Today is a Sad Day.

You could probably mount an argument that public safety is threatened (through "terrorist actions on American soil").

However, the way I read your quote, that's not enough. Public safety has to be threatened "in cases of rebellion or invasion".

Now there's clearly no rebellion, so the Bush camp would have to argue that the attack on the WTC equates to an "invasion". Patently bullshit of course, but I bet my bottom that will be the "justification".

 

While I agree that is how it will be spun. 9/11 doesn't cover the classic definition of "invasion". It was an attack yes. We are being invaded by Mexicans but oh well. lol

 

since joe fears the democrats and their lies...... i can;t believe that he doesn't see how this could be used when they get into power..... if for only that reason you should protest against the SUSPENSION OF ONE OF THE CORNERSTONES OF DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY



it's funny how now he's comparing the states to third world countries...... much of the same ones that he's willing to back the invasion of for the sake of ‘civilizinnnnn’ them...... instead of those owned pics, i'd like to see some pictures of dead children with the word "D3M0CRATIZED" written underneath

 

You admit we are being invaded by Mexicans. Also Hugo Chavez is training Arabs to speak Spanish and giving them Spanish identification. We are at war with the Arabs who commonly brag about destroying our country. You’re an idiot for not connecting the dots. Copying legal jargon repeatedly changes nothing. I see exactly what you are using to argue your case as perfect reason to argue mine as well as the administration. You think you are immune so you sit back hoping to weaken the U.S. as much as possible so we can get attacked and you can then blame it on the government for not protecting us. Do you really think your fooling anyone?

 

Don't spin it Joe to that far of a stretch. Really man your better then that. Then Mexicans aren't here to kill us.

 

I see things haven't changed very much since the days of those quaint 1950's "educational" (propaganda) films. (Eg. BOYS BEWARE!)

 

IF you are really interested in what Keith Olbermann...or more importantly Constitutional Law Professor Jonathan Turley had to say, the full transcript can be viewed here.

 

Good article...

Shame on Us All


History should record October 17, 2006, as the reverse of July 4, 1776.


From the noble American ideal of each human being possessing "unalienable rights" as declared by the Founders 230 years ago amid the ringing of bells in Philadelphia, the United States effectively rescinded that concept on a dreary fall day in Washington.

At a crimped ceremony in the East Room of the White House, President George W. Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 while sitting behind a sign reading "Protecting America."

On the surface, the law sets standards for harsh interrogations, prosecutions and executions of supposed terrorists and other "unlawful combatants," including al-Qaeda members who allegedly conspired to murder nearly 3,000 people on Sept. 11, 2001.

"It is a rare occasion when a President can sign a bill he knows will save American lives," Bush said. "I have that privilege this morning."

But the new law does much more. In effect, it creates a parallel "star chamber" system of criminal justice for anyone, including an American citizen, who is suspected of engaging in, contributing to or acting in support of violent acts directed against the U.S. government or its allies anywhere on earth.

The law strips "unlawful combatants" and their alleged fellow-travelers of the fundamental right of habeas corpus, meaning that they can’t challenge their imprisonment in civilian courts, at least not until after they are brought before a military tribunal, tried under special secrecy rules and then sentenced.

One of the catches, however, is that with habeas corpus suspended these suspects have no guarantee of a swift trial and can theoretically be jailed indefinitely at the President’s discretion. Given the endless nature of the "global war on terror," suspects could disappear forever into the dark hole of unlimited executive authority, their fate hidden even from their families.

While incarcerated, the "unlawful combatants" and their cohorts can be subjected to coercive interrogations with their words used against them if and when they are brought to trial as long as a military judge approves.

The military tribunals also could use secret evidence to prosecute a wide range of "disloyal" American citizens as well as anti-American non-citizens. The procedures are similar to "star chambers," which have been employed historically by absolute monarchs and totalitarian states.

Even after the prosecutions are completed, the President could keep details secret. While an annual report must be made to Congress about the military tribunals, the President can conceal whatever information he chooses in a classified annex.

False Confidence

When Congress was debating the military tribunal law in September, some Americans were reassured to hear that the law would apply to non-U.S. citizens, such as legal resident aliens and foreigners. Indeed, the law does specify that "illegal enemy combatants" must be aliens who allegedly have attacked U.S. targets or those of U.S. military allies.

But the law goes much further when it addresses what can happen to people alleged to have given aid and comfort to America’s enemies. According to the law’s language, even American citizens who are accused of helping terrorists can be shunted into the military tribunal system where they could languish indefinitely without constitutional protections.

