bye bye habeas corpus =,(

[Doberman]

TO BE CLEAR:

IF YOU WERE BORN IN THE UNITED STATES, OR ARE A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, THIS BILL DOES NOT AND CANNOT AFFECT YOU.....PERIOD.

Why that was not clarified in the original poster's comments.....gee, I wonder why. Might have something to do with that election coming up, but hey, probably not. Troll isn't a Democrat, you see, so even if he made this thread to specifically trash Republicans (and only a minimal amount Democrats), he must be doing it for the general benefit of the forum.....not to scare you all.



Now...I feel like I've already done this before..............maybe because I already did.

From an ACTUAL NEWS ARTICLE, and not some stupid fuck TV transcript:




Once again.......Thomas...Loc...Gov. http://thomas.loc.gov

From the bill ITSELF:





(emphasis mine)


U.S. Citizens ARE NOT subject to military tribunals under this law. Period. Habeas corpus is something that has ALWAYS been reserved for United States Citizens...Period. This whole topic makes no sense.

Good try mayne...NO Where in that text does it say. "U.S citizens are NOT affected by this Law" They give you a few specifics of who are and a VAGUE generalization of an "Enemy combatant". Which will be determined as they see fit. If you agree with Al Qaeda or even try to spread their points of view. That alone by their definition ...makes you an "Enemy Combatant"

Like this dude for example!

He is an "American Citizen"
According to this part

`Sec. 948a. Definitions

`In this chapter:

`(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--

`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces);

He is an enemy combatant. The question is....where is the line drawn?
This should be in the GOM forum.

Here's the link to the story about the "American"
http://www.siccness.net/vb/showthread.php?t=208763

 

[TROLL]

^^^
yup yup..

see, this is how they debate..

troll: habeas corpus can now be denied to U.S citizens..
Harold: NOOO, it doesnt say that!! it says that its for NON US CITIZENS
troll: it says its reserved for enemy combatants.. care to show me where americans are exempt from being labled an enemy combatant?
Harold: LIBTARD!! YOUR JUST ANTI-REPUBLICAN!!

 

[Dirty Shoez]

sorry harry.. i did my research..

let me ask you then about jose padilla... a u.s citizen.. where is his trial?? hes been locked up for a while now... OH thats right hes being held..

or.

José Padilla (also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir) (born October 18, 1970) is a U.S. citizen of Puerto Rican descent accused of being a terrorist by the United States government. He was arrested in Chicago on May 8, 2002, and remains in detention in a military prison. For the first three years of his detention he was held without charge; he is now charged with "conspiracy to murder, kidnap, and maim people overseas."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Padilla_(alleged_terrorist)

He is not being held as an enemy combatant. He was arrested in CHICAGO, has charges pending, and Habeus corpus is in full effect for him.

Yaser Esam Hamdi, he's been held too without a trial.. gee i wonder why

On September 23, 2004, the United States Justice Department agreed to release Hamdi to Saudi Arabia on the condition that he gives up his U.S. citizenship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaser_Esam_Hamdi

Whats your point? What does 2 years ago and "Been held" have to do with legislation that was just recently signed into law?



So the 2 examples you named were completely fucked. Any others?

wow harry.. your short sightedness is ever more apparent because this goes beyond any political football game you like to cheer for..democrats voted for this also, im not praising anybody, yet, 'i must be bashin dem dam republicans"

GET OVER YOURSELF AND OFF THE RIGHT WING DICK AND LOOK AT A SITUATION EFFECTING EVERYBODY FOR ONCE YOU CUNT!!..

Sounds like I struck a nerve. You already know what you're doing. The question is whether or not you'll have the balls to admit it (and give up playing your "open minded" card), and so far, you don't. You're clutching onto that card with a death grip, no matter how simple you sound.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-01-02.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ackerman28sep28,0,619852.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1018detainees-legal1018.html

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_4269.shtml

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061016/ratner

OH BUT DONT WORRY PEOPLE.. harry thinks that even tho the term is blanketed and that there have been americans already detained without trials that "they cant" detain american citizens.. im sure he took a lot of time in searching for that one article that was vague enough to support his claim, when all it took me was a few seconds to search "habeas corpus/U.S citzen" and found these...

