JustUsBoys.com gay porn forum

logo

remove these banner ads by becoming a JUB Supporter.

Results 1 to 26 of 26
  1. #1
    Delusions of Adequacy MadeUpName27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hellbany
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    1,732
    Blog Entries
    3

    Code of Conduct

    What Constitution???

    Today, George Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

    (For the full text of this legislation, go to www.senate.gov and look up S.3930)

    I am neither a Lawyer nor a Constitutional Scholar.
    I don't claim to be.
    However, I do know how to read.
    I own a copy of, and have read, the U.S. Constitution - many times.
    I do know what Habeas Corpus means.
    I am familiar with the concept of Due Process.
    And I am very, very nervous.
    If I have read this legislation correctly:
    We, as a nation, are doomed.
    Our worst fears have come to pass.
    The U.S. Constitution and all of it's protections have been declared null and void.
    The President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense now have the authority to declare ANYONE to be a terrorist, or a supporter of terrorists.

    Once that declaration has been made:
    S.3930 Military Commissions Act of 2006
    SEC. 7. (e)(1) 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.


    If YOU, dear reader, ARE a lawyer, or a Constitutional Scholar, please read the full text of this legislation.
    Assure me that things are NOT as bad as they seem...
    Please...
    "For your benefit, learn from our tragedy. It is not a written law that the next victims must be Jews."
    ~ ~ ~ Simon Wiesenthal ~ ~ ~

  2. #2

    Re: What Constitution???

    Quote Originally Posted by MadeUpName27 View Post
    Today, George Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

    (For the full text of this legislation, go to www.senate.gov and look up S.3930)

    I am neither a Lawyer nor a Constitutional Scholar.
    I don't claim to be.
    However, I do know how to read.
    I own a copy of, and have read, the U.S. Constitution - many times.
    I do know what Habeas Corpus means.
    I am familiar with the concept of Due Process.
    And I am very, very nervous.
    If I have read this legislation correctly:
    We, as a nation, are doomed.
    Our worst fears have come to pass.
    The U.S. Constitution and all of it's protections have been declared null and void.
    The President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense now have the authority to declare ANYONE to be a terrorist, or a supporter of terrorists.

    Once that declaration has been made:


    <B>
    S.3930 Military Commissions Act of 2006
    </B>

    SEC. 7. (e)(1) 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.
    If YOU, dear reader, ARE a lawyer, or a Constitutional Scholar, please read the full text of this legislation.
    Assure me that things are NOT as bad as they seem...
    Please...
    Whilst this may be of concern in terms of how we treat non-citizens, and you may feel that the placement of jurisdiction for unlawful, alien combatants under the purview of the military tribunals is inappropriate... are you holding that non-citizens are entitled the constitutional protections of the U.S. Constitution? If so, on what basis? If not, how can this text, appropriate or not, represent a violation of the Constitution?

  3. #3
    epicAdam
    Guest

    Re: What Constitution???

    Well, there are Constitutional grounds for which to attempt to overturn this law. Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States gives the Federal courts jurisdiction in cases where the United States is a party to a suit or where one of the parties is a foreign citizen or subject. However, Article 3, Section 2 also gives Congress the power to determine what types of cases the Federal courts can entertain. This is undeniably the route that Congress and the President will try and argue.

    However, opponents to the law will most certainly contend that there has to be some mechanism by which to challenge their classification as an enemy combatant.

  4. #4

    Re: What Constitution???

    Quote Originally Posted by maltese View Post
    Whilst this may be of concern in terms of how we treat non-citizens, and you may feel that the placement of jurisdiction for unlawful, alien combatants under the purview of the military tribunals is inappropriate... are you holding that non-citizens are entitled the constitutional protections of the U.S. Constitution? If so, on what basis? If not, how can this text, appropriate or not, represent a violation of the Constitution?
    Lets avoid the political spin please. Statements such as this "are you holding that non-citizens are entitled the constitutional protections of the U.S. Constitution?" are talking points. They are not meant for discussion, they are meant purposefully to end discussion. They are made because you have the assumption you area always right. If you are right shouldn't you be able to defend your position on its merits? If your position is right, you should have nothing to hide right?

    Lets get to the real meat of the issue. Do you believe that the president has or should have the power to throw a person into jail as long as he wants just because in his mind that person is a security threat to the United States?

