Military Commission Act 2006 Violates The Constitution

[Freddy]

Congress passed a bill, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 on September 29, 2006 and Bush kept it in his pocket for 10 days while Congress remained in session and it became law without Bush's signature. Bush is gutless as he will use the law but will hide behind the fact the law does not bear his signature. The Act is blatantly unconsitutional in that it circumvents the Writ of Habeas Corpus which is only allowed to be abrogated by Congress if the country is invaded or in rebellion. Has the US been invaded or is there a rebellion in the US? Hopefully, a challenge in court will quickly strike down this unconstitutional law!


http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleV..._no=1&back_url

[godfry n. glad]

Did you ever consider that he might think of the 64% of the American public which disagrees with him might be in rebellion?

[Shelli]

Unholy shit.

[Shelli]

Enabling Act

…(N)o court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, … including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this chapter.

…

No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

The language of the new Enabling Act is a bit more baroque than that used seventy years ago. And, to be sure, it is not as far-reaching as that of its predecessor. But make no mistake: Just as the 1933 Enabling Act created the context for dictatorship, so does this one. The German legislature told the executive that it had the power to make law and ignore the constitution. If Congress passes this bill, the American legislature will second the motion.

It is just one bill, you may object; it only applies to terrorists, you may say; we are not Nazi Germany, you may insist. And yet. The forthcoming FISA bill extends Enabling Act thinking to additional unreviewable executive powers. The slippery slope has been well-oiled. The Niemöller poem stands waiting.

It is probably unrealistic to expect bright lines to be obvious at the moment they are crossed. But they don’t get much brighter than this: Congressional leaders have agreed to suspend habeus corpus, grant the President of the United States the power to torture, and allow the executive branch to operate beyond judicial review. The Administration will be free to dispense with the pretense that Abu Ghraib was a rogue operation of unsupervised underlings. Like a black hole, an Administration exercising unprecedented power accretes still more, with the blessings of those who cede it. We are on our way back to the nightmare that Nietzsche foresaw (but did not advocate) in which all is permitted.

President Bush, in yet another dog whistle callout to his faithful, has claimed that the disaster of Iraq will eventually be seen as “just a comma,” a reference to a sermon urging that followers not “put a period where God puts a comma.” The first Enabling Act was one such comma. There can be little doubt as to the kind of sentence Bush wants to write.

[JackDog]

I didn't know that he didn't sign the bill into law....seems like something that he'd love to do. I guess the only question now is whether or not the current Supreme Court will strike this down as un-Constitutional.


The Hamdan ruling gives me a slight bit of hope........but I have a feeling that they'll let this one stand.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by JackDog

The Hamdan ruling gives me a slight bit of hope........but I have a feeling that they'll let this one stand.

If I'm not mistaken, the MCA was inspired by displeasure with the result in Hamdan. Hamdan was a 5-3 decision (C.J. Roberts sat it out because he participated in the lower court decision that Hamdan overruled).

Of course it depends on a whole lot of other factors, but if the GOP maintains control of the Senate next month, and John Paul Stevens dies in office over the next couple of years (he's 86 years old), then the MCA will have a much better chance of withstanding a constitutional challenge.

What I don't understand is why the GOP isn't frightened of extending the power to conclusively declare U.S. citizens enemy combatants to a potential President Hillary Clinton. She could conceivably stick Bill O'Reilly into a navy brig.*

* Which would be awesome, but I suspect even the ACLU would oppose such an action.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Did you ever consider that he might think of the 64% of the American public which disagrees with him might be in rebellion?

He likely does. What is needed is a real rebellion, say a general strike until Bush resigns. Well there is always November.

[Freddy]

Update

I read on Wikipedia and on another site that Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 on September 29, 2006, but it was not presented to Bush until October 10, 2006. It appears that Bush has 10 days from 10/10/06 to sign, veto, or pocket it. So it is not law of the land yet. Here is another view on the MCA 2006.


http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolit...ureprosecution

[yguy]

There is not a doubt in my mind that, had W apprehended Atta et al before 9/11 could happen, you worthless bastards would have been calling for his impeachment.

[Plant Woman]

Originally Posted by yguy

There is not a doubt in my mind that, had W apprehended Atta et al before 9/11 could happen, you worthless bastards would have been calling for his impeachment.