Your links make no nevermind. Again, THE LEGISLATION ITSELF says differently, so these reports mean nothing. They're just personal opinions and interpretations that happen to have made their way into print.

Funny how the only way you can counter the Bill's text is with URLs, newspaper links and personal opinions. That's saying something when you can't quote the actual legislation and make your OWN ANALYSIS, but instead you have to go out and Google your argument.

 

[Dirty Shoez]

Good try mayne...NO Where in that text does it say. "U.S citizens are NOT affected by this Law" They give you a few specifics of who are and a VAGUE generalization of an "Enemy combatant". Which will be determined as they see fit.

Friend, did you even read the legislation or did you just start running your mouth? Are you the type that thinks he can talk his way out of anything, on the fly, without doing research, because you just assume you can outsmart the other person?

Please, sir....READ.

`(3) ALIEN- The term `alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.

`Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions

`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.

US Citizens are NOT Aliens, and therefore, CANNOT be subject to military commissions. If you want to argue that they CAN BE--because thats your pesonal interpretation and you don't give a fuck what the actual bill says--then that's all you. But i suggest you go take a logic class, because you sound like an idiot right now.

If you agree with Al Qaeda or even try to spread their points of view. That alone by their definition ...makes you an "Enemy Combatant"

Like this dude for example!

He is an "American Citizen"
According to this part

He is an enemy combatant. The question is....where is the line drawn?
This should be in the GOM forum.

Yes, it should be. But only Marxists are allowed free reign in the GOM, and I am not one of them. We Conservatives are not allowed to speak openly and defend ourselves in the GOM. It's too dangerous for the GOM agenda.

As far as this man Adam Yahiye Gadahn...err...he didn't "try" anything. He IS a member of Al-Qaeda. IS.....As in, TO BE. He IS Al-Qaeda, and we are at war with Al-Qaeda.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/10/12/1160246262446.html

I don't know where the fuck exactly you got the phrase "enemy combatant" from in regards to him, but that is not the case. NOBODY is calling this man an enemy combatant, EXCEPT YOU! He is charged with treason, and should he be captured, he'll be tried in a US Court. -- Maybe you should stop memorizing buzzwords and instead start doing research.

 

[Dirty Shoez]

^^^
yup yup..

see, this is how they debate..

troll: habeas corpus can now be denied to U.S citizens..
Harold: NOOO, it doesnt say that!! it says that its for NON US CITIZENS
troll: it says its reserved for enemy combatants.. care to show me where americans are exempt from being labled an enemy combatant?
Harold: LIBTARD!! YOUR JUST ANTI-REPUBLICAN!!

`(3) ALIEN- The term `alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.

`Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions

`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.

But hey, don't let me interrupt you and your buddy-buddy arguing system. Lord knows you can't stand on your own two and that you need all the help you can get.




Anyhow.....anyone else care to jump in here?

Just so you know, arguing that this recent law is going to deny habeus corpus to American citizens .....probably a bad idea. You will lose.

What you need to focus on is Non-Citizens being denied habeus corpus.

 

[TROLL]

He is not being held as an enemy combatant. He was arrested in CHICAGO, has charges pending, and Habeus corpus is in full effect for him.

damn harry.. your slippin on your readin and comprehension skills.. this is from that same link...

because Padilla was being detained without any criminal charges being formally made against him, he, through his lawyer, made a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as the respondent to this petition. The government filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that 1) Padilla's lawyer was not a proper "Next Friend" to sign and file the petition on Padilla's behalf, 2) Commander Marr of the South Carolina brig, and not U.S. Secretary Rumsfeld, should have been named as the respondent to the petition, and 3) the New York court lacked personal jurisdiction over the named respondent Secretary Rumsfeld who resides in Virginia.

technicality is a sumbitch ain it?

so do u think its ok that they can hold somebody wether alien or not for an extended amount of time without filing charges?

Whats your point? What does 2 years ago and "Been held" have to do with legislation that was just recently signed into law?

Why were they held without charges??

