Military Commission Act

Ardentfrost · 10-27-2006, 07:29 PM

Has there been a thread about this? I heard about it two weeks ago, and saw no talk about it on here. Now I get back, and I see this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJHl67FoJqk

I can't find any threads on this on LL and I'm just surprised. I figured there'd be lots of people upset about the loss of Habeus Corpus.

KatKanPlay · 10-28-2006, 02:17 PM

I have ranted about it in many threads, but it just doesnt seem to be an issue for most. I am astounded at the lack of interest in this topic and saddened.

motivez · 10-28-2006, 05:20 PM

We've discussed it in passing in other threads about similar issues, but yeah.

Losing Habeus Corpus, a basic human right since the 12th century is ridiculous, and it should show every reasonable person why they shouldn't trust the Bush Administration.

Lets not forget that they already illegally denied habeus corpus, due process, treatment rights to an American citizen before this bill, this just makes it official and prevents them from being prosecuted for their actions.

I was having a fairly heated discussion about this with a friend of mine on another board recently, more specifically about how Jose Padilla already felt the impact of what this bill accomplishes.

Originally Posted by motivez

Originally Posted by my friend

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed claimed that he asked Padilla to detonate a dirty bomb targeting 3 high rise buildings. Padilla converted to Islam, then showed up in Chicago after a trip through the middle east with $11k in cash and a list of al qaeda email addresses and contact information. Bit suspicious, wouldn't you say?

Suspicious, perhaps.

Suspicious enough to justify holding an American citizen without charge for 3 years? To justify denying an American citizen being denied access to lawyers for 3 years? To justify denying an American citizen the ability to challenge his detention for 3 years? To justify torturing an American citizen for 3 years?

Based on suspicion, and the flimsy evidence they had.. which was so flimsy that they transferred him to civilian custody realizing they'd never be able to get a conviction because it was all based on triple blind secret witnesses and hearsay? :roll:

Btw, I noticed you left out a word in your little list of "pseudo facts" about who he was. It's called an accusation for a reason. It's alleged. Yet to be proven.

We have a court system in place to deal with Americans who have committed every crime imaginable, including treason. If he's guilty of that, then he should be charged with it.. while being afforded all of the rights that are coming to him, rights which have been earned by the blood of real patriots, people unlike these draft dodging civilian hawks currently running the show.

If he's guilty, we have punishments in place. Notice the "If"? We have a standard called "Innocent until Proven Guilty". Perhaps you've watched Matlock?

We're talking about rights which you would want if you were accused of something. It's amazing to me that smart people are capable of justifying such idiocy simply because it's happening to someone else, someone they don't know, someone they're assuming is guilty, yet someone who's never been given a chance to defend themselves..

If this was your grandmother, would you feel the same way? Of course you wouldn't, but hey, he converted to Islam. He's a Muslim! All Muslim's are terrorists, right? And I mean, the Government being suspicious of something should grant them carte blanche to hold someone indefinitely without charge, while torturing them for information, because that's what we're all about here in this country.. you know, being no better than the people we're fighting. Right? America, Fuck Yeah!

Originally Posted by my friend

By keeping this man out of the public, President Bush is doing his best to protect American lives. Personally, I think the risk of releasing this man is greater than the risks associated with granting Bush these new powers. I place a lot more trust in Bush than I do in Padilla.

Of course you do, but isn't that trust really 'faith'? I don't give a shit if "Bush is doing his best to protect American lives" if he does it by making our country morally equatable with those we are fighting.

Nietzsche said, "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster."

No doubt we're fighting monsters. But we've lost when we've become them. And walking away from the rights and type of society that so many have died for in favor of expediency is doing exactly that.

Originally Posted by my friend

While I can see your argument that the power could be abused, that to me remains a very hypothetical risk,

News flash. The power has already been abused. Did you not read anything I said? He's an American citizen. Let it sink in.