  5. #5
    epicAdam
    Guest

    Re: What Constitution???

    Quote Originally Posted by maltese View Post
    are you holding that non-citizens are entitled the constitutional protections of the U.S. Constitution? If so, on what basis?
    And I quote,
    The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority... to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-... to between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
    US Constitution, Article 3, Section 2

    No person (notice: doesn't say anything about these proections only being for citizens*) shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury... nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.
    US Constitution, Fifth Amendment

    *The rights of Citizens are mentioned several times in the Constitution . Should the framers have wanted to say that only citizens are afforded such rights under the Constitution, they would have said so. In fact, in all other proceedings, non-Citizens are granted the same rights in regards to criminal prosecution.

  6. #6

    Re: What Constitution???

    Quote Originally Posted by Roland00 View Post
    Lets avoid the political spin please. Statements such as this "are you holding that non-citizens are entitled the constitutional protections of the U.S. Constitution?" are talking points. They are not meant for discussion, they are meant purposefully to end discussion. They are made because you have the assumption you area always right. If you are right shouldn't you be able to defend your position on its merits? If your position is right, you should have nothing to hide right?

    Lets get to the real meat of the issue. Do you believe that the president has or should have the power to throw a person into jail as long as he wants just because in his mind that person is a security threat to the United States?
    Look, you're the one trying to end discussion. I'm asking a question. I don't really care what you consider a 'talking point', because in English, that's a question mark at the end of the sentence. It's real, live, legal question. Feel free to answer or not, but keep the smug conceit about who thinks they're always right to yourself, at least while you're claiming to be right while refusing to answer a question. This forum used to occassionally be about discussion, but I've seen precious little of it of late, largely because of exactly the kind of statement you're making.

    In response to the second half of your post, which is actually a question, I believe that there should be a legal review process for any Presidential classification of a unlawful alien combatant's standing. However, I think that with a good legal process (legally constituted) in place, the military courts are an appropriate venue. I absolutely think that the Supreme court should have full review ability on the process which is established. I'm less sure about the decisions thus derived in a military venue, if they apply to non-citizens and had an appeal, with counsel, in a duely legislated and judicially reviewed process. Those with more legal background than me could certainly educate me and convince me to change or refine my opinions on the subject, but name-calling and condescension are unlikely to do so.

  7. #7

    Re: What Constitution???

    Quote Originally Posted by epicAdam View Post
    And I quote, US Constitution, Article 3, Section 2

    US Constitution, Fifth Amendment

    *The rights of Citizens are mentioned several times in the Constitution . Should the framers have wanted to say that only citizens are afforded such rights under the Constitution, they would have said so. In fact, in all other proceedings, non-Citizens are granted the same rights in regards to criminal prosecution.
    Thank you for a well reasoned response, your legal background exceeds mine, and I genuinely appreciate the information.

    From your comments, I think my question remains as to whether a military commission, when operating within the legal framework established by the legislative branch, and with the process reviewed and approved by the judicial branch, constitutes due process. I think that it does - the obvious challenge is the amount of transparency. Those that claim that the lack of transparency opens the process to abuse are right, and those that claim that full transparency causes a National Security problem are also right. That's the Scylla and Charybdis that a well crafted process has to navigate through. Whether this law does that is that question that I have, and certainly don't know.

    The way I read the law, it says that the courts don't have standing to review habeas corpus actions for an unlawful combatant alien. However, I don't see that precluding court action on whether the individual in question is indeed an unlawful combatant alien. Seems to me thats the first step in due process for such individuals.

  8. #8
    Virtus in medio stat JUB Admin opinterph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Jawja
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    21,242
    Blog Entries
    14

    Code of Conduct

    Re: What Constitution???

    The past five years have seen the USA engage in systematic violations of international law, with a distressing impact on thousands of detainees and their families. Human rights violations have included:

    • Secret detention
    • Enforced disappearance
    • Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
    • Outrages upon personal dignity, including humiliating treatment
    • Denial and restriction of habeas corpus
    • Indefinite detention without charge or trial
    • Prolonged incommunicado detention
    • Arbitrary detention
    • Unfair trial procedures


  9. #9
    epicAdam
    Guest

    Re: What Constitution???