Sounds like I struck a nerve. You already know what you're doing. The question is whether or not you'll have the balls to admit it (and give up playing your "open minded" card), and so far, you don't. You're clutching onto that card with a death grip, no matter how simple you sound.

yes, it does get frustrating, you cant stand hearing anything negative that has anything to do with your party leanings, why does it seem like i can bring up all these articles and you only post in em? bother you much? cant find any of your own?

Your links make no nevermind. Again, THE LEGISLATION ITSELF says differently, so these reports mean nothing. They're just personal opinions and interpretations that happen to have made their way into print.

the legislation itself is blanket.. you cant argue with that and your best arguement is "but the legislation says"... its like teaching a pre-schooler i swear...

Funny how the only way you can counter the Bill's text is with URLs, newspaper links and personal opinions. That's saying something when you can't quote the actual legislation and make your OWN ANALYSIS, but instead you have to go out and Google your argument.

because the fuckin wording used is blanket on purpose!!! ive been saying that for a long time now.. yet your still here and instead of posting your own articles you decide to come into the ones i post and repeat the tired old rhetoric..

 

[Dirty Shoez]

damn harry.. your slippin on your readin and comprehension skills.. this is from that same link...

so do u think its ok that they can hold somebody wether alien or not for an extended amount of time without filing charges?

Why were they held without charges??

Uh...Like I already said, the two ARE NO LONGER Enemy Combatants.

You now need to come up with a US CITIZEN that has been named an ENEMY COMBATANT and is CURRENLY being denied Habeas Corpus under this new law.....these last 2 examples of yours FAILED.

yes, it does get frustrating, you cant stand hearing anything negative that has anything to do with your party leanings, why does it seem like i can bring up all these articles and info without



the legislation itself is blanket.. you cant argue with that and your best arguement is "but the legislation says"... its like teaching a pre-schooler i swear...

Lmao. Do me a favor. Say, "2 Plus 2 is....Four? HAHAHAHAHA!!!" out loud. Use a real smart-ass voice too. ....Did you do it? Now.....did you almost question for a second whether 2 and 2 were Four? Did you remember to laugh?

I only have to say "but the legislation says".......you simple, simple man........because that is what JUDGES and JURIES will be concerned with. JUDGES and JURIES will not be flipping open to page 7 of the New York times, and reciting what a newspaper article says, when it comes time to decide on these cases............THEY WILL BE READING THE MOTHERFUCKING LEGISLATION ITSELF!!!!!!

You've got to be fucking kidding me with this act. Nobody can have this much disregard for the truth......

because the fuckin wording used is blanket on purpose!!! ive been saying that for a long time now.. yet your still here and instead of posting your own articles you decide to come into the ones i post and repeat the tired old rhetoric..

Uhhh..... question: Why the FUCK would I post articles when i can use my own words and primary sources? Are you confused, sir, about what it is that journalists do?

Were you under the impression that journalists were....like....reading other articles, and then writing their own articles? And that the original articles just appeared out of thin air, AND WEREN'T ORIGINALLY WRITTEN BASED ON PRIMARY SOURCES, such as, in this case, the ORIGINAL LEGISLATION?


Seriously.......this is fucking incredible. Do I know you from somewhere? Why are you doing this? It's like you're not even trying

 

[TROLL]

ive gotten to the point where i skim thru your ramblings until i catch something of any importance.. needless to say i have yet to find anything... so for the sake of arguement, i feel we have no right to detain ANYBODY(say again) ANYBODY to torture and detain without giving them the right to our judical system..

 

[Dirty Shoez]

Surely we have the right. We elect Lawmakers, and those Lawmakers write and enact the rules. The "right" is not open to argument. Non-Citizens may be allowed certain rights under the constitution, but those rights are by no means mandatory.

As far as Torture........talk about your blanket terms. For some people, being forced to wear a uniform to school would constitute "torture". Impossible to argue torture without arguing either of specific teqniques, or where to draw the line.

As far as detaining non-citizens.....doesn't matter. They aren't citizens. If the country where these people are citizens would like them back (Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc, maybe? Where they REALLY WOULD be tortured--as in, brutalized and maimed--not just loud music and cold showers).......then thats too bad as well.

it sucks to be caught in a terrorist raid, and be blamed for something you didn't do. It also sucks to "happen to be" hanging out a crackhouse, and then get charged like everyone else even if you weren't a dealer OR a smoker.

