Any citizen can challenge their detention before a judge per the Hamdi case.


The MCA was needed because SCOTUS ruled wrongly in the Hamdan case. Because of that the law was carefully crafted by Republican moderates like Sen .John Warner John McCain and Lindsey Graham .
The MCA applies only to "alien unlawful enemy combatants" and does not apply to U.S. citizens However, non-citizen U.S. residents, including green card holders, can be designated as alien unlawful enemy combatants.

The MCA passed the Senate, 65–34 and in the House, 250–170–12 .The President signed the bill. Ok How is this in any way the President seizing any power at all ? If the law is flawed then I'm sure it will go through the standard judicial review.

Habeas Corpus has never applied to enemy combattants illegal or otherwise. The biggest problem that I see with all of this is the emphasis on justice and trials which means that the Administration is moving back toward treating Islamic terrorism as a crime rather than an act of war.

The above post by Paul Starr cracks me up . While the cassandras continue to decry President Bush they continue to compare him to some of the greatest Presidents in our history. I guess he keeps good company.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Any citizen can challenge their detention before a judge per the Hamdi case.

---

Hello again:

You guys are still missing the point. Maybe it's because you WANT to miss it. Maybe you love George Bush sooooo much, that you're willing to blind yourself to reality... Maybe it's because you believe that he wouldn't destroy your beloved country in one fell swoop. So, even in the face of that destruction, you keep your eyes closed. I don't know.

Let me try this again.

Yes, any citizen can challenge their detention... Unless Bush has declared them to be an enemy combatant. THOSE citizens CAN'T challenge their detention EVEN though it's a mistake.

I don't know what's so hard about this...

Let's say the FBI is looking for a guy named Hueseen Tomdan. He's a terrorist. They pick you up instead and render you away.

Again, I don't know what's so hard about this...

excon

Hello again:

YES, I got more!

"Oh", you say. "My government wouldn't make that mistake. I'm not dark, I don't speak Arabic. I'm obviously an American citizen....... I'm in New York City, for crying out loud."

But, what if it WASN'T a mistake? What if they wanted you for a murder or a robbery, but can't prove you did it? They can't arrest you for THAT...

"But wait a minute", thinks the FBI. "What if we declared mr tomder an enemy combatant, then we could wisk him away, and a judge will never know we did that."

What if you were just a political enemy??

Do you yet understand the implications of this Act? Are you going to tell me, in your right wing accent, that I don't have to worry about the cops? They wouldn't do that. I can trust 'em.

Is that what you'd be telling me?? Well, I wouldn't be buying it!

excon

Quote:

---

I believe the assertion that citizens can be arrested without fourth amendment protections is a lie. It isn't enough to assert anti-Bush feelings and politics.

---

I agree. I'd like to know of just one American citizen who's been arrested without a warrant and without hearing the charges against him. Now an enemy combatant, that's something else again. But when it comes to enemy combatants, I say imprison them, torture them, do whatever it takes to protect our country and keep it safe from those who would attack and kill us, a la 9-11-01. I'm sure I'll get lots of reddies for this but oh well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by s_cianci

I agree. I'd like to know of just one American citizen who's been arrested without a warrant and without hearing the charges against him. Now an enemy combatant, that's something else again. But when it comes to enemy combatants, I say imprison them, torture them, do whatever it takes to protect our country and keep it safe from those who would attack and kill us, a la 9-11-01. I'm sure I'll get lots of reddies for this but oh well.

---

I am getting a bit sick of hearing Dems/libs/fascists peddling this assertion, and that President Bush is ripping up the constitution. This query is what I call 'a fat, slow one', to give the critics an opportunity to prove their complaint. Surely they can find the arrest of one citizen which the US government wants to prosecute and rip-up the constitution.

excon writes: "Not only would I like to know about ONE prisoner, I'd like to know about ALL of 'em." no joke; so would Hillary, Chuckie, Leahy, CNN, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by s_cianci

I agree. I'd like to know of just one American citizen who's been arrested without a warrant and without hearing the charges against him.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George_1950

Surely they can find the arrest of one citizen which the US government wants to prosecute and rip-up the constitution.

---

Hello again:

Still missing it, huh?

Not only would I like to know about ONE prisoner, I'd like to know about ALL of 'em.

But... They're being held in secret - incommunicado - with no access to lawyers or the courts. That's the IDEA. You DO know that, don't you?? I would tell you about an American, if I could...

But, THAT'S the point... We'll NEVER find out. You don't get it. Oh well. I'll keep trying. That's my job.

excon

Look, excon; I'm working up a thirst; what you drinking?

Hello again:

Let me close it out with one final thought.

We traded some liberties for security. We DID do that. I understand, in the face of the Bush fear mongering, WHY we did that.

Having given up some liberty for security, you must have known the trade off would result in YOUR lack of liberty. You really didn't think you could trade one for the other without a price, did you?? I guess, some of you DID think that.

Nope. Things just don't work that way. I'm just telling you what the trade offs are and how they affect YOU, your children and your family. I'm not surprised you don't like 'em. Who would?

excon

Thanks, excon; you are aware that this has been going on since the advent of 'judicial review', courtesy of Chief Justice John Marshall, another antagonist of the Declaration of Independence. See: "The longest serving Chief Justice in Supreme Court history, Marshall dominated the Court for over three decades (a term outliving his own Federalist Party) and played a significant role in the development of the American legal system. Most notably, he established that the courts are entitled to exercise judicial review, the power to strike down laws that violate the Constitution." Wikipedia

We, in the South, attempted in 1861 a variation of the themes you rail about, and the Yankees taught us a very expensive lesson. There is a direct link from Lincoln to FDR, you know. These guys will stop at nothing; for some reason, W seems harmless. He appears to have more interest in attacking America's enemies than suppressing his own countrymen.