    Quote Originally Posted by maltese View Post
    I believe that there should be a legal review process for any Presidential classification of a unlawful alien combatant's standing. However, I think that with a good legal process (legally constituted) in place, the military courts are an appropriate venue. I absolutely think that the Supreme court should have full review ability on the process which is established. I'm less sure about the decisions thus derived in a military venue, if they apply to non-citizens and had an appeal, with counsel, in a duely legislated and judicially reviewed process.
    The problems with the current legislation and how the detainees are being handled are these:

    1. Like you said, this current legislation makes no attempt to distinguish what an enemy combatant is, how they are classified, and how one would go about challenging that classification. For example, can the United States (i.e., the President) declare anybody to be an enemy combatant or only those people found fighting against the United States in areas of active fighting? Because this classification fundamentally affects what protections are afforded to you by law, then the classification is made a part of due process.

    2. It is not clear what part of the Constitution gives the President the power to conduct trials independent of the judiciary, which is clearly explained in the Constitution as the branch of government that will handle these types of cases. The Constitution is very specific where military justice will apply, namely in active service within the armed forces or as part of a Militia engaged in actual defense. The entire basis for the President's ability to hold "enemy combatants" without trial is wrapped up in the President's ability to conduct the Armed Forces as Commander-in-Chief. However, just because you are Commander-in-Chief does not mean that the President has the power to suspend the rule of law when he deems it appropriate to do so

    3. It seems as if conservatives are worried that if given access to the courts, judges will instantly set all the detainees at Guantamo Bay free. This is just simply not the case. If the United States has reasonable justification for keeping people in detention, they should present their case as to why they believe a prisoner is a threat. That's all. Surely if these detainees are such a grave danger, it would be easy to say why.

  10. #10

    Re: What Constitution???

    Here's the question that I always want to ask politicians of both sides, those making sound bites that deal poorly with the complexities of the battlefield and the law.

    It's a dark night in Afghanistan. An American convoy passing near to a simple farmhouse is fired on by a sniper. An unlucky bullet kills an American soldier. The lone gunman runs into the house. The soldiers surround the house and take all the occupants - 3 men, each named Muhammed - into custody. Muhammed number one is an Al-Qaeda trained gunman, guilty of the murder of American soldier. Muhammed number two is the owner of the house, a tribesman of the gunman - he has offered food and shelter, and knows of his tribesman's activities, but has declined to take part in violence against coalition troups. Muhammed number three is a neighbor, who was visiting as he came home from a trek to the adjacent market town, and knows nothing of the events leading to the soldiers entering the home. The soldiers are unable to visually identify the gunman.
    What action should be taken against each of these three men? Where are they detained? Who decides how long each should be detained? How long may they be detained?
    Any well crafted law must be able to somehow deal with all three of these men. I don't know the answer to this question. But I do know that you cannot just release the killer back to battlefield because a standard American ID line-up cannot be conducted. I know that you cannot just keep the innocent man locked up because you don't know who's guilty. And while I don't mind inconveniencing the supporter, neither have his actions merited any harsh reprisals, or at least not if we ever hope to pacify the country.

    After that, I'm open to suggestions.

  11. #11
    Sex God Green_Man_007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Georgia (south of ATL)
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    569
    Blog Entries
    9

    Code of Conduct

    Re: What Constitution???

    Quote Originally Posted by maltese View Post
    Whilst this may be of concern in terms of how we treat non-citizens, and you may feel that the placement of jurisdiction for unlawful, alien combatants under the purview of the military tribunals is inappropriate... are you holding that non-citizens are entitled the constitutional protections of the U.S. Constitution? If so, on what basis? If not, how can this text, appropriate or not, represent a violation of the Constitution?

    First of all, regardless of the self-serving, illogical determination by AshKKKroft, I cannot agree with denying non-citizens equal protection under the law.

    By such reasoning, it would be ok to murder, rape, and rob foreigners, because they're not legally "persons," as this administration defines "person" in the Constitution.

    What's to keep an (oft-abused) Executive Order from revoking someone's citizenship, and then subjecting them to the injustices dealt non-citizens?

  12. #12
    Sex God Green_Man_007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Georgia (south of ATL)
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    569
    Blog Entries
    9

    Code of Conduct

    Re: What Constitution???

    Quote Originally Posted by Roland00 View Post
    Lets get to the real meat of the issue. Do you believe that the president has or should have the power to throw a person into jail as long as he wants just because in his mind that person is a security threat to the United States?

