Habeas Corpus gone, Geneva Conventions optional. HOW IT AFFECTS GUN OWNERS?


PDA






DerringerUser
October 20, 2006, 09:22 PM
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/10/your_words_are.html

I know what you're thinking, but i consider this a threat. Responsible gun owners and NRA members can be targeted and help political prisoner without a trial or a hearing. We should all be on the same page here, "Those who would give up a liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" -Ben Franklin. This is pretty much the same thing as gun control, were giving up our liberty to purchase temporary safety, if any.

Thoughts?

If you enjoyed reading about "Habeas Corpus gone, Geneva Conventions optional. HOW IT AFFECTS GUN OWNERS?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Marshall
October 20, 2006, 09:28 PM
My gosh man, a little green man in a saucer might visit you in your sleep tonight too. :)

Hazzard
October 20, 2006, 09:30 PM
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=228834&highlight=habeas

DerringerUser
October 20, 2006, 11:13 PM
FBI agents are green now:what: ?

Tommygunn
October 20, 2006, 11:23 PM
:banghead:
These measures are intended for use against terrorists. Yeah, yeah, I know: it can be used against others too, just as the RICO ACT, designed for use against the mafia has found its way into other aspects of law enforcement.
One of the legitimate purposes of government is to protect its citizens. And that is what this is supposed to be doing.
Could it eventually be used against us, by a Hitlery regime, or some future administration a la Enemies Foreign and Domestic??? Yes, I suppose so; historically, one has to admit of the possibility.
Can we fight one war at a time? We're mucked up in Iraq, Afghanistan is getting iffy again....how many fronts can we fight at once?
To paraphrase Confucius, we are "living in interesting times."

STAGE 2
October 20, 2006, 11:43 PM
So you are relying on a blatantly biased talking head who has zero legal experience to make your decisions for you. Real swell move if you ask me.

As for the act itself, there is no possible way that a US citizen would be subject to its provisions. It specifically excludes citizens from the jurisdiction of the tribunals.

Here's a question for you. Did you bother to actually read the act itself or are you basing your opinion on the statements of others?:scrutiny:

Marshall
October 20, 2006, 11:47 PM
FBI agents are green now

If you're a US citizen and seeing them because of this, more than likely so. ;)

gc70
October 21, 2006, 12:23 AM
P.T. Barnum was right.

Critter183
October 21, 2006, 12:26 AM
Most people here would be ****ting pyramids if Bill Clinton had this tool in his arsenal.

Well the good news for you folks that think this is an OK power for the prez to have, is that Hillary or some other dem may have that power in a couple of years. Does that give you a warm fuzzy?

gc70
October 21, 2006, 12:55 AM
What are you perturbed by, Critter183? Something that a leftist talking head spewed out to try to whip up hysteria or some of the actual provisions of the Military Commisions Act of 2006 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.pdf)?

STAGE 2
October 21, 2006, 01:02 AM
Well the good news for you folks that think this is an OK power for the prez to have, is that Hillary or some other dem may have that power in a couple of years. Does that give you a warm fuzzy?

Have you actually read it? I'm not talking about some selective quote either. I mean the whole thing. :scrutiny:

Critter183
October 21, 2006, 01:15 AM
The bot army is alive and well here too, I see.

gc70
October 21, 2006, 01:32 AM
The bot army is alive and well here too, I see.What specific provisions of the Military Commisions Act of 2006 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.pdf) do you not like?

Thin Black Line
October 21, 2006, 08:42 AM
I guess the whole things boils down to Executive "interpretation" as
stated in the new Law:

The authority to establish military commissions under chapter
47A of title 10, United States Code, as added by section 3(a),
may not be construed to alter or limit the authority of the President
under the Constitution of the United States and laws of the United
States to establish military commissions for areas declared to be
under martial law or in occupied territories should circumstances
so require.
....
(3) INTERPRETATION BY THE PRESIDENT.
(A) As provided by the Constitution and by this section,
the President has the authority for the United States to
interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva
Conventions and to promulgate higher standards and
administrative regulations for violations of treaty obligations
which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.
(B) The President shall issue interpretations described
by subparagraph (A) by Executive Order published in the
Federal Register.
(C) Any Executive Order published under this paragraph
shall be authoritative (except as to grave breaches
of common Article 3) as a matter of United States law,
in the same manner as other administrative regulations.
(D) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect
the constitutional functions and responsibilities of Congress
and the judicial branch of the United States.



I can see Hillary already rubbing her hands together and saying the
Monty Burns "Excellent"......

Derek Zeanah
October 21, 2006, 09:22 AM
Stage2: I keep hearing you say that, but aren't you assuming that citizenship is unalterable? I remember this lovely piece of legislation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Security_Enhancement_Act_of_2003) that tried to give the executive branch the power to revoke someone's citizenship without any due process. Has this not been passed in another piece of legislation, and are you certain it'll never be passed in any form?

Would kinda take the wind out of your argument if it ever makes it on the books, wouldn't it? Declare someone an enemy combatant, use that as justification to revoke their citizenship, and *poof* you've got an alien enemy combatant on your hands, who maybe was born in the US and has never left even on vacation...

gc70
October 21, 2006, 09:59 AM
Derek: if a law is bad because it could be abused in conjunction with a possible future law, very little legislation would ever be safe.

Thin Black Line
October 21, 2006, 10:14 AM
The issue is concentrating too much "interpretation" in the hands of a
single person, let alone a single branch. I would like to see the system
of checks and balances maintained in our Consitutional republic and I feel
this is more than possible to do in a time of war and still do it right. It
seems a bit disingenuous to have sections like:

(D) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect
the constitutional functions and responsibilities of Congress
and the judicial branch of the United States.

even inserted in a new law when the people in these branches have pretty
much been out of the loop lately.