What is this gobbly-gook? I don't grok.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by yguy

There is not a doubt in my mind that, had W apprehended Atta et al before 9/11 could happen, you worthless bastards would have been calling for his impeachment.

Is there an argument that you want to make in favor of the Millitary Commissions Act of 2006, or do you just resort to name calling and that sort of response. Some of us are actually concerned when our Constitutional rights are trampled upon by Congress and the President! I do not know about you but I have a problem when on the President's orders any US citizen can be arrested, locked up indefinitely without being charged with a crime, with no Writ of Habeas Corpus, without notification of family, and without legal representation. Is that the type of country you want to live in? This type of treatment is what was done in Nazi Germany, the USSR, and the PRC.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Freddy

I do not know about you but I have a problem when on the President's orders any US citizen can be arrested, locked up indefinitely without being charged with a crime, with no Writ of Habeas Corpus, without notification of family, and without legal representation.

Hey, I have a problem with it too. If you can produce evidence that the ultimate cause of that problem is someone besides Islamic terrorists, we'll have something to talk about. Otherwise Bush is certainly no worse than Lincoln, who didn't even get permission from Congress before suspending habeas corpus, IIRC.

[Waluigi]

I read a blog somewhere that he would sign it this coming Tuesday.

If only I could find that link...

[Dingfod]

He might not want to sign it, doing so may be used as evidence in International Criminal Court if or when the rest of the world finally decides enough is enough.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by yguy

Hey, I have a problem with it too. If you can produce evidence that the ultimate cause of that problem is someone besides Islamic terrorists, we'll have something to talk about. Otherwise Bush is certainly no worse than Lincoln, who didn't even get permission from Congress before suspending habeas corpus, IIRC.

True enough about Lincoln, but there was an actual rebellion at the time.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Freddy

True enough about Lincoln, but there was an actual rebellion at the time.

And at this time, there is an actual invasion.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by yguy

And at this time, there is an actual invasion.

What four planes hyjacked by 19 terrorists and used as weapons is an invasion of the US? It has been over 5 years since then and I do not recall the armed forces of the US fighting an enemy army on US soil. However, the US has invaded two countries. The first, Afganistan, was and is supported by most Americans. The second, Iraq, was supported at first, but most Americans do not support it today. I doubt many Americans equate 911 with the invasion mentioned in the Constitution. I Googled "Invasion of US" and found illegal aliens from Mexico were considered to be invading the US..

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Freddy

I doubt many Americans equate 911 with the invasion mentioned in the Constitution.

I don't know why they wouldn't, seeing how the covert pre-9/11 invasion resulted in more American deaths than did the attack on Pearl Harbor.

[Anastasia Beaverhausen]

Originally Posted by yguy

I don't know why they wouldn't, seeing how the covert pre-9/11 invasion resulted in more American deaths than did the attack on Pearl Harbor.

I'm going to quote your sig on this..


"I have no idea what that's supposed to mean, but I'm pretty sure it's false."
~ seebs ~

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Cynical-Chick

I'm going to quote your sig on this..


"I have no idea what that's supposed to mean, but I'm pretty sure it's false."
~ seebs ~

Well I don't guess the conversation has anywhere to go from there, does it?

[JaredM]

I doubt that one could make a colorable argument that an "invasion" has occurred in the sense intended by Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Nor did the September 18, 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force authorzie suspension of the Great Writ, so it would be difficult to make such an argument five years after the fact.

[D. Scarlatti]

It's unlikely yguy was contemplating original intent; he probably had in mind anal sex or something.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by JaredM

I doubt that one could make a colorable argument that an "invasion" has occurred in the sense intended by Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

Of course it has. What else would you call it?

Is it somehow less dangerous to "the public Safety" because it is covert?

[yguy]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

It's unlikely yguy was contemplating original intent;

Next you'll be telling me freedom of the press doesn't apply to broadcast media.

[JaredM]

Originally Posted by yguy

Of course it has. What else would you call it?

Is it somehow less dangerous to "the public Safety" because it is covert?

Are you suggesting that a terrorist attack constitutes an "invasion"? What evidence have you that any of our territory has been occupied by enemy forces other than the fact that a few alleged "terror cells" have been discovered in the United States?

Your interpretation of the Suspension Clause stretches credibility.