Originally Posted by my friend

So while I theoretically like the idea of US citizens having the right to habeus corpus, it's more important to me that terrorists be prevented from hurting innocent people. I'm a pragmatist on such matters.

Yeah, uh. Suspected terrorists. You keep assuming being accused of something is automatically guilty. Does that mean if I accuse you of something, you're guilty because I say so?

If so, it sounds like you and Joe McCarthy would get along great, accuse anyone you feel like of something, and then ensure they never have a chance to defend themselves against the allegation. The people stay afraid, those in power remain in power through the use of fear of phantom terrorists seconds away from pushing a button, and everyone is happy.

Except the people getting tortured. But hey, being the pragmatist that you are, pesky things like human rights, ethics, and morality can't get in the way of some good 'ol fear mongering, now can it?!

Btw, don't take this the wrong way, but there's a good reason people who think like you about this stuff only amount to about 30% of the country anymore.. a 30% that's shrinking every day.

People are finally starting to join the "Reality Based Community" and understand that these people have been wrong about EVERYTHING. They've been incompetent from the get go and don't have a clue about how to effectively do anything but cut taxes.

I don't doubt your intellect, but man, you've been brainwashed by their rhetoric.

They've scared you into thinking that keeping you safe requires abandoning the principles this country was founded on, and unless you acquiesce to every single demand for more power, there are going to be 15 nukes going off in cities around the country, because there's phantom terrorists out there who are inches away from pushing the button if they find out Bush might actually have to follow the laws we have in place to prevent our country from becoming a tyranny.

Jefferson was right when he spoke about people willing to give up essential liberty for the illusion of temporary security deserving neither.

Honestly, I'm not sure there's another issue that makes me as angry as this one, because it's just wrong on every single level there is. The reasoning is based on flawed logic, scenarios that simply don't exist outside of television and the movies, and it goes against everything we're supposed to stand for.

As long as we are willing to treat people like this, we've abandoned the moral high ground and given these monsters a legitimate reason to be violently opposed to us.

If I got picked up and accused of something, and had done to me what some of these people have done to them, without ever being able to challenge my detention, if I ever got out, no doubt I'd leave there willing to do whatever I could to strike back. And, I'd be justified.

Is it any wonder so many people are willing to fight us when stuff like this has happened to people they know? Is it so mysterious? Iraq is a very small place compared to the US in terms of population, and the war has touched every one of them in one way or another.

thatguyoverthere · 10-28-2006, 09:02 PM

You can't bring too much attention to this issue. It really is a historic loss of freedoms in a country that used to be a beacon to the world. How are the Bush sycophants defending this one?

motivez · 10-28-2006, 09:33 PM

Google Video

Ardentfrost · 10-28-2006, 11:04 PM

It's one of those things that, when lost historically, is defended later. eg. when Abe Lincoln did it. I find it completely horrible that anyone feels that there is a good excuse for it. Ever. I don't care if there's a war going on, or space invaders are coming down and destroying our national monuments, the loss of habeus corpus is inexcusable.

IminWonderland · 10-28-2006, 11:38 PM

It makes my stomach turn.

And then I remember how my favorite novel for the longest time was 1984. But, then I wondered when I woke up and was IN the novel instead of just reading it.

Scrum · 10-29-2006, 01:29 AM

Seems that people are only too happy to sign rights away if there is not much of a chance of it affecting them directly.

It's a shame.

Ardentfrost · 10-29-2006, 01:32 AM

The "if you do the right thing, then you have nothing to worry about" defense is the saddest to me

kinggovernor · 10-29-2006, 06:30 PM

I personally think it is great

motivez · 10-29-2006, 06:31 PM

Care to expand on why you feel it's so great that the President now has the ability to detain American citizens and torture them for three years while violating their constitutional rights?

KatKanPlay · 10-29-2006, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I personally think it is great

Doesnt that take you down the path to marshall law? Or is that okay too?