    Well, the system of "us" versus "them" worked successfully for some nationalist groups before





    Hail to the Chief!
    Seig Heil! Sieg Heil!

  13. #13
    Sex God Green_Man_007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Georgia (south of ATL)
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    569
    Blog Entries
    9

    Code of Conduct

    Re: What Constitution???

    Quote Originally Posted by MadeUpName27 View Post
    Today, George Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

    I see their bid of one puny Military Commissions Act and raise them a binding International Treaty ratified in 1948.

    Universal Declaration of Human Rights


    Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948





    On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."
    PREAMBLE


    • Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
      Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
      Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
      Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
      Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
      Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
      Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
    Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

    Article 1.

    • All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
    Article 2.

    • Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
    Article 3.

    • Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
    Article 4.

    • No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
    Article 5.

    • No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
    Article 6.

    • Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
    Article 7.

    • All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
    Article 8.

    • Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
    Article 9.

    • No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
    Article 10.

    • Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
    Article 11.

    • (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
      (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
    Article 12.

    • No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
    Article 13.

    • (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
      (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
    Article 14.

    • (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
      (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
    Article 15.

    • (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
      (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
    Article 16.

    • (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
      (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
      (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
    Article 17.

    • (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
      (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
    Article 18.

    • Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
    Article 19.

    • Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
    Article 20.

    • (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
      (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
    Article 21.

    • (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
      (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
      (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
    Article 22.

    • Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
    Article 23.

    • (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
      (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
      (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
      (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
    Article 24.

    • Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
    Article 25.

    • (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
      (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
    Article 26.

    • (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
      (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
      (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
    Article 27.

    • (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
      (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
    Article 28.

    • Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
    Article 29.

    • (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
      (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
      (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
    Article 30.

    • Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.



  14. #14
    In Loving Memory JayHew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Glennallen
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Posts
    1,135

    Code of Conduct

    Re: What Constitution???

    The only thing I am seeing missing here in the discussion is the quote of the said section of the law, above, ALIEN. A citizen can't be declared an alien and then held.

    Another point that concerns me is the comparison of criminal justice to war time crimes against the US. I do not believe the two are compatable or comparable.

    I grant you I have some homework to do concerning this as it is a grave concern to me, but if my history lessons prove correct - In the Civil War Abe Lincolin suspended habius corpus. I do not remember if it was through a law passed by Congress or not. Also, the Civil War was AUTHORIZED by Congress 4 months after Pres. Lincolin committed troops to the effort, there was no Declaration of War (granted it was Civil Insurrection but is likely the only basis for this law) But that is the only thing I can refer back to and the subsequent arguments of those days as compared to the here and now.

    The only thing I can ask people of the US to do is to contact your representatives and voice your concerns, meanwhile, some learned scholar of law (if any are in the group) should try to enlighten those of us who are trying hard to be the best shithouse lawyers we can be.

    Reading reference: Harvard Law Review Vol 118:May 2005 Number 7

  15. #15
    JUB Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Golden Triangle
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    2,699

    Code of Conduct

    Re: What Constitution???

    MadeUpName27,
    Assure me that things are NOT as bad as they seem...

    To me, things are worse than they seem. Now, our freedom is in the hands of George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. A terrorist can be an "individual" with no recourse to the courts. This "individual" can be whoever (whomever) "they" say he is. Today might be the end of America as we know it. King George has just been crowned, or rather, seized power. This might be the worse day of our lives.

  16. #16
    Back to Square 1
    springboksfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    9,064
    Blog Entries
    23

    Code of Conduct

    Re: What Constitution???

    Actually, they've been throwing that bit paragraph in all sorts of proposals the last few years. Even the Federal Marriage Amendment and/or Marriage Protection Amendment contained that joyous stipulation.

    Indeed, this is a fantastic question for a constitutional scholar. I've pondered this--not deeply, mind you--since I first saw it a year or so ago.

    Oh, and, gentlemen, please keep the topic about the phrasing of the paragraph quoted in the original post and not worry about the "alien v preda--citizen" classification, okay? Thanks.
    Hockey First!

  17. #17
    seapuppy
    Guest

    Re: What Constitution???

    Green man,

    It's interesting that you quote the 'Universal Decleration of Human Rights' as the Taliban and Al Qieda forces we fight in Afghanistan make a point in their deepest beliefs and girded by their every terrorist act of destroying each and every one of those Declerations.

