Congressional Approval of Detainee Bill - Page 6

Steeler · 10-20-2006, 11:00 AM

And with a wave of my magic wand, I make all those pesky court challenges disappear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Washington Post

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.

**leejo** · 10-20-2006, 11:33 AM

Judges have a habit of making their own minds up about such matters. Wait and see.

Switchcraft · 10-20-2006, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

And with a wave of my magic wand, I make all those pesky court challenges disappear.

Good. Those challenges now make as much sense as someone receiving a speeding ticket in Oslo and appealing it in Cancun.

TheFatKidDeath · 11-22-2006, 03:12 PM

I think it was asked by many pundits and people on TG what will change after the November 7th election. Hopefully, this assault on the Constitution will be revoked and declared Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. It's amazing that Americans believe that such things contained in this Bill can only happen to "real terrorists," despite the overwhelming evidence that most of the Bush regime's detainees have no connections to terrorism.

When these points are made to Americans, the reply is usually that "I'm doing nothing wrong. I have nothing to fear." Why, then, did the Founding Fathers write the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

American liberties are the result of an 800 year struggle by the English people to make law a shield of the people instead of a weapon in the hands of government. For centuries English speaking peoples have understood that governments cannot be trusted with unaccountable power. If the Founding Fathers believed it was necessary to tie down a very weak and limited central government with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, these protections are certainly more necessary now that our government has grown in size, scope and power beyond the imagination of the Founding Fathers.

But "law and order conservatives" have been brainwashed for decades that civil liberties are unnecessary interferences with the ability of police to protect us from criminals. Americans have forgot that we need protection from government more than we need protection from criminals. Once we cut down civil liberty so that police may better pursue criminals and terrorists, where do we stand when government turns on us?

10-20-2006, 11:33 AM	#77 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Congressional Approval of Detainee Bill Judges have a habit of making their own minds up about such matters. Wait and see.

11-22-2006, 03:12 PM	#79 (permalink)
TheFatKidDeath Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Santa Monica, CA Age: 39 Posts: 2,798	Re: Congressional Approval of Detainee Bill I think it was asked by many pundits and people on TG what will change after the November 7th election. Hopefully, this assault on the Constitution will be revoked and declared Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. It's amazing that Americans believe that such things contained in this Bill can only happen to "real terrorists," despite the overwhelming evidence that most of the Bush regime's detainees have no connections to terrorism. When these points are made to Americans, the reply is usually that "I'm doing nothing wrong. I have nothing to fear." Why, then, did the Founding Fathers write the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? American liberties are the result of an 800 year struggle by the English people to make law a shield of the people instead of a weapon in the hands of government. For centuries English speaking peoples have understood that governments cannot be trusted with unaccountable power. If the Founding Fathers believed it was necessary to tie down a very weak and limited central government with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, these protections are certainly more necessary now that our government has grown in size, scope and power beyond the imagination of the Founding Fathers. But "law and order conservatives" have been brainwashed for decades that civil liberties are unnecessary interferences with the ability of police to protect us from criminals. Americans have forgot that we need protection from government more than we need protection from criminals. Once we cut down civil liberty so that police may better pursue criminals and terrorists, where do we stand when government turns on us? __________________ \|TG-9th\| TheFatKidDeath "Born to Party, Forced to Work." http://www.theonion.com/content/node/55640 - Check me out on The Onion http://www.theonion.com/content/vide...ssfully_avoids - I'm on the local news!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
McCain- Lieberman bill - write to your rep	jex	The Sandbox	21	06-04-2004 12:35 PM

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links