Problem...

This is literally the only law that Bush has not added one of his infamous signing statements. THAT should be the biggest red flag to anyone out there.

At this point, why should anyone trust anything these creeps say or do? Why? So, you're held indefinitely until 'they' say you are 'allowed' to have a manufactured hearing... then, back to the hole... forever. How does this help us win the 'war on terror'? Anyone?

Well...

...perhaps, 'the only one' is an over-exageration... But, it is one of the few (maybe it is the only). I, frankly, am very scared.

[link to www.boston.com]

If anyone's interested...

This is a nice link...

[link to www.presidency.ucsb.edu]

SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!

Let's not fool ourselves to think this is just another excess, or a wacky Republican shenanigan, or the like.

We surrendered to the terrorist, to the Neo-Con's desire to rule without restraint, to single out a whole group of dissenters if need be to consolidate absolute power, and make them enemies of the state, and focus fears, and energies not on the restoration of democracy, but on our short term unsubstantiated fears, one after the other until we will have only our government left to fear.

This is only 60 years removed from the last time this happened to a major democracy, and a World War had to be won, a Cold War had to be finally won before we could reclaim our freedoms. It took only a few short decades and we have begun to slide down the same deadly, sickening path.

We knew it would happen or at least be tried, with a free enterprise seen as some how able to facilitate better alternatives to government, and corporations seeing themselves legally the same as citizens, we have forsaken the individuals rights by the same people whom screamed the loudest about protecting the same, Republicans.

Freedom has come at the highest cost, and must be a continuous diligence from the free to maintain them. When freedoms are taken for granted, then they are easily taken away by those who would believe themselves empowered to take them for their own ambitions.

We the nation that introduced real democracy to the world should be the last to forget such lessons as we spent the highest price to keep our rights in blood, and treasure.

Happy Thoughts;

Dan Grady

Scary

An additional problem is what is to stop the government(the prosecution) from intentionally or inadvertently classifying a U.S. citizen as an alien 'unlawful enemy combatant' That citizen would have no right to petition the federal courts for relief challenging their classification(noncitizen)but would have to wait a CSRT status determination which the government can postpone indefinitely. Thus this law is could be invoked against U.S. nationals.

I used to think that we had learned our lessons from history that practices such as the internment of Japanese-Americans and the prosecution of dissents during the 'Palmer Raids' (under the wartime espisonage acts ) diminished us as a free society

Goes without saying...

...that this 'law' will be abused against anyone who disagrees vehemently with the Bush admin. Hell, I could be labeled an 'enemy combatant' just for frequenting this site.

Hard-liners and apologists will call that assertion 'absurd' or 'loony'... Again, what have these creeps done to gain our trust (at all)? Scary indeed.

Exactly

"Hard-liners and apologists will call that assertion 'absurd' or 'loony'... "

What the apologists can't address is that it's the possibility that's unacceptable, besides any prediction of actual occurance. It's very easy to say "We won't abuse it", but that's a matter of faith. The whole reason we have a system is to prevent the very possibility of such things, not to put us in a situation where we have to trust the government to behave admirably. We could have a law that states that police could enter your house and confiscate any firearms if they felt you were going to use them to commit a crime, without any evidence. Would right-wingers say "it's absurd to think the police would abuse that", or would they be screaming from the rooftops about the very possibility of it?

The Founding Fathers formed our government on the concept that you can't trust the government, since we had broken ourselves free of Imperialist England. We didn't like dealing with a King, which is precisely why we have separation of powers and checks and balances. If someone is acting inappropriately, then others correct the situation. "Trust" was never part of the equation, obviously.

The way Bush apologists talk, they would be perfectly happy having him as a king with unlimited power. After all, they seem to know he would never abuse his powers, right? So why not?

Great Point Peet , I agree with you....

When you say

..that this 'law' will be abused against anyone who disagrees vehemently with the Bush admin. Hell, I could be labeled an 'enemy combatant' just for frequenting this site.

I believe that is the Bush and Company objective.

Hard-liners and apologists will call that assertion 'absurd' or 'loony'... Again, what have these creeps done to gain our trust (at all)? Scary indeed. They have done NOTHING to gain my trust. These are people that are trying to take away my rights.

JLyon being a Drama Queen again

No one is taking away your rights J.