In other words, a wide variety of alleged crimes, including some specifically targeted at citizens with "an allegiance or duty to the United States," would be transferred from civilian courts to military tribunals, where habeas corpus and other constitutional rights would not apply.

Secret Trials

Secrecy, not the principle of openness, dominates these curious trials.

Under the military tribunal law, a judge "may close to the public all or a portion of the proceedings" if he deems that the evidence must be kept secret for national security reasons. Those concerns can be conveyed to the judge through ex parte – or one-sided – communications from the prosecutor or a government representative.

The judge also can exclude the accused from the trial if there are safety concerns or if the defendant is disruptive. Plus, the judge can admit evidence obtained through coercion if he determines it "possesses sufficient probative value" and "the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence."

The law permits, too, the introduction of secret evidence "while protecting from disclosure the sources, methods, or activities by which the United States acquired the evidence if the military judge finds that ... the evidence is reliable."

During trial, the prosecutor would have the additional right to assert a "national security privilege" that could stop "the examination of any witness," presumably by the defense if the questioning touched on any sensitive matter.

The prosecution also would retain the right to appeal any adverse ruling by the military judge to the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia. For the defense, however, the law states that "no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever … relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions."

Further, the law states "no person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories."

In effect, that provision amounts to a broad amnesty for all U.S. officials, including President Bush and other senior executives who may have authorized torture, murder or other violations of human rights.

Beyond that amnesty provision, the law grants President Bush the authority "to interpret the meaning and the application of the Geneva Conventions."

In signing the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Bush remarked that "one of the terrorists believed to have planned the 9/11 attacks said he hoped the attacks would be the beginning of the end of America." Pausing for dramatic effect, Bush added, "He didn’t get his wish."

Or, perhaps, the terrorist did.

 

Nursey your sooo fucking thick headed its no secret like I have said 90 percent of the professors in our universities are left wing nuts I have said that thousands of times. You can got out and easily find a few more the talking points are the same. Go to Communist Party USA and get the same rhetoric they read it from a script that does not make it so. Read it yourself make your own decision. That guy probably has a "Grinned from ear to ear" Post like Smileys somewhere on the internet. They hate their country and think Marx, Lennon are the smartest people who ever lived.

The radical Left court system would love to have jurisdiction of the terrorists. They would simply let them go say there was not enough evidence.

I have no idea why I’m telling you this you already know it well. You hate America as much as them and the terrorist you live daily for the next bit of alternative anti-American propaganda from your alternative websites.


Here this should make some sence for you

 

oh joe joe, you truly are the embodiment of everything the rest of the world laughs at America for.....

 

A show of hands from all the all the American's who have a problem with this concept?





That's about what I thought.

 

joe.. i've noticed the links you provide are usually either from rush limbaugh or ann coulter....

that comes as no surprise to me

 

i'd have thought most americans would want the terrorists to fuck up... it's only your government who want them to succeed so they can push through yet more draconian measures

 

You make about as much sense as Smurf.

 

and you make less sense than joe

 

That should read " you make about as much sense as Medicvet."

Sorry Smurf for the disrespect.

 

Yes Joe. Yes.

*hums 'Imagine'*

Ahem...yes, anyway.

And what happened to the ones who idolised Trotsky?

You know, just because the 'Communist Party U.S.A.' says something doesn't necessarily make it 'not so'.

Who? The neocons? Don't be silly...i believe the American Constitution is of extreme value and should never be undermined.

Unlike you (and Ann Cunter), i refuse to allow inferior qualities like hatred or prejudice distort my judgement, particularly in matters of such profound importance. (I don't want to cheat myself out of knowing reality, that's what we're here for, afterall). Hand on heart, i'm giving you the truth to the absolute best of my knowledge. And i might add, before i formulated my opinions, i started out with a more unbiased position than most people you are ever likely to encounter, having my roots in both east and west. I know the pro's and cons of both. I have contempt and admiration for segments of the population of both sides.

 

*yawn* :roll:

 

and dangerous dan is your better...

and joe still makes more sense than you. and medicvet is slimmer.

 

Barry was just having a bit of playful fun there Pimp! There was no need to launch such a cutting, below the belt attack in retaliation. I bet Barry's sobbing his overstressed big heart out, his ruddy bitch tits jiggling uncontrollably. :?