Bush violates constitution

[Chris)]

I dont know how the hell this fool got away with this..

WASHINGTON (New York Times)— President Bush signed legislation Tuesday that creates new rules for prosecuting and interrogating terrorism suspects, a move Mr. Bush said would enable the Central Intelligence Agency to resume a once-secret program to question the most dangerous enemy operatives in the war on terror. “It is a rare occasion when a president can sign a bill he knows will save American lives,” Mr. Bush said at a ceremony in the East Room of the White House. He called the bill “a way to deliver justice to the terrorists we have captured.”
But the CIA program is unlikely to resume immediately, because the law authorizes Mr. Bush to issue an executive order clarifying the rules for questioning high-level detainees and the order has not been written. Many experts believe that the harsh techniques the CIA has used, including extended sleep deprivation and water-boarding, which induces a feeling of drowning, will not be allowed.
With the midterm elections three weeks away, Mr. Bush hoped to use the bill signing to turn the political debate back to the war on terrorism, a winning issue for Republicans, and away from scandals like the Mark Foley case, which have dominated the news in recent weeks. The president said he was signing the measure “in memory of the victims of September the 11th.”
The law sets up a system of military commissions for trying terrorism suspects that would allow evidence to be withheld from defendants in certain instances. It also strips the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear petitions from noncitizens for writs of habeas corpus, effectively preventing detainees from going to court to challenge their confinement.
More than 500 habeas suits are pending in federal court, and Justice Department officials said Tuesday that they would move swiftly to dismiss them under the new law. That will inevitably spark a challenge by civil liberties lawyers, who regard the habeas-stripping provision as unconstitutional, a view shared by many Democrats on Capitol Hill.
“Congress had no justification for suspending the writ of habeas corpus, a core value in American law, in order to avoid judicial review that prevents government abuse,” said Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The bill signing drew protests outside the White House from human rights advocates, some dressed in orange jumpsuits of the sort worn by detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. They gathered around a black coffin painted with the words “the corpse of habeas corpus”; some were arrested after refusing to move away from the White House gates. Joining the president at the bill signing were senior members of his war cabinet, including Vice President **** Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Michael V. Hayden, director of the CIA. In an e-mail message to CIA employees, General Hayden called the measure a “very public vote of confidence by Congress and the president in the skill and discipline of CIA’s officers.”
Leading Republican lawmakers, among them Senators John W. Warner of Virginia and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who balked at the initial White House version of the bill and forced a much-publicized compromise, were also on hand. But the third leader of that Republican rebellion, Senator John McCain of Arizona, was noticeably absent.
Mr. McCain, a likely presidential contender in 2008, skipped the ceremony to go to Wisconsin to campaign for a Republican House candidate, John Gard, and was later headed to Sioux Falls, S.D., to address the Chamber of Commerce. A spokeswoman said the senator’s absence was “purely an issue of scheduling.”
The bill was prompted by a Supreme Court ruling, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, that invalidated the system of military commissions Mr. Bush had set up for trying terrorism suspects, saying they required Congressional authorization. The court also required suspects to be treated in accordance with a provision of the Geneva Conventions, Common Article 3, which prohibits cruel and inhumane treatment, including “outrages upon personal dignity.”
The ruling prompted Mr. Bush to acknowledge the existence of the secret CIA program. Last month, he announced he was moving 14 high-level terrorism detainees out of CIA custody and to the detention center at Guantánamo Bay. He called on Congress to pass a bill setting up military commissions and establishing new standards for interrogation so the CIA program could go forward.

[Bloodangel26]

cry because your a terrorist and this effects you.

[Chris)]

It doesnt matter who this is directed at, regardless if they are terrorist or otherwise. Under no circumstances should the rights of people as expressed in the constitution be violated, as far as I'm concerned.

[Bloodangel26]

as far as i'm concerned, my mom takes the train to downtown chicago every day and works in a building next to the sears tower, so any program that even remotely helps catch terrorists i really dont care the cost. if a few terrorists have to get tortured for my mom not to get bombed, i'm more than ok with that.

[Chris)]

Oh, I see, you're one of those people who thinks we are going to be under constant attack by suicide bombers who hijack airplanes. I have my doubts about it occuring anytime soon.

[Bloodangel26]

your welcome to your thoughts and doubts, but i'd rather our government not take chances. no i dont think we are going to be constantly attacked, but yes i worry about my mother's safety.

let me make sure you know who you are defending...these are people who want to kill YOU just because they think they are better than everyone. they think that if they murder you and your family they will go to heaven or whatever. do you know where this hatred started? the ****ing crusades! something your great great great great great great great great great great ancesters did justifies them murdering you in your sleep.

while i agree we need some limits to what we can do to them, because thats what seperates us from them, i say **** THEM. they can take their 9000 year old feud and shove it up their asses.