Hmmm I have made similar comments about Marbury v Madison here but have not heard anyone else speak of judicial review without reverence. Most take it for granted that it's written in the Constitution. Some here think that every aspect of our lives should be decided with the approval of the judiciary .

So

One side calls Bush, "fear mongering" and are afraid of our rights being taken away by the government - a legitimate if exaggerated concern.
However, they never seems to acknowledge or put as much emphasis on the real threat of terrorism.

The other side, in their zeal to go after terrorists, may fail to acknowledge potential violations of the rights of citizens.

Just my 2 cents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Hmmm I have made simular comments about Marbury v Madison here but have not heard anyone else speak of judicial review without reverence. Most take it for granted that it's written in the Constitution. Some here think that every aspect of our lives should be decided with the approval of the judiciary .

---

excon wrote: "We traded some liberties for security." My comment pertains to the notion that Americans have never had more freedom than they did when the British vacated Yorktown, 1781. The history of the US is replete with instances of us exchanging liberties for security; the issue crops up from time to time, and security usually comes out on top; there are examples where 'personal' liberties win, but not often.
One can't buy certain over the counter drugs without showing an ID card; which candidate has objected to that and is recommending 'change'? One can't go to a real estate closing (involving banking) without two sources of identification; which candidate objects to this and proposes any kind of 'change'? Unless you are a criminal or need an abortion, personal liberties are getting in short supply; this is nothing new.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by s_cianci

I agree. I'd like to know of just one American citizen who's been arrested without a warrant and without hearing the charges against him.

---

Ever hear of Jose Padilla?
Jose Padilla (prisoner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
CIP Program : Core CIP Research : Jose Padilla : Feb. 2006 Article

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by s_cianci

Now an enemy combatant, that's something else again.

---

No, it's not something else again. An "enemy combatant" is whoever the Government says is one--citizen or non-citizen, it doesn't matter. Once a person has been so designated, their Habeas Corpus rights are gone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by s_cianci

But when it comes to enemy combatants, I say imprison them, torture them, do whatever it takes to protect our country and keep it safe from those who would attack and kill us, a la 9-11-01. I'm sure I'll get lots of reddies for this but oh well.

---

So I guess you're OK with delegating the (unreviewable and unappealable) decision about who is and who is not an enemy combatant to the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. You trust them a lot more than I do to get it right the first time, every time.

Welcome, ordinaryguy: Where did you get this: "No, it's not something else again. An "enemy combatant" is whoever the Government says is one--citizen or non-citizen, it doesn't matter." What is the definition of 'enemy combatant', and where did you find it?

Quote:

---

The history of the US is replete with instances of us exchanging liberties for security

---

Yep ; in the Paul Starr article you opened with he compares Bush to John Adams ;Abe Lincoln ,Woodrow Wilson and FDR... arguably a quartet of the top Presidents this country has had (at least by the prevailing opinion of historians ).Like I said ;Bush is then in fine company. I would need to have proof of this internment of even one American to even come close to comparing him to FDR's segregation into concentration camps of innocent Japanese Americans . He doesn' t even bring up the mass deportation of the Cherokee by Andy Jackson's 'fnal solution'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George_1950

What is the definition of 'enemy combatant', and where did you find it?

---

Q & A: Military Commissions Act of 2006: Definition of Unlawful Enemy Combatant
Discourse.net: Pentagon Issues Broad Definition of 'Enemy Combatant'
Enemy combatant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Executive Order 13224

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

yep ; in the the Paul Starr article you opened with he compares Bush to John Adams ;Abe Lincoln ,Woodrow Wilson and FDR.... arguably a quartet of the top Presidents this country has had (at least by the prevailing opinion of historians ).Like I said ;Bush is then in fine company. I would need to have proof of this internment of even one American to even come close to comparing him to FDR's segregation into concentration camps of innocent Japanese Americans . He doesn' t even bring up the mass deportation of the Cherokee by Andy Jackson's 'fnal solution'.

---

Tom, I don't believe it would be accurate to call Bush entirely Wilsonian. Yes, in one respect: He believes the United States should be pushing our values around the world and turning other countries into democracies whether they like it or no, and I agree with him on that. Well, maybe I spoke to quickly, maybe he is entirely Wilsonian. Anyway, whatever he is similar to, thank God it's not Jeffersonian.:)

Is there some reason to believe Jose Padilla is not a "Party to the conflict (The War against Terrorism)?" Is there any reason to believe that he does have information that ought not to be made public?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Is there some reason to believe Jose Padilla is not a "Party to the conflict (The War against Terrorism)?" Is there any reason to believe that he does have information that ought not to be made public?

---

There is plenty of reason to believe that he is a US citizen who was seized on US soil (O'Hare Airport in Chicago), declared by the President to be an unlawful enemy combatant, held without access to legal counsel for a year and nine months, denied the right of Habeas Corpus and other due process rights guaranteed by the Constitution from June 9, 2002 until January 6, 2006, when he was finally remanded from military custody to civilian law enforcement authorities pursuant to a Supreme Court order to that effect. He was tried in civilian criminal court and found guilty of all charges on August 16, 2007, five years and two months after his detention. His trial lasted three months.