Lay down with dogs...come up with fleas. That's the way it's been, and especially in times of war and conflict, the way it needs to be.

The stakes here aren't just spreading more pirated MP3s, or selling more weed, or slapping up your wife again. The stakes here are death for Americans.

 

[TROLL]

Surely we have the right. We elect Lawmakers, and those Lawmakers write and enact the rules. The "right" is not open to argument. Non-Citizens may be allowed certain rights under the constitution, but those rights are by no means mandatory.

i must have missed that signing statement in our constitution and bill of rights that states these rights were allowed only to certain people..

As far as Torture........talk about your blanket terms. For some people, being forced to wear a uniform to school would constitute "torture". Impossible to argue torture without arguing either of specific teqniques, or where to draw the line.

or how about waterboarding? i certainly think dunking somebodys head in water making them believe they are about to drown is torture..

As far as detaining non-citizens.....doesn't matter. They aren't citizens. If the country where these people are citizens would like them back (Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc, maybe? Where they REALLY WOULD be tortured--as in, brutalized and maimed--not just loud music and cold showers).......then thats too bad as well.

and what about those who were innocent? (i.e the canadian who was sent to saudi arabia?)

it sucks to be caught in a terrorist raid, and be blamed for something you didn't do. It also sucks to "happen to be" hanging out a crackhouse, and then get charged like everyone else even if you weren't a dealer OR a smoker.

or a pedestrian when it comes to your point of view...

Lay down with dogs...come up with fleas. That's the way it's been, and especially in times of war and conflict, the way it needs to be.

wanna talk blanket terms like torture.. how about terror?

The stakes here aren't just spreading more pirated MP3s, or selling more weed, or slapping up your wife again. The stakes here are death for Americans.

i dont wake up fearing death by way of arab..

 

[Dirty Shoez]

And you wonder why I say you bore me.

I never said Arab. Never said Terror. The Canadian was sent to Syria...not Saudi Arabia. You're spinning, asking and setting up loaded questions, and generally not fact-checking at all. When you do do research, it's just articles and other such slanted nonsense.


Friend, the Constitution is meant for American Citizens. That is who it was designed for.....not for Foreigners. If they don't like the new rules, its simple: stop attacking us when we're at war. Otherwise, you'll have hell to pay.

 

[nbpsfc]

damn shoez you must get socked in the mouth on a daily basis, you always sound like such a fuckin smart ass

 

[I <3 The Cock]

damn shoez you must get socked in the mouth on a daily basis, you always sound like such a fuckin smart ass

you must wear diapers and drool on yourself, you always sound retarded

 

[pAc0]

dirty has this thread on lock.....

 

[SLICC RICC]

GOOD ARGUEMENTS ON BOTH SIDES...

 

[Doberman]

Friend, did you even read the legislation or did you just start running your mouth? Are you the type that thinks he can talk his way out of anything, on the fly, without doing research, because you just assume you can outsmart the other person?

Not trying to outsmart you...I can do that on my dumbest day...drunk and high...trust me on that one.

US Citizens are NOT Aliens

Duh Dipshit!

, and therefore, CANNOT be subject to military commissions.

Please take the time and point out the section in the legislation where it says it ONLY applies to aliens.

If you want to argue that they CAN BE--because thats your pesonal interpretation

I didn't once argue that American Citizens are aliens. Don't put words in ma mouf.

and you don't give a fuck what the actual bill says--then that's all you.

I really don't ...FUCK EM...and feed em dick!

But i suggest you go take a logic class, because you sound like an idiot right now.

Law is not about logic...it's what the muthafuckin words say.

Yes, it should be. But only Marxists are allowed free reign in the GOM, and I am not one of them. We Conservatives are not allowed to speak openly and defend ourselves in the GOM. It's too dangerous for the GOM agenda.

Fa sho...we don't like bitches!