[Chris)]

I'm not "pro-terrorism" in any way, there are plenty of ways to protect our country, without restricting the rights of the people.

[FeNiXSuNfIrE]

they arent doin it to americans, they are doing it to muslim terrorists, so unless you are a muslim terrorist....then it doesnt effect you. these are ppl that would rather kill u then look at you. they are taught to kill all ppl that are not their faith (keep in mind the word "muslim" is a very broad term, with many different sects of the religion and NOT ALL are this way). the word muslim actually means "one who submits to allah". theyre mission in life is to make the entire world muslim. in other words they want to kill every1 that isnt like them. now why would u care what they do to ppl that would rather kill u then look at you twice.

im tired of naeve ppl blaming bush for everything. whether bush was president or not, there would still be a war, there would still be secrets kept from the public. even if it were a liberal in house, it wouldnt really make that much of a difference. the upcoming voter generation are 90%+ liberal simply because they are anti bush, which makes NO sense whatsoever. if u are goin to vote democratic this upcoming election just because u are anti bush then u are a freakin dumba$$. not all republicans agree with bush, actually most dont have his back anymore.

im not defending bush, im merely pointing out the increasing public naevity. bush doesnt make 95% of the decisions, its all his cabinet. he is simply a puppet. and again i say things wouldnt be much different if he hadnt been re-elected. if anything we'd probably be in a worse position cuz kerry wanted to "decrease military intelligence" whatever the !@#$ that is suppose to mean.

im neither conservative or liberal im just not as close minded as most the upcoming voting generation. OPEN YOUR EYES PPL

[Tap]

seriously why is this even an issue. this might be one of his decisions that i actually agree with

[Chris)]

I think darth mortis said it best.

habeus corpus is a 700 year old legal concept, first enacted in the 1200's under the magna carta.

quite simply, it should not be a surprise that bush was able to do this, this is (according to him) a new era, and it is. why hold on to the FIRST and MOST important principle of every single legal system in the western world?

if you are required to prove that someone deserves to be held by the law, then you can't hold him indefinately. if you give human rights to ALLEGED terrorists, then you can't torture them, can you?

now all it takes is for someone to be arrested as a terrorist (not charged, nor tried, nor convicted, but merely arrested) and you can now be disappeared to any where the cia wants you to. ask the peoples of cambodia and el salvador how scary it can be to live under the threat of being 'disappeared' by your government.

and the part that scares the shit out of me, is that there are people who don't think it is a big deal.

[FeNiXSuNfIrE]

I'm not "pro-terrorism" in any way, there are plenty of ways to protect our country, without restricting the rights of the people.

they arent restricting your rights, the ppl in Guantanamo arent from here. THIS DOESNT EFFECT YOU.

habeus corpus is a 700 year old legal concept, first enacted in the 1200's under the magna carta.

quite simply, it should not be a surprise that bush was able to do this, this is (according to him) a new era, and it is. why hold on to the FIRST and MOST important principle of every single legal system in the western world?

if you are required to prove that someone deserves to be held by the law, then you can't hold him indefinately. if you give human rights to ALLEGED terrorists, then you can't torture them, can you?

now all it takes is for someone to be arrested as a terrorist (not charged, nor tried, nor convicted, but merely arrested) and you can now be disappeared to any where the cia wants you to. ask the peoples of cambodia and el salvador how scary it can be to live under the threat of being 'disappeared' by your government.

and the part that scares the shit out of me, is that there are people who don't think it is a big deal.

if u arent doing anything to put yourself in jeoperdy of getting in trouble then why are you so worried?

ask the peoples of cambodia and el salvador how scary it can be to live under the threat of being 'disappeared' by your government.

im sure they are all scared off their asses because lets face it...they all do things everyday that will make them look like a terrorist. ARE U KIDDING ME? they dont arrest you for walkin down the street. if you are doing sumthing that makes u suspect to terrorist activity then u should be inspected. if you arent doin that sh*t then you have nothing to worry about

[Chris)]

Just because it doesnt effect me doesnt make it right.

The holocaust had no effect on me, so why should I care, it was perfectly acceptable, as long as I'm not affected.

