Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq — Page 2

Spork, you are incorrect.

The Military Commissions Act only precludes Habeas protection for aliens who have been found who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination. §1005(e)(1), 119 Stat. 2742.

There has not been a legal interpretation of this section yet (to my knowledge) and it is unclear whether the limitation of Habeas rights under the MCA is in fact constitutional.

"No matter my thoughts on it, though, what is going on is legal."

And it was once legal to discriminate on the basis of skin color, but that didn't make it moral. I don't care how legal it is to torture people, it's morally reprehensible. For the United States to set it's self up as a moral authority that the rest of world should look to as guide, and then to allow and promote torture is the height of hypocrisy.

---

Most of the Iraqi insurgents aren't actually from Iraq.

---

There is nothing to argue.

Prior to the MCA, Habeas applied to resident aliens (we are not talking about those abroad).

Now, if that same resident alien is declared or accused of being an enemy combatant, his/her rights are suspended.

"Finally, the MCA in its present form even has the potential to impact the status of many ordinary lawful permanent residents in the United States. While the MCA was justified primarily on the basis of facilitating our government’s efforts to detain individuals captured on foreign battlefields or actively undertaking terrorist operations, the literal terms of Section 1005 actually confer exceedingly vast powers to detain a far different pool of people. Section 1005(e)(1) permits the indefinite detention of any alien accused of being an enemy combatant. Such accusations can include open-ended, indirect offenses, including material support of terrorism and conspiracy. 12 While provisions for punishing such offenses already exist under federal criminal law, some of the potential problems with open-ended, indirect offenses in that context are mitigated by the presence of external review and more demanding evidence standards. The MCA lacks both. Moreover, the MCA permits detentions of alleged enemy combatants to continue indefinitely because no limit is placed on detentions before there is a determination of whether the individual is in fact an enemy combatant. The MCA specifically exempts from its coverage those individuals who are considered to be “lawful” combatants.13 The problem with this provision is that the framework set up by the MCA insulates from meaningful review the very determination of whether an individual is in fact a lawful combatant."
MCA

Not you Chita, SG seems to like using the smiley a lot when she is trying to make a serious point

---

Lighten the mood? The topic of this thread is anything but "light"

---

Spork, do you think that the Bush Co. has created powers for the executive branch that violate our constitution?

I know every time I think of Cheney and Bush my constitution feels violated.

budum bum!!

Thank you folks! I'll be here all week.

---

Updated On: 7/19/07 at 04:19 PM

So, we support an unpopular regime that uses force to maintain power, and are then surprised when members of its population hate us?

Kind of sounds like Iran pre-overthrow of the Shah.

We learn very little from our own history.

Not to get off topic on the OT Board, but if we had developed a national plan for alternative energy back in the 1970's, we would not be beholden to the likes of Saudi Arabia. (Both parties are top blame for this, but Bush has not helped at all with his connections to big oil).

See - we can all find something to agree on!

Spork -

No one really knows what goes on at Gitmo. There have been allegations of enhanced investigation tactics (I think that is the phrase) which in previous administrations would be considered torture, or something very close. But no one really knows what has gone on there - except that people have been held for over 4 years without trial and very limited access to legal representation.

Don't kid yourself about Abu Ghraib. We were responsible for what went on there - if you contract out services to a third party, you are still responsible for what happens. The U.S. Government has farmed out responsibilities normally held by the military to contractors, and cannot now claim that abuse and actions by those same contractors are not our responsibility.

We're responsible, but other than punishing those who committed the acts (which we did,) what else can we do?

And, papalovesmambo, I will never stop loving your posts.

---

Is that a direct quote?

We disagree on Bush, so I doubt that we'll come to an agreement on this particular issue.

---