    The American forces in Afghanistan are in a desprate struggle to secure the "universal rights" of the Afghani people.

    Maltese gave an excellent example of the kind of situations that our forces face on a daily basis. I didn't agree with the President acting before without Congressional input, but to act as if the President or the military is just aching to start torturing people is unfair.

    These are non-uniformed, enemy combatants. In past history they would have simply been, legaly and traditionally, shot through the head on capture. We no longer do that. (We did EXACTLY that as late as WWII by the way...).

    We are not bound by any obligation to treat them under our criminal laws as defendents or under the universal human rights delarations as they are engadged in active warfare against the United States.

    After the Supreme Courts ruling, a middle way HAS to be found to treat these people. I support both sides of the aisle and the President for trying.

  18. #18
    JUB Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Golden Triangle
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    2,699

    Code of Conduct

    Re: What Constitution???

    Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
    On the President Signing the Military Commissions Act

    October 17, 2006

    “The legislation signed by the President today violates basic principles and values of our constitutional system of government. It allows the government to seize individuals on American soil and detain them indefinitely with no opportunity to challenge their detention in court. And the new law would permit an individual to be convicted on the basis of coerced testimony and even allow someone convicted under these rules to be put to death.

    The checks and balances of our system of government and the fundamental fairness of the American people and legal system are among our greatest strengths in the fight against terrorism. I am deeply disappointed that Congress enacted this law. We will look back on this day as a stain on our nation’s history.”
    I wanted to share the above statement by Russ Feingold.

    This is what I wrote last night.

    To me, things are worse than they seem. Now, our freedom is in the hands of George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. A terrorist can be an "individual" with no recourse to the courts. This "individual" can be whoever (whomever) "they" say he is. Today might be the end of America as we know it. King George has just been crowned, or rather, seized power. This might be the worse day of our lives.
    I found the Feingold statement, today.

  19. #19

    Re: What Constitution???

    Where in the hell was Feingold when this thing was introduced to Congress? Where is the loud vocal screams and screeches of the rest of Democrats opposed to this and why have they been silent all along? Where was the ACLU when this thing was introduced?

    Why is it that after it is too late that Feingold now stands up and wrings his hands? Because he and his party doesn't care---they are grandstanding for votes in November instead of grandstanding for civil rights when it matters. You know, doing their job which is to represent the people and not to endlessly campaign on promises. If they can't do anything for the general welfare, why is it anyone would think they'd protect, much less further, the rights of a subsection of society? This is not only a great example of the incompetence of the Democratic Party, and the stupidity of blind partisan loyalty not to see the fault of those that represent us asleep in DC, but also of the fault of the two party system in general.

    Gee, and one wonders how one can side with the libertarian philosophy as opposed to the Big Brother liberal and conservative ones and why one chooses to be free from the shackles of partisan politics by being Independent...

  20. #20
    no custom user title
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    3,797

    Code of Conduct

    Re: What Constitution???

    Democrats and the ACLU fought this. Several Democrats voted for it in an election year, of that, I include my own dear Senator up for election thies year. But the sole opposition came from the Democrats. If we get a solid Democratic vote in November, it will embolden more in the party.

    So the Dems are not perfect - what is. They are the very intense opposition and given political realities do the best they cab. Given a Congress with the Democrats in control we will not see perfection but we will see better. There is no perfection out there, and the vote for America is a vote cast for a Democrat for House and for Senate.

  21. #21

    Re: What Constitution???

    The "sole opposition" is only because they are the only opposition in this two party farce. They dropped the ball huge on this one, which is made more absurd by the simple fear factor that would have played well into their hands---they could've defeated this legislation as a bill and drummed up anti-Republican hysteria IF they'd have gotten off their ass. Of course, there are many instances over the last six years that could've benefited the party, perhaps the nation, if they'd get off their ass and do something (like read the document mentioned in the title of this thread). Instead the only reason this party can regain Congress in 2006 is because the Republicans fucked themselves... or an intern... or a boy.

    The last thing the Democrats need are apologists. If this legislation is so terrible then Feingold and the entire rest of the party should have said something, *gasp*, when it could've done actual good as opposed to now in the hopes for a gain in Democrat seats in early November.

  22. #22

    Re: What Constitution???