My view on Military Tribunals and how it relates to detainees is clear:

http://thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=2736988&postcount=70

Derek Zeanah
October 21, 2006, 11:39 AM
Derek: if a law is bad because it could be abused in conjunction with a possible future law, very little legislation would ever be safe.Yeah, but it seems clear it's all part of the same legislative agenda -- the guy's on record saying he thinks he needs the power to revoke a person's citizenship on demand, and if he gets it (assuming it's not already passed as a rider on some other bill - I haven't been paying enough attention) then Stage2's "no possible way" argument kind of falls apart.

I think folks are being a bit short-sighted here.

DerringerUser
October 21, 2006, 12:16 PM
So you are relying on a blatantly biased talking head who has zero legal experience to make your decisions for you. Real swell move if you ask me.

As for the act itself, there is no possible way that a US citizen would be subject to its provisions. It specifically excludes citizens from the jurisdiction of the tribunals.

Here's a question for you. Did you bother to actually read the act itself or are you basing your opinion on the statements of others?

It does not exclude citizens from jurisdiction of Tribunals. I've read the act, and its horrific. Humans are flawed creatures, and the government can not be trusted, as you have seen with Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Etc. This will bite us in the ass some day.


Derek: if a law is bad because it could be abused in conjunction with a possible future law, very little legislation would ever be safe.

I agree, a lot of laws are dangerous. But this one sticks out the most and is by far the worst.

River Wraith
October 21, 2006, 12:36 PM
"Aim for the head."- G. Gordon Liddy

Marshall
October 21, 2006, 12:41 PM
the government can not be trusted, as you have seen with Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Etc. This will bite us in the ass some day.

Comparing the U.S. with three communist dictators? :rolleyes:

Why are you so paranoid about this? :scrutiny:

STAGE 2
October 21, 2006, 12:42 PM
Stage2: I keep hearing you say that, but aren't you assuming that citizenship is unalterable? I remember this lovely piece of legislation that tried to give the executive branch the power to revoke someone's citizenship without any due process. Has this not been passed in another piece of legislation, and are you certain it'll never be passed in any form?

Would kinda take the wind out of your argument if it ever makes it on the books, wouldn't it? Declare someone an enemy combatant, use that as justification to revoke their citizenship, and *poof* you've got an alien enemy combatant on your hands, who maybe was born in the US and has never left even on vacation...


As others have pointed out before, if our test was that we only pass laws that cannot be abused, then we simply wouldn't have any laws. Any type of authority granted to someone always has the potential for abuse.

However in our system that is not the standard. If a law, on its face is constitutional, then it is valid. This law is blatantly constitutional. It is a direct response to the judicial criticism and concerns raised in both the Hamdi and Hamdan decisions of SCOTUS.

Regardless of who can be determined an enemy combatant, or what the president can interpret, under this law, there is no way that a US citizen can be tried in a military court. It is simply impossible. Likewise for suspension of habeas. The jurisdiction of the tribunals is expressly limited to aliens. Theres no getting around that.

As far as citizenship goes, the law is quite settled on what one has to do to expatriate themselves. While this could possibly change in the future, I don't see that happening. Even if on attempted to do so, it would be an argument for not changing the citizenship requirments and not for dismissing this law.

DerringerUser
October 21, 2006, 12:58 PM
Comparing the U.S. with three communist dictators?

Why are you so paranoid about this?


History doesnt lie, Marshall. Look at all the countrys, every time the executive branch gives themselves enough power to almost be consdiered a dictator, then something bad always happens. The US is the only government that hasnt collapsed yet, and IMO it will sometime. Having all of this unchecked power can do no good for our country.

I thought the Patriot Act would be the end of this madness, but i guess i was wrong.

pcosmar
October 21, 2006, 01:11 PM
The question of the Geneva Convention is where this started. We are at war, and a very different war than the past. It is not just the war in Iraq, or the war in Afgahistan. This is a World War. Iraq,Afganistan,Iran ,etc., are just battles or fronts. The war on terror has been going on for years, long before Bush. Even fefore Carter. The attack on US soil are new, but not the war.
As far as the Rules of War go I would sugest this, http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000125.html

It is a long read, but worthwhile.

Outlaws
October 21, 2006, 02:03 PM
I was for the Iraq war, so keep that in mind when I say this......

Lets just let the rest of the world do their thing and destroy themselves if thats what they want. Torture your citizens? Fine. Enslave them? Fine. Hate America and build a union against us? Fine. But we just stop sending aid to all of them and see how long before they beg us for help from a World War that doesn't involve us.

I really don't give two shakes about anything outside the US anymore. Let it all burn.

This act may be needed because of the controversy over what to do with this scum we are encountering over in Iraq, but what about the local stateside militia that isn't sponsored by a state government and decides the Feds have gotten too out of control? I am not talking about some crazy who bombs a federal building. Say this militia take up arms in an attempt to seize control of Washington. Now what are they? Do they fall under the section that says "unlawful" meaning they are not part of a sponsored government militia? They will never get that far because the mere plotting will jail them until the end of time.

I don't think a violent overthrow is going to happen anytime soon, nor should it. But nothing lasts forever and at some point it might need to happen. Thats why we have the right to bear arms - to keep the government in check. But if they can just lock you up and declare you a "terrorist", thats what the British said of the Founding Fathers....but they didn't have the Men in Black back in those days.

Bartholomew Roberts
October 21, 2006, 02:25 PM
Duplicate - and one that repeats most of the myths and errors that have been covered in other threads to boot.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=228834

If you enjoyed reading about "Habeas Corpus gone, Geneva Conventions optional. HOW IT AFFECTS GUN OWNERS?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!