldn't be the first time such has happened in "free" America. The one positive thing I carried home from Vietnam was to never ever believe something coming out of a Washington mouth. It may be the job of our government to vigilant for us, but it is even more important for us to be vigilant of our government. Otherwise we will wake up one day to realize that all of our freedom is gone---for the good of the many.

JVC

[Big AL]

>>>"Otherwise we will wake up one day to realize that all of our freedom is >>>gone---for the good of the many.

>>>JVC

sorry, don't know how to capture quotes, so had to copy and paste...


Anyway...
As a Bible believing Christian, I do believe that someday (maybe soon) all of our freedoms will be gone. All power and control will be given to a one world leader, referred to as AntiChrist in Revelation.
However, I will be long gone. (raptured or dead already)
Maybe that is why these things don't fire me up much. In my thoughts, it's been spelled out from the beginning.

I guess in light of this, if I was not of the belief system that I am, I would be a little ticked off over this, or maybe even afraid.

[John Bridge]

I agree with John. The Bible has nothing to do with it. It's the Constitution I'm worried about. :)

[Big AL]

Depends on your view of the Bible as to whether it matters or not.

[John Bridge]

I agree that that, too, Al. :)

[cx]

Well, Al, your view of a particular religious document may or may not make it matter to you, but the Constitution is a bit different. If you're an American, it matters to you. You're not required to like it or even agree with its content, but as the foundation of our form of government, it certainly matters.

And when it is defiled by the officials elected under its provisions and sworn to uphold it, that matters a great deal to all Americans regardless their view, and certainly even affects those who may think it doesn't "matter" or isn't important.

[EEEO]

I think Mr. VanCamp said pretty much exactly what I would have said, only he said it much better.

(Although in my mind he doesn't have that funny Southern accent) :D

[John Terry]

I agree with you jvc, jb, scoot, cx etc but, i'm not convinced in the slightest way about the religous thing - waiting around for something to happen when what we should be looking at is whats happening now! It's nothing more than a distraction and all just a little bit to convinient to have a 'Gotterdamerung' belief system to take our minds off things when we face a military/capatalist driven, continual errosion of our civil liberties. Religions not the point hear anyway, although it does feed into the equation for sure (end of rant).


On jvc's coments - we've (UK & US) got those phone taps already, every financial transaction is logged, and come to Britain we have 20% of all the cctv cameras in the world, were always being watched, were getting the ID cards too!!. And the iccomunicado thing - we do that as well - house arrest effectively!!. I think the US does something similar ++rendition++.


What about the other law quietly signed in just after the Military Commission Act; the provision revising the Insurrection Act of 1807 that along with the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibits the use of federal and National Guard troops for law enforcement inside the country except as allowed by the Constitution or expressly authorized by Congress in times of a national emergency like an insurrection.

The new Public Law 109-364 (HR 5122) called the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 allows the chief executive the right to claim a public emergency, effectively declare martial law, and deploy federal and National Guard troops anywhere on the nation's streets to suppress whatever he calls public disorder.

Thats another nail in the 'constitutional coffin'.

[Shaughnn]

This bill is currently up for a vote in the House of representatives. H.R. 4239 willl effectively designate protest groups like PETA as "terrorist organizations". Can the Kiwanas be next?
The Senate companion bill is S. 3880 and it quietly passed a vote back in September.
Shaughnn

[Big AL]

Let me clarify please. :calm:

I believe the religious side does play in directly to the argument.
Afterall, it's the terrorists that made it so. (but i ain't chasin' that rabbit trail here)

IMHO, the Constitution has been bent, twisted and tattered on several turns for the past 30 years. This is nothing new.
I am one who looks at the Constitution's "original meaning"..,or intent.
In this context, we no longer have many of the freedoms the framers originally intended.
I believe that Mr. Bush used to believe this way, but lately has been using the modernist side to push through his agenda.

So why just now do people get upset at the constitution's eroding?

This is not meant to excite or insite you folks, it's just where I come from.
Look, there's nothing new under the sun. All goverments are corrupt (or become corrupt) but the Bible never changes. The constitution is a man-made document...the Bible is not.
Looking at the world from this viewpoint just lets me know that I am not, and cannot be in control, but God can.
My faith is in Him, and not the government or our eroding constitution.


On another thought thread: I think we all agree that there are certain things we must allow our government to undertake that cannot be made public.
During the cold war, it seemed ok because everyone hated the Red Russians.
Now, the enemy is not so clearly defined, either by territory, or ideology.
The enemy is amongst us and has demonstrated such.

as far as PL109-364--you can thank the Hurrican Katrina screwups for that one. I don't think it is related

[John Bridge]

I have been "bent" a long time over the erosion of the Constitution. Like Judge Robert Bork, I adhere to the "original understanding" of the document. It doesn't matter much what the founders intended. What pertains is what "the People" understood them to mean. The people ratified the document and proclaimed it something other than a piece of paper.

George Bush apparently squandered his expensive education. He didn't learn much. And that's giving him the benefit of the doubt. It says he's ignorant of what he has sworn to uphold. He is either ignorant, or he has broken his oath. Same goes for everyone in Congress.

Defending the Constitution is not a part-time thing. You'd better be glad there are people who keep an eye on it full-time. :)

[EEEO]

My faith is in Him, and not the government or our eroding constitution.


Faith in your god is fine, I have no problem with that. I feel that everyone has a right to believe what they want as long as it doesn't harm others.

I do question how you cannot get "fired up" about an erosion of your rights. Indeed, the very man-made document that grants us rights such as freedom of religion is being threatened. Faith aside, ask the Jews how their government affected them, then tell me how an entire nation of people allowed it to happen. Complacency jeopardizes everything we hold dear.