    I realize that a defense of this measure published in National Review is not something that a number of you will give credence to. However, for those looking for a point of view that you're unlikely to encounter, say, in the New York Times, along with some actual legal analysis, thought you might be interested.

    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...WI2YzBlOGRlNzU=


    The New Detainee Law Does Not Deny Habeas Corpus
    Fear not, New York Times, al Qaeda’s lawfare rights are still intact.

    By Andrew C. McCarthy

    There are innumerable positives in the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the new law on the treatment of enemy combatants that President Bush will soon sign. Among the best is Congress’s refusal to grant habeas-corpus rights to alien terrorists. After all, the terrorists already have them.

    That the critique on this entirely appropriate measure has been dead wrong is given away by its full-throated hysteria. Typical was Richard Epstein, a distinguished constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago, who admonished the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Bush administration and a compliant Republican Congress were unconstitutionally “suspend[ing]” the great writ. The New York Times editorial board, in its signature hyperbole, railed that “[d]etainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment.” What bunkum.

    AL QAEDA TERRORISTS HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
    First, Congress cannot “suspend” habeas corpus by denying it to people who have no right to it in the first place. The right against suspension of habeas corpus is found in the Constitution (art. I, 9). Constitutional rights belong only to Americans — that is, according to the Supreme Court, U.S. citizens and those aliens who, by lawfully weaving themselves into the fabric of our society, have become part of our national community (which is to say, lawful permanent resident aliens). To the contrary, aliens with no immigration status who are captured and held outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and whose only connection to our country is to wage a barbaric war against it, do not have any rights, much less “basic rights,” under our Constitution.

    Indeed, even when the Supreme Court, in its radical 2004 Rasul case, opened the courthouse doors to enemy fighters in wartime for the first time in American history, it relied not on the Constitution but on the federal habeas corpus statute. So put aside that Rasul was an exercise in judicial legerdemain whose holding depended on a distortion of both that statute and the long-established limitations on the Court’s own jurisdiction (which does not extend outside sovereign U.S. territory to places like Guantanamo Bay, Cuba). Even in its willful determination to reach a result that rewarded al Qaeda’s lawfare, the Court declined to rule that alien combatants have fundamental habeas rights. Instead, they have only what Congress chooses to give them — which Congress can change at any time.

    AL QAEDA TERRORISTS HAVE NO TREATY RIGHTS
    But wait. Isn’t habeas corpus necessary so that the terrorists can press the Geneva Convention rights with which the Court most recently vested them in its 2006 Hamdan case? Wrong again.

    To begin with, although its reasoning was murky, the Hamdan majority seems technically to have held that Geneva’s Common Article 3 applied to military commissions because of a congressional statute, the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Again, if a right is rooted in a statute, not in the Constitution, Congress is at liberty to withdraw or alter the right simply by enacting a new statute. Such a right is not in any sense “basic.”

    But don’t some human-rights activists contend the Hamdan ruling means Common Article 3 applies not just because of a statute but because of its own force as part of a treaty that the United States has ratified? Well, yes, they do make that claim — and (as I recently argued here) they have gotten plenty of help from the recent debate prompted by Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and others who insisted Hamdan meant Common Article 3 controls interrogation practices.

    Even with all of that, though, it remains a settled principle that treaties are compacts between sovereign nations, not fonts of individual rights. Alleged violations are thus grist for diplomacy, not litigation. Treaties are not judicially enforceable by individuals absent an express statement to the contrary in the treaty’s text. By contrast, Geneva's express statements indicate that no judicial intervention was contemplated.

    This, no doubt, is why the Geneva Conventions, qua treaties, have never been judicially enforced. Consequently, if Congress had actually denied al Qaeda detainees a right to use Common Article 3 to challenge their detention in federal court (and, as we’ll soon see, Congress has not done that), that would merely have reaffirmed what has been the law for over a half century.

    If the political representatives of a nation believe one of its citizens is being unlawfully held at Gitmo, the proper procedure is for that nation to protest to our State Department, not for the detainee to sue our country in our courts. In fact, several nations have made such claims, and Bush administration has often responded by repatriating detainees to their home countries … only to have many of them rejoin the jihad. In any event, though, there would be nothing wrong with declining to allow habeas to be used for the creation of individual rights that detainees do not in fact have under international law.

