Military Commission Act 2006 Violates The Constitution

[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.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by JaredM

Are you suggesting that a terrorist attack constitutes an "invasion"?

No, I'm saying they had to invade in order to attack.

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?

No more than that is necessary, since the potential for destruction is comparable to that from an invasion as traditionally defined.

Your interpretation of the Suspension Clause stretches credibility.

Or, your definition of "invasion" stretches credibility.

[JaredM]

[QUOTE=yguy]No, I'm saying they had to invade in order to attack.

If I recall correctly, the 19 hijackers came here legally...no invasion necessary.

Originally Posted by yguy

No more than that is necessary, since the potential for destruction is comparable to that from an invasion as traditionally defined.

The clause doesn't say anything about "potential" invasion or rebellion, much less terrorist activity.

Originally Posted by yguy

Or, your definition of "invasion" stretches credibility.

Um, no. The terror attack was not an "invasion" any more than the Vinnie Vincent Invasion was...and they even called themselves by the term (and were almost as big of a disaster).

By your definition, the entrance of a single alien, lawful or unlawful, who harboted some criminal intent, would be sufficient to suspend the Great Writ. That's a slippery slope I would rather not go down.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by JaredM

The terror attack was not an "invasion" any more than the Vinnie Vincent Invasion was...and they even called themselves by the term (and were almost as big of a disaster).

[godfry n. glad]

Hey, yguy?

What about this ?

If there is anybody is engaged in "traitorous" activities, I'd think you might want to look inside the Bush administration...possibly at the highest levels.

[yguy]

[QUOTE=JaredM]

Originally Posted by yguy

No, I'm saying they had to invade in order to attack.

If I recall correctly, the 19 hijackers came here legally...no invasion necessary.

The clause doesn't say anything about "potential" invasion

What a coincidence. Neither did I.

or rebellion, much less terrorist activity.

Oh. Then maybe the first amendment does apply only to print media.

Um, no. The terror attack was not an "invasion"

And I never said it was, as you know very well.

any more than the Vinnie Vincent Invasion was...and they even called themselves by the term (and were almost as big of a disaster).

I don't know who these guys are, and I don't care...but are you actually drawing a comparison between an "invasion" by a rock group and the preparation for and execution of the 9/11 attacks?

By your definition, the entrance of a single alien, lawful or unlawful, who harboted some criminal intent, would be sufficient to suspend the Great Writ.

Not just criminal intent, but the intent to do harm to the United States. Even a serial murderer doesn't necessarily meet that criterion.

[D. Scarlatti]

An unauthorized suspension of habeas corpus does no harm to the United States? That's your burden, yguy. Are you planning on meeting it, or not? Mr. Superior Understanding of the Constitution, who inserts words into the Constitution that don't even appear there ('covert,' in this case).

Are 'covert' rebellions also grounds for constitutionally authorized suspensions of habeas corpus?

[yguy]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

An unauthorized suspension of habeas corpus does no harm to the United States? That's your burden, yguy.

There's no way to answer that in general terms. It may or may not, depending on the motivation for doing it.

[JaredM]

Originally Posted by yguy

Oh. Then maybe the first amendment does apply only to print media.

Nice analogy there, Learned Hand. So, invasion is to terror attack as newspapers are to print media? Sorry, I'm not convinced.

Originally Posted by yguy

And I never said it was, as you know very well.

Ahh, I see your tactic...when in doubt, obfuscate.

Originally Posted by yguy

I don't know who these guys are, and I don't care...but are you actually drawing a comparison between an "invasion" by a rock group and the preparation for and execution of the 9/11 attacks?

It's nice to see that not only did you totally miss the joke, but that you are completely devoid of a sense of humor.

Originally Posted by yguy

Not just criminal intent, but the intent to do harm to the United States. Even a serial murderer doesn't necessarily meet that criterion.

OK then, a single "subversive" who enters the country legally then. Would that be enough to trigger the suspension of habeas corpus, in your legal opinion?

Come on, Chief Justice yguy, we eagerly await your valuable pronouncement.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by JaredM

Nice analogy there, Learned Hand. So, invasion is to terror attack as newspapers are to print media?

No, but as usual, that's not what I said.

Ahh, I see your tactic...when in doubt, obfuscate.

I am aware of your determination to make "clarify" mean "obfuscate" and vice versa, but I won't play under those rules.

OK then, a single "subversive" who enters the country legally then. Would that be enough to trigger the suspension of habeas corpus, in your legal opinion?

No. He'd have to reasonably believed by the CIC to have the means to accomplish his end.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by yguy

No. He'd have to [be] reasonably believed by the CIC to have the means to accomplish his end.

From whence do you derive this intriguing and novel constitutional test, Mr. Superior Understanding? From the 'rebellion' or the 'invasion' requirements? Remember, you don't get to 'the public safety' until you've satisfied one or the other.

[JaredM]

Originally Posted by yguy

No, but as usual, that's not what I said.

Bullshit, that's exactly what you said. This is why it is so tiresome to attempt to discuss anything with you. Newspapers and print media serve the same purposes; they are in effect, two different flavors of the same thing. Terror attacks do not necessarily serve the same purpose or seek to accomplish (nor actually accomplish) the same objectives as an invasion. Your analogy is inapt, because you are comparing apples and oranges.

Originally Posted by yguy

I am aware of your determination to make "clarify" mean "obfuscate" and vice versa, but I won't play under those rules.

You don't play under any rules, other than those you make up as you go along. You aren't here to contribute anyhting meaningful or even interesting--you are just here to be a troll.