As far as this man Adam Yahiye Gadahn...err...he didn't "try" anything. He IS a member of Al-Qaeda. IS.....As in, TO BE. He IS Al-Qaeda, and we are at war with Al-Qaeda.

You right...tha poster boy of an "Enemy Combatant"!

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/10/12/1160246262446.html

I don't know where the fuck exactly you got the phrase "enemy combatant" from in regards to him, but that is not the case. NOBODY is calling this man an enemy combatant, EXCEPT YOU! He is charged with treason, and should he be captured, he'll be tried in a US Court. -- Maybe you should stop memorizing buzzwords and instead start doing research.

====================================================


The definition in the legislation identifies him as an enemy combatant! They can charge him with whatever they like.
From the text!

(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--

`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or

THIS MEANS ANYONE.....NOT ONLY ALIENS!

`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

The key words are..." a person" not an Alien

`(B) CO-BELLIGERENT- In this paragraph, the term `co-belligerent', with respect to the United States, means any State or armed force joining and

directly engaged with the United States in hostilities

or directly supporting hostilities against a common enemy.

Oh what's this? any State...or

Armed force

That seems to cover any American Militia...lot's of those against the government in the mid-west. The keyword is ANY. Not only Alien bred!


`

(3) ALIEN- The term `alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.

again the definition of an Alien!

`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter

Here they combine the definitions to create a specific type of individual...that collectively amounts to an insurgent or anyon else who want's to travel to Iraq or any where else for that matter , and help Al Qaeda or similar groups.

But

NO WHERE DOES IT EXCLUSIVELY LIMIT THIS LEGISLATION TO THEM!

Again...I ask you to point out the section where this exclusively applies to Aliens as well as the part where it EXCLUDES american citizens!

When you do that I will bow down and let the world know that Filthy Shoez..or whatever your muthafuckin name is ...is "Da Man" and I was wrong!

But until then....YOU DUMB SUMM OF A BITCH! don't you ever get on this board again and try to ridicule me...cause I know magic!

 

[nbpsfc]

you must wear diapers and drool on yourself, you always sound retarded

you must wear skirts and carry a purse, cause you always sound like a bitch, so i guess were even

 

[TROLL]

And you wonder why I say you bore me.

then why are you posting here?

I never said Arab. Never said Terror. The Canadian was sent to Syria...not Saudi Arabia. You're spinning, asking and setting up loaded questions, and generally not fact-checking at all. When you do do research, it's just articles and other such slanted nonsense.

I never said that u said arab.. but if someone lives paranoid of terrorism its not an asian or hispanic they get worried about sitting next to on a plane..so how about that canadian who was sent to syria?

Friend, the Constitution is meant for American Citizens.

i think we need to be re-taught our bill of rights....
:dead:
vvvv

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 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 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 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.

AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST!!!!!!!

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.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

R.I.P your arguement and zigzagburna's opinion.... and u wonder why i call u UNamerican...

That is who it was designed for.....not for Foreigners.

so the words NOBODY and EVERYBODY....?????

 

[enserio]

Truly, there are good arguments on both sides (like RICC said). When I first read the legislation, it read as a defintion of 'enemy combatant' under 4 different categories, and ALIEN is merely ONE of them.

All you motherfuckin cheerleaders need to put the pom poms down unless you can drop some logic that is supported by unbiased text.

 

[TROLL]

i wouldnt be surprised if "mobshit" was "dirtyshoez" so he could post in the GOM again..

well anyway,.. here are some more links and articles to reafirm my stance..

Court: U.S. Can Hold Citizens as Enemy Combatants::

A federal appeals court today ruled that the government has properly detained an American-born man captured with Taliban forces in Afghanistan without an attorney and has legally declared him an enemy combatant.

The 54-page ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi, who is being held incognito at the Navy brig in Norfolk, has broad implications for the Bush administration's war on terror.

The court ruled that as an American citizen, Hamdi had the right to a judicial review of his detention and his status as an enemy combatant. But because the Constitution affords the executive branch the responsibility to wage war, the courts must show great deference to the military in making such determinations.