    AL QAEDA TERRORISTS DO GET TO CHALLENGE THEIR DETENTION
    But let’s ignore that the critics are wrong about the entitlement of al Qaeda terrorists to constitutional or treaty-based rights to habeas. There is an even more gaping hole in their attack on the new law. Congress has already given al Qaeda detainees the very rights the critics claim have been denied.

    Last December, Congress enacted the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA). It requires that the military must grant each detainee a Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) at which to challenge his detention. Assuming the military’s CSRT process determines he is properly detained, the detainee then has a right to appeal to our civilian-justice system — specifically, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. And if that appeal is unsuccessful, the terrorist may also seek certiorari review by the Supreme Court.

    This was a revolutionary innovation. As we’ve seen, Rasul did not (and could not) require Congress to allow enemy combatants access to the federal courts. Congress could lawfully have responded to Rasul by amending the habeas statute to make clear that al Qaeda terrorists have no more right to petition our courts in wartime than any other enemy prisoners have had in the preceding two-plus centuries. Instead, Congress responded by giving the enemy what are in every meaningful way habeas rights.

    For the enemy combatants, habeas corpus, to borrow the Times’s articulation, is simply a “right to challenge their imprisonment” in federal court. So what does the DTA do? It allows a detainee who has been found by the military to be properly held as an enemy combatant to challenge his incarceration in federal court. Under DTA section 1005(e)(2), that court (the D.C. Circuit) is expressly empowered to determine whether the detention is in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States — which, of course, include treaties to whatever extent they may create individual rights.

    Thus, the DTA has already granted to our enemies the very remedy critics claim is now being denied. Moreover, the new Military Commissions Act (MCA) does not repeal the DTA. It strengthens it. That is, because the Supreme Court’s Hamdan decision created confusion about whether the DTA was meant to apply retroactively to the 400-plus habeas petitions that were already filed, the MCA clarifies that all detainees who wish to challenge their imprisonment must follow the DTA procedure for doing so. But, importantly, the right to challenge imprisonment is itself reaffirmed.

    That the DTA does not refer to this right as habeas corpus is irrelevant. It’s not the name of the remedy that counts; it’s the substance. The DTA gives the detainee exactly what habeas provides. Therefore, it would have been pointless for the MCA to add yet another round of habeas.

    To understand why this is so, one need only consider the legal restrictions on imprisoned American citizens. If they wish to claim their detention is baseless, they are not permitted to file habeas petitions which simply re-allege claims they have already made (or at least had a fair opportunity to make) during prior legal proceedings (such as the appeal of a criminal conviction, or a previously filed habeas petition). Repetitious claims are instantly disregarded by courts as a form of procedural default known as “abuse of the writ” of habeas corpus.

    Given that habeas would not be available to an American for the purpose of rehashing a previously unsuccessful challenge to his imprisonment, why on earth should we extend habeas to an alien al Qaeda terrorist so he can re-litigate under the MCA an argument against his detention that has already been heard and rejected by a federal appeals court under the DTA?

    WHO’S MANIPULATING HISTORY?
    Epstein’s arguments are especially unbecoming. First, for all his bombast about the storied history of the habeas writ, he neglects to mention that the thousands upon thousands of alien enemy combatants our military has detained outside the U.S. in the long history of American warfare have never had a right to challenge their detention by calling on the judicial branch of our government at the very time the political branches have taken our nation into battle. It was Rasul that broke with tradition here. Even if enemy combatants had been denied habeas in this war — which, of course, has not happened — that would not have been a departure from tradition at all.

    Second, it is simply preposterous to suggest, as Epstein does, that the government is likely to frustrate the DTA’s judicial review procedure by such shenanigans as starting a CSRT but then suspending it indefinitely without ruling on a detainee’s status (so the DTA right to appeal to the D.C. Circuit would never be triggered). The DTA not only directed the Defense Department to come up with CSRT procedures, including an annual review of the status of detainees found to be enemy combatants; it expressly contemplated oversight by the Armed Services committees in both Houses of Congress. There is no basis to believe either that the Pentagon is engaged in the kind of gamesmanship Epstein imagines or that Congress would tolerate such antics were they to occur.