Bush is not stopping you from posting anti Bush propaganda on MMFA.

You still owe Bill O'Reilly an apology for a calling him a domestic terrorist yet apologizing the blatant terrorist activity of KKK Robert Byrd.

Dave

You are one dopey person aren't you?

SuperLiberal

Sure just act like a child and not stick to the topic.

And YOU saying jylon owes O'falafel

An appology was on topic HOW?

Dave

You are also stupid!!!!!

huh?

Bush-bashing... I love that! Aaaawww.

Dave

Im not even going to respond to you.

Obviously you do want to attack.

JLyon

You are the queen of attack.

Still waiting on the apology to Bill O'Reilly for calling him a domestic terrorist.

Uh...no

Bill is a domestic terrorist. He encouraged Al Qaeda to blow up a major American city. No apology needed.

Apology to O'Reilly?

Come on... Yeah... poor Bill.

Do you owe Rosie O'Donnel an appology

For saying she hates America? Or is it only those with residence on Planet Wingnut like YOU that gets to use the over the top rhetoric?

Goodbye to the Bill of Rights

This unconstitutional and illegal "law" just removed our 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendment rights.

You're Right

Bush supporters will dismiss as 'abusrd' and 'ridiculous' our concerns about these laws. Of course, the fact that Bush distorted and mischaracterized to get the law in the first place is irrelevant. The fact that he isn't leveling about the content of the law should not be considered a red flag. We just need to trust him and his judgment (all evidence to the contrary during the past six years notwithstanding). Certainly we can trust Gonazeles, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush to do the right thing.

And you owe Rosie an appology

For saying she hates America. While you are at it you ought to appologize to MMFA for subjecting us to your inanity

This of course

Should have ended up under blazinglydumbs post not yours. I dont know how it ended up here.

The real issue here

Habeas Corpus was the way that defendents forced the body holding them to prove they had the right to hold them.

There is nothing protecting the defendent's right to force a hearing now.

HC was the way to disallow the government to hold you without proving there might be a need to hold you. Without that, there is no guarantee that they will never hold that first hearing.

Well, luckily, the next President will almost certainly reject this law. If we're lucky, the next Congress will reverse it.

Duhhbya didn't waste...

... any time to get the ball rolling:

[link to www.dailykos.com]

People are being denied that right today!

Moving quickly to implement the bill signed by President Bush this week that authorizes military trials of enemy combatants, the administration has formally notified the U.S. District Court here that it no longer has jurisdiction to consider hundreds of habeas corpus petitions filed by inmates at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.

In a notice dated Wednesday, the Justice Department listed 196 pending habeas cases, some of which cover groups of detainees. The new Military Commissions Act (MCA), it said, provides that "no court, justice, or judge" can consider those petitions or other actions related to treatment or imprisonment filed by anyone designated as an enemy combatant, now or in the future.

Immediately after Bush signed the act into law Tuesday, the Justice Department sent a letter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit asserting the new authorities and informing the court that it no longer had jurisdiction over a combined habeas case that had been under consideration since 2004. The U.S. District Court cases, which had been stayed pending the appeals court decision, were similarly invalid, the administration informed that court on Wednesday.

The administration's persistence on the issue "demonstrates how difficult it is for the courts to enforce in the face of a resolute executive branch that is bound and determined to resist it," said Joseph Margulies, a Northwestern University law professor involved in the detainee cases.

[link to www.washingtonpost.com]

You should read this article (but only if you want to scream!) to see how even Arlen Specter says that this new law is wrong, and removes the right of US residents to challenge their detentions.

A number of legal scholars and members of Congress, including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), have said that the habeas provision of the new law violates a clause of the Constitution that says the right to challenge detention "shall not be suspended" except in cases of "rebellion or invasion." Historically, the Constitution has been interpreted to apply equally to citizens and noncitizens under U.S. jurisdiction.

Funny how the fact that we want the US Constitution to be honored makes us unpatriotic. Only in mirror-world, where everything is reversed, could that be true.

rivkin:

"if you're properly classified as an enemy combatant, then your detention is appropriate." sounds like something any two bit dictator [like bush] would say. and who decides if you are properly classified. that would be the same people who already made up their minds.

Exactly

Its like saying IF Bush is guilty of treason he can legitimatly be hung.