[FeNiXSuNfIrE]

LOL u bring in the holocaust huh? okay since u care about the holocaust you should care about this except you should ACCEPT this bill.

think why did hitler start all that? because ppl werent of the arian race right?

well why are the muslims killing everybody...BECAUSE THEY ARENT MUSLIM.

SAME SH*T MAN. would u rather question suspect terrorists by torture in attempt to stop thousands of ppl from dieing, or let them go and kill everybody that isnt muslim.

[Chris)]

Your stereotypes are ridiculous. All muslims do not want to kill every non muslim and take over the world, though I am sure there are some extremists out there. Oh, and I only brought the holocaust in as a comparison.

if u arent doing anything to put yourself in jeoperdy of getting in trouble then why are you so worried?

This isnt about me as an individual, what don't you understand about that concept?

[L4E]

Look at me im pheonixsunfire prodigy, i think everything is all right as long as it doesnt affect me, woohoo!

What ur so-called open mind doesnt see is that this is a very small step in a huge plan. Now they impliment this rule that affects "only their so-called ALLEGED terrorists (note that if they had enough proof they probably wouldnt need this bullshit of a new rule).
ok lets say its ok
a few years later they decide that... somebody going out against the governement is causing them problems. HEY! lets call him an "alleged terrorist" and imprison him, and u know what, then we can make him dissapear! problem solved, thanks georgy!

following ur path of ideas, i suppose u must agree with this?

The holocaust had no effect on me, so why should I care, it was perfectly acceptable, as long as I'm not affected.

rofl at ur sterotyping. ive seen some dumb people in my life, but this? im starting to think theres someone worse than mathalablabla on the forums..

[Darth Mortis]

*sigh*

ok, i can see that the average age of the members of this forum is in the preteens, so i will go slow.

1) habeus corpus is the legal concept that an accused must be presented with charges or be released from captivity. this is a right that has been upheld for 700 years.

2) by allowing any law enforcement agency the right to deny habeus corpus, it allows the restriction that currently exists (use for terrorism related suspects) to be struck down quite handily by the supreme court and allowing ALL citizens (and non citizens on us soil) to be held indefinately without charges by the government

3) this is dangerous as it is the first step down a slippery slope to what has the potential to become martial law. (martial law is not a good thing, by the way)

4) cambodia and el salvador, as i used for examples, were both ruled by extremeist governments during their respective periods of 'disappearances' and the simple act of walking down the street WAS cause enough for the governments to arrest, torture and execute you. (don't argue about this one until you research it, i have little time for ignorance)


simply put people, the cause of concern is not that habeus corpus is denied to only muslim terrorists, but that it should be denied at all.

the whole world is led by example, and when you treat your enemy as tehy treat you, then no one gains anything.

but the most important thing to remember is that basic human rights are never to be negotiated. i doubt that this law would really survive a constitutional challenge, but the simple fact that with a very slight change of wording, this law would apply to a whole nation.

you only think that this applies to muslims, but any law that isolates treatment for a specific religious and/ethnic minority is unconstitutional on its face. remember that, as it definately implies that something more insidious is at hand.

EDIT: hitler's final solution was carried out as a means of exterminating the prisoners of war, political prisoners and jewish and ethnic minorities. one of the greatest misconceptions about the holocaust is that the majority killed were jews. this is not the case, although jews were the single greatest minority killed. infact, over half were prisoners of war and political prisoners.

to try and equate the holocaust to the current extremist movement is quite childish and not at all relevant. the best possible comparison would be the american revolution, with the jihadists filling the role of the colonials and the western world that of the United Empire Loyalists.

[RaZzor]

Screw Muslims. Nuff said.

[The Mob]

ya.. who ever said that habeus corpus was first esablished in the magna carter is dumb.. it is in the constitution, article 1 section 9. however, the nessary and proper clause, article 1 section 8, if interpreted losely, "provides congress with the authority to make all laws 'necessary and proper' to carry out its expressed powers.

screw muslims.... only someone who is uneducated and narrow minded would say something like that..
are you going to say screw jews next?
what about screw christians?

[Darth Mortis]

this may be hard to believe, the noob...er...mob, but there was a world BEFORE the united states, and the magna carta was written in the 11th century, and is the first known legal text to invoke habeus corpus.

try wikipedia.com for more information. you would be surpised what it is you can learn when you remove your cranium from your colon.

[The Mob]

ok so i was owned.. good job

Blackstone cites the first recorded usage of habeas corpus in 1305, in the reign of King Edward I. However, other writs were issued with the same effect as early as the reign of Henry II in the 12th century. (Wikipedia)

it doesnt specifically say the magna carta.. HAH!
lol