    It would be the height of folly to confer additional rights on alien enemy combatant terrorists — which, by the way, would be far better rights than honorable alien enemy combatants who do not mass-murder civilians get under the Geneva Conventions — for no better reason than to prevent an abuse that is virtually inconceivable in the real world. Such thinking reflects the same September 10th mentality that gave us the Justice Department’s infamous “wall” — which prevented criminal investigators and national security agents from pooling threat information in order to forfend hypothetical and empirically unheard-of civil-rights violations.

    Been there done that.

    Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

  23. #23

    Re: What Constitution???

    What really stands out as bullshit in McCarthy's asinine argument is the base assumption that these are al Qaeda terrorists held in our custody---he has no proof, the US government acts as if it doesn't have any either, so concluding that they are terrorists means that you are a retard.

  24. #24
    In Loving Memory JayHew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Glennallen
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Posts
    1,135

    Code of Conduct

    Re: What Constitution???

    Some research done, a little-- Abe Lincoln suspended habeas corpus without Congress in 1861 in Maryland, then the entire country in 1862. The Supreme Court would not hear agruments as they recognized the powers of the president and congress to deal with the issues. The same issues being discussed today were discussed back then. Also the Civil War was not a declared war, but was giving Authorization by Congress, which essentially gives war-time powers to the president.

    The War on Terror is an undeclared war, but AUTHORIZED by Congress, making it legal. At the time the Democrats could have voiced complaints, they really did not. Oh, yeah, Senator John Kerry tried to voice a complaint but who was listening. This act (again a grave concern to me) was Voted on by Congress and we only find out about it after it is signed and the whoring polititians go running to the microphones before the ink is dry to proclaim their opposition to it, yet there was not a peep out of anyone prior to the passage and signing of this piece. WTF?? It is political grandstanding and if anyone agrees with this and doesn't take those doing it to task, they are as guilty as the perps putting it all together. Our Constitution and freedoms should not be used for political fodder or one-up-man-ship. This loyality to partisan politics and party line is not representing WE THE PEOPLE, it is representing the Democratic party or Republician party and the money power structure. It has to stop.

    Another Congressional procedure that has to stop is the representatives voting along with the wishes of the Speaker of The House and the Majority Whip, and the President of the Senate and Majority Leader of the Senate, WITHOUT READING THE BILL. That is just following the leadership of the party line and not representing the people.

    Again I point out, the reference in the section cited in the first post has to deal with ALIEN persons, it did not say American Citizen. And the Constitution does allow for suspension of habeas corpus "for the public safety". Anything could mean that, so means it could happen to the American Citizen as it did in 1862-1866.

    This has been discussed and documented with the history surrounding the Civil War here in the States and you all should read some of it, then make arguments and contact your representatives and give them hell for allowing something like this to happen essentially without debate or concern for unintended consequences.

    Goggle - Abraham Lincoln habeas corpus. You will see a number of references of history from both sides of the issue. It has the Surpeme Court rulings on challenges to the suspension, etc. The parallels are quite amazing.

    Above all we keep screwing up by letting our representatives do what they want and never take them to task. In the end it is WE THE PEOPLE who are allowing this to happen.

  25. #25
    epicAdam
    Guest

    Re: What Constitution???

    JayHew: just read the Constitution. It says in Article I, Section 9, that Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion as the public safety may require it.

    Rebellion: Civil War? Certainly. War on Terror? No.
    Invasion: War of 1812? Certainly. War on Terror? No.

    There is NO parallel between the "War on Terror" and the Civil War.

    While I agree with you that neither party is representing the interests of "We the People" (by the way, when the founders wrote "We the People" they were talking about rich, white men) there is one way we can protect ourselves against one party rule, and that is to make sure that each house in Congress and the White House is controlled by opposing parties.

  26. #26

    Re: What Constitution???

    Olbermann's Special Comment on this issue: http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchiv...words_are.html

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | About JustUsBoys.com | Site Map | RSS | Webmasters | Advertise | Link to JUB | Report A Bug on this Page

Visit our sister sites: Broke Straight Boys | CollegeDudes.com | CollegeBoyPhysicals.com | RocketTube
All models appearing on JustUsBoys.com were over 18 at the time of photography. The records for sexually explicit images required by U.S. 2257 are kept by the
individual producers of the images. The location of the records is available by clicking the Custodian of Records link at the bottom of each gallery page.
© 2012 JustUsBoys.com. The JustUsBoys.com name and logo are registered trademarks. Labeled with ICRA and RTA. Member of ASACP and The Free Speech Coalition.