President Bush overturns Habeas Corpus?

[Horus]

CLICKY!!!

Apparently, the Military Commisions Act of 2006 pretty much entitles the White House to declare whoever they want to be a terrorist, with no reason or cause. The law pretty much states that anyone declared a terrorist is able to be arrested, without having the right to hear why they're being arrested, and they can do whatever they want to said "Terrorist", even if it causes permanant body injury, or even death.

Now, my only question here is "Where the hell is the Supreme Court?!?!?"

 

[fah-q]

CLICKY!!!

Apparently, the Military Commisions Act of 2006 pretty much entitles the White House to declare whoever they want to be a terrorist, with no reason or cause. The law pretty much states that anyone declared a terrorist is able to be arrested, without having the right to hear why they're being arrested, and they can do whatever they want to said "Terrorist", even if it causes permanant body injury, or even death.

Now, my only question here is "Where the hell is the Supreme Court?!?!?"

Take whatever Keith Olbermann has to say with a grain of salt. I would rather hear what Keith Richards has to say than Keith Olbermann.
Olbermann is obsessed with discrediting anyone he deems remotely conservative. He is not objective whatsoever. It is telling that Ted Kennedy is one of the few that have spoken out about this.

 

[Silver Incubus]

Its a sad day when a bill like that is passed unopposed.

 

[judas69]

America is ass.

 

[fah-q]

America is ass.

Other than what Keith Olbermann had to say, what do any of you know about this bill? Not your interpretation of, your actual knowledge of this bill? If it doesn't go beyond what Olbermann had to say, you should probably re-think your stance on America being "ass".
What country did you say you were from?

 

[judas69]

I meant to say.. America kick ass! Go Yankees!

 

[fah-q]

I meant to say.. America kick ass! Go Yankees!

 

[Patrick R.]

I meant to say.. America kick ass! Go Yankees!

Yes, thank you...it would be nice if our Federal government wouldn't stab us in the back every chance they can get. They can't even pass legislation to protect our interest at home, not even a damn fence across the Mexican border.

It is time for Americans to pressure those clowns over in Congress and the president himself to actually build a better America.

 

[judas69]

Sadly, a war with either Iran or North Korea is around the corner so, things probably will get worse before they get any better.

 

[fah-q]

I hear ya Judas. The whole things saddens me too.

 

[Dr.TEETH]

The MCA2006 combined with the Patriot Act give the government way too much power.
I'm not saying that Bush is gonna start rounding folks up, (it's debatable though... considering GITMO), but if some powermad extremist ever comes to to power (think the Religious Right, or super conservative Muslims), He/She could use those new Govt. powers to start a severe police state.
The less power that the government has, the better... I say.

 

[Dr.TEETH]

The MCA2006 combined with the Patriot Act give the government way too much power.
I'm not saying that Bush is gonna start rounding folks up, (it's debatable though... considering GITMO), but if some powermad extremist ever comes to to power (think the Religious Right, or super conservative Muslims), He/She could use those new Govt. powers to start a severe police state.
The less power that the government has, the better... I say.

 

[SoundMaster]

The MCA2006 combined with the Patriot Act give the government way too much power.
I'm not saying that Bush is gonna start rounding folks up, (it's debatable though... considering GITMO), but if some powermad extremist ever comes to to power (think the Religious Right, or super conservative Muslims), He/She could use those new Govt. powers to start a severe police state.
The less power that the government has, the better... I say.

Exactly.
when did the GOP become the party of "super-sized" government? It's a far cry from the party of Eisenhower.

 

[ARC150]

I am fairly shaken by this latest turn of events.

It is, to my mind, the newest addition to a long list of actions by the President - actions that seem to exist in opposition to the will of the majority and that have the potential to disrupt many of the basic liberties foundational to the people the President is sworn to govern.

I eschew statements of support for this claim, though, because the point I want to make is not concerned with the actions of the President, but rather the aspect of all this that allows me some confidence in idea that the President (whatever he may or may not be doing) is not out of control and unstoppable:

As powerful as he is, the President is still not as powerful as the Government. The Constitution desires great leaders, but recognizes the fact that this will not always be the case. There governmental structure is faceted such that an equilibrium of sorts persists despite the actions of any one man. For one, the Presidential tenure is chronologically limited - if nothing else, the Constitution ultimately prevents the continuation of rule by any one person. Furthermore, and more to the point of equilibrium, the balance of power shifts from year to year and this shift is influenced by the actions of those in power. I have to imagine that the extreme (IMHO) actions of Bush will fuel a shift to away from his political party.

I am thoroughly unhappy with Bush's years as President - and I think that his actions will have long-lasting, negative effects on the USA - but I think that the balancing forces of this governmental system will keep much of that in check.

 

[fah-q]

Other than the completely biased report from Keith Olbernann. Has anyone done any research on this latest law? Does anyone truthfully know of anyone that has been a victim of these laws? Admittadly, I don't know much about this latest law but, I am not that concerned. I am a firm believer that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to lose.

 

[SoundMaster]

I am a firm believer that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to lose.

Generally speaking, I agree with you. However, history has proven that what's "to hide" is determined by those in power. Jews didn't have anything to hide in 1930s Germany. Didn't matter, though.

That's ultimately the fear that so many have with the Patriot Act, etc. If used appropriately, it can be a great defense against potential terror. But the possibility of it being abused and becoming the 'slippery slope' to a terrible future is worrisome.

 

[fah-q]

Soundmaster, you make a great point. Where does it end if we begin down this path. On the other hand, have we many examples of where the Patriot Act has been abused?

 

[Horus]

Well, let's see. They refused to let several children and infants on airplanes because they had the same names as illegid terrorists. I don't know if you can call that abusing or not, but when you refuse to let an infant fly because of something like that, you know that something must be off.

 

[fah-q]

Ptah, I would like to read more about that. Can you post a link? With identities being stolen. False ID being used for various illegal activities etc. I don't think it is much to ask that some people experience some delays in travel to help with security.
This is the funny paradox in America. When tragedy happens, most Americans start looking around for someone to blame or sue. Asking why nobody thought of this before someone was harmed. When measures are taken in advance of a potentially harmfull situation. There is always a group who theorize about it getting out of hand or being restrictive. It is a double edged sword and I would rather error on the side of caution.

 

[Horus]

Here you go.
I don't know about ID's being stolen, but I do know about babies being accused of terrorism. That's something that just makes you shake your head and say "What the fuck?"