Kytro · 10-29-2006, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I personally think it is great

It's great that people can be locked up on suspicion with no proof? Why?

I honestly cannot understand how people can justify this to themselves.

Theses are same people that are wary of oppressive government with too much power?

Is it that hard to prove people are terrorists or a threat to society that we require to simply assume they are because an official somewhere deemed it so?

kinggovernor · 10-29-2006, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Care to expand on why you feel it's so great that the President now has the ability to detain American citizens and torture them for three years while violating their constitutional rights?

because we are at war and when that happens executive power increases, it is the required for the safety and succuess of our nation.

KatKanPlay · 10-29-2006, 06:54 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

It's great that people can be locked up on suspicion with no proof? Why?

I honestly cannot understand how people can justify this to themselves.

Theses are same people that are wary of oppressive government with too much power?

Is it that hard to prove people are terrorists or a threat to society that we require to simply assume they are because an official somewhere deemed it so?

Great point, sounds very much like oppressive government to me.

kinggovernor · 10-29-2006, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

Theses are same people that are wary of oppressive government with too much power?

when a country is at war the executive branch needs to expand its power in order to do its job, which is to protect the people

Is it that hard to prove people are terrorists or a threat to society that we require to simply assume they are because an official somewhere deemed it so?

yes it is extremely hard and we can't risk making a mistake of not detaining someone because we don't have enough evidence for a warrant. We are not taking abour criminal acts, where society can withstand the negative effects of criminals running around that only haven't been put in jail because there isn't a rock solid case against them, we are at war.

Kytro · 10-29-2006, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

when a country is at war the executive branch needs to expand its power in order to do its job, which is to protect the people

At war with who? You cannot conduct war against non-nation states. The war has no real definition of victory or defeat. It is perpetual. The government does not need (has not shown the need) for perpetual powers such as this.

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

yes it is extremely hard and we can't risk making a mistake of not detaining someone because we don't have enough evidence for a warrant. We are not taking abour criminal acts, where society can withstand the negative effects of criminals running around that only haven't been put in jail because there isn't a rock solid case against them, we are at war.

If we throw away checks and balances like this, the government could simply put anyone in detention simply because someone claims they are dangerous.

The fact remains that terrorists are a low risk in comparison to many other things, yet the government needs the power to assume guilt over innocence?

I think you are far to trusting of the government to believe they are protecting your interests, rather than their own

kinggovernor · 10-29-2006, 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

At war with who? You cannot conduct war against non-nation states. The war has no real definition of victory or defeat. It is perpetual. The government does not need (has not shown the need) for perpetual powers such as this.

this type of thinking will ensure a defeat from out enemy, islamic fundamentalists.

If we throw away checks and balances like this, the government could simply put anyone in detention simply because someone claims they are dangerous.

The fact remains that terrorists are a low risk in comparison to many other things, yet the government needs the power to assume guilt over innocence?

I think you are far to trusting of the government to believe they are protecting your interests, rather than their own

The supreme court backed up when Lincoln did it, saving the union required taking temporary extreme measures, today is no different.

Terrorists are a very high risk, do you think they are kidding around or something? One of the few things governments do well is protection of its citizens, which is what this is all about.

Kytro · 10-29-2006, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

this type of thinking will ensure a defeat from out enemy, islamic fundamentalists.

They have no armed force capable of invading or defeating the US armed forces or even the US population.

How can they possibly defeat the US, and how is locking up people without proof going to prevent this?

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

The supreme court backed up when Lincoln did it, saving the union required taking temporary extreme measures, today is no different.

Today you are fighting a perpetual war that has no real definition.

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Terrorists are a very high risk, do you think they are kidding around or something? One of the few things governments do well is protection of its citizens, which is what this is all about.

High risk? As a cause of death, how high is terrorism? I'm willing to bet that terrorism isn't a likely cause of death for most Americans. What happened was 9/11 scared everyone into thinking that terrorism against US civilians is commonplace when in fact it is not.