I was starting to feel good about the likelyhood this lunacy will be tossed out by the Supreme Court… until I read this.
Torture Bill States Non-Allegiance To Bush Is Terrorism
Buried amongst the untold affronts to the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and the very spirit of America, the torture bill contains a definition of “wrongfully aiding the enemy” which labels all American citizens who breach their “allegiance” to President Bush and the actions of his government as terrorists subject to possible arrest, torture and conviction in front of a military tribunal.
After five hours of searching through the 80-plus page bill, Alex Jones, who won the 2004 Project Censored award for his analysis of Patriot Act 2, uncovered numerous other provisions and definitions that make the bill appear as almost a mirror image of Hitler’s 1933 Enabling Act.
In section 950j. the bill criminalizes any challenge to the legislation’s legality by the Supreme Court or any United States court. Alberto Gonzales has already threatened federal judges to shut up and not question Bush’s authority on the torture of detainees.
“No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this chapter.”
The Bush administration is preemptively overriding any challenge to the legislation by the Supreme Court.
In light of Greg Palast’s recent hounding by Homeland Security, after they accused him of potentially giving terrorists key information about U.S. “critical infrastructure” when filming Exxon’s Baton Rouge refinery (clear photos of which were publicly available on Google Maps), sub-section 27 of section 950v. should send chills down the spine of all investigative journalists and even news-gatherers.
The rest of the article has even more startling assertions about the new powers this bill gives the President.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.6166:
Read them.
2. CONSTRUCTION OF PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH MILITARY COMMISSIONS.
The authority to establish military commissions under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code, as added by section 3(a), may not be construed to alter or limit the authority of the President under the Constitution of the United States and laws of the United States to establish military commissions for areas declared to be under martial law or in occupied territories should circumstances so require.
#29: “And it doesn’t have any of the crap the nutjob Uncle Dave uses for a reputable source claims.”
You seem to have me confused with a reputable journalist who uses only reliable sources. Think of me more as the National Enquirer, but who uses irony and sarcasm to make valid points for those smart enough to figure it out. Oops, I may have said too much…
All the better to kill opposition to the North American Union. The Globalist march goes forward.
It’s not the first time. President Lincoln arrested several Senators and threatened many judges during the war if they opposed him. Lincoln also had many voters arrested, to keep them from voting for the same reasons.
Those that don’t learn from History are doomed to repeat it.
If we could just kill off the republicans the world would be such a better place.
Yeah because Democrats are so smart and have Americas best interests at heart.
Oh wait that’s only if you’re black or mexican.
#28: You example of overturning common law does not apply here. Habeas corpus is not common law,it is Constitutional law, and in that document it states that “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” (Article One, section nine). As I see it there is no rebellion and there is no invasion going on. Although the Constitution has been such a problem for the Republicans, might as well just ignore it.
#35: Thats kind of a racist comment. I am the first to say the Dems don’t have everything together, but with the Republicans driving us in debt, getting us in an unnecessary war, selling influence to people like Abramoff, taking rights to sue away from individuals but not corporations, trying to lower taxes on the rich, sex scandals while yelling “family values,” etc, is nothing less that sickening.
#36: What on Earth are your talking about? I was replying to a very general comment about Congress not being able to suspend common law because we are not at war. If what I said doesn’t apply to Habeas Corpus, then it doesn’t apply – move on.
And for what it’s worth, Habeas Corpus does indeed come from the common law. There is no modern statute that created it or defines it, and the Constitution only prevents it from being denied except for a very few circumstances. The exact same goes for things like eminent domain. The 5th Amendment didn’t create eminent domain, because it was already a part of the common law; the amendment only defines restrictions on the government’s use of it.
“SEC. 950J. FINALITY OR PROCEEDINGS, FINDINGS, AND SENTENCES
“(a) Finality. The appellate review of records of trial provided by this
chapter, and the proceedings, findings, and sentences of military
commissions as approved, reviewed, or affirmed as required by this chapter, are final and conclusive. Orders publishing the proceedings of military commissions under this chapter are binding upon all departments, courts, agencies, and officers of the United States, except as otherwise provided by the President.
“(b) Provisions of Chapter Sole Basis for Review of Miliary Commission Procedures and Actions. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter and notwithstanding any other provision of law (including section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this chapter.”
It actually does say it. I was amazed. I didn’t think they’d be so bold as to try to shut the Supreme Court out of all this crap. Bush and Congress have just declared war on the Judiciary.
“… including any action pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 …”
The most immediate problem I see with this is that it appears to be a law enacted ex post facto. If a person, whose detainment this law would effect, was already detained and could have legally filed a challenge before this bill was to become law, then he cannot have that that right taken away after the fact.
This seems to be clearly unconstitutional. Or am I wrong in my interpretation of this?
Never mind, I guess this really doesn’t me the definition. Though it does have the effect of being so.
It seems we need to change our motto from “In God We Trust” to “The Beatings will Continue Until Morale Improves!!!!!!
Hey they dont even monitor the terrorists email that they have in prison. But they need to know what web sites you and I go to. Just who is the god damned enemy anyway?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15120480/