"The constitutional allocation of war powers affords the President extraordinarilybroad authority as Commander in Chief and compels courts to assume a deferential posture in reviewing exercises of this authority," said the opinion, written by Chief Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III and judges William W. Wilkins and William B. Traxler Jr.

"The Constitution does not specifically contemplate any role for courts in the conduct of war, or in foreign policy generally. Indeed . . . courts are ill-positioned to police the military's distinction between those in the arena of combat who should be detained and those who should not."

Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan in November 2001. He was transferred to the Navy brig in Norfolk after telling U.S. investigators that he was born in Louisiana. But while he was in Norfolk, the military declined to allow Hamdi to speak with anyone because he was deemed an enemy combatant.

Hamdi's father, Esam Fouad Hamdi, and Federal Public Defender Frank W. Dunham Jr. filed petitions with the federal court in Norfolk seeking permission for Dunham to meet with Hamdi. In both cases, U.S. District Judge Robert G. Doumar granted the requests.

The 4th Circuit stayed Doumar's order in each case.

"I applaud today's decision which reaffirms the president's authority to capture and detain individuals, such as Hamdi, who join our enemies on the battlefield to fight against America and its allies," said Attorney General John D. Ashcroft. "Today's ruling is an important victory for the president's ability to protect the American people in times of war. Preserving the president's authority is crucial to protect our nation from the unprincipled, unconventional, and savage enemy we face. Detention of enemy combatants prevents them from rejoining the enemy and continuing to fight against America and its allies, and has long been upheld by our nation's courts, regardless of the citizenship of the enemy combatant."

The appeals court today was specifically ruling on the sufficiency of a two-page declaration by a Defense Department official who said Hamdi was captured with a rifle with Taliban soldiers. Doumar ruled that the statement by a special adviser to the undersecretary of defense for policy was insufficient to detain an American citizen without a lawyer.

But the appeals court ruled that it is enough to say that Hamdi was "captured and detained by American allied forces in a foreign theater of war during active hostilities and determined by the United States military to have been indeed allied with enemyforces."

The court noted the implications of its decision in a rare acknowledgment to the underlying facts of the case. "The events of September 11 have left their indelible mark," the judges wrote. "It is not wrong even in the dry annals of judicial opinion to mourn those who lost their lives that terrible day. Yet we speak in the end not from sorrow or anger, but from the conviction that separation of powers takes on special significance when the nation itself comes under attack...Judicial review does not disappear during wartime, but the review of battlefield captures in overseas conflicts is a highly deferential one."

yup...

Section 802 of the PATRIOT Act is specifically aimed at US citizens and announces any crime as "domestic terrorism". Citizens can be held without a trial as "Enemy Combatants". The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in January 2003 that U.S. citizens can be stripped of their citizenship and held as enemy combatants.

Professor Jonathan Turley, who teaches constitutional law at George Washington University, agrees that the bill contains no provision in which American citizens are exempt from the intent of the legislation, and outlined this during a recent appearance on Keith Olbermann's MSNBC show.

"I want to start by asking you about a specific part of this act that lists one of the definitions of an unlawful enemy combatant as, quote, 'a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a combatant status review tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the president or the secretary of defense.'

"Does that not basically mean that if Mr. Bush or Mr. Rumsfeld say so, anybody in this country, citizen or not, innocent or not, can end up being an unlawful enemy combatant?"

"It certainly does. In fact, later on, it says that if you even give material support to an organization that the president deems connected to one of these groups, you too can be an enemy combatant. And the fact that he appoints this tribunal is meaningless. You know, standing behind him at the signing ceremony was his attorney general, who signed a memo that said that you could torture people, that you could do harm to them to the point of organ failure or death. So if he appoints someone like that to be attorney general, you can imagine who he's going be putting on this board."

"Does this mean that under this law, ultimately the only thing keeping you, I, or the viewer out of Gitmo is the sanity and honesty of the president of the United States?"

"It does. And it's a huge sea change for our democracy. The framers created a system where we did not have to rely on the good graces or good mood of the president. In fact, Madison said that he created a system essentially to be run by devils, where they could not do harm, because we didn't rely on their good motivations. Now we must. And people have no idea how significant this is. What, really, a time of shame this is for the American system. What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values.

:dead: