Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative, why in the world would you support such a bill. If our gov't determines that a U.S citizen is an unlawful combatant then he/she can be arrested for any reason without a warrant thrown into a prison camp and not be allowed a trial. They do not even have to have any evidence of a crime. We need to stand up to this. This country is turning into a fascist prison state. Before you deny that this can happen read the Military Commisions Act. What else will we have to give up in the name of 9/11.
2006-10-19 14:19:45 · 12 answers · asked by Luke F 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
pancakes, you need to read more. It clealy states anyone who is an unlawful combatant. Where did you hear that Fox news?
2006-10-19 14:27:46 · update #1
It is astounding that people are actually posting that Habeas Corpus only applies to US Citizens.
Habeas Corpus is established by the 4th and 5th Amendments of the Bill of Rights, granting a) the accused a right to a speedy trial and more importantly, b) the right to be told the accusations against them and the right to not be held without trial (this is Habeas Corpus).
Read the Bill of Rights and you do not find the word 'citizen' anywhere - this is because our Founders rightfully believed that the rights laid out in the Bill of Rights applied to ALL HUMANS - an extension of the statement in the Declaration of Independence that "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among these to be Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
Rights granted by your existence itself cannot be suspended by any government. And that is precisely why the suspension of Habeas Corpus - FOR ANY REASON, FOR ANY DETAINEE - is immoral, unethical, illegal, and Unconstitutional.
Under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, detainees categorized as "unlawful enemy combatants" do not have the right to see the evidence used against them if it is considered detrimental to national security, nor are they required to be charged with a crime within a required time limit, as are all other classifications of prisoner. That in itself is suspension of Habeas Corpus - and is unconstitutional.
It was wrong when Lincoln did it, and it's wrong now.
I should add, all that is necessary for someone to be categorized as an "unlawful enemy combatant" is for the President to say so. There is no standard of judgment, no measure of guilt, which a judge can use to apply such a legal standing.
How in the world is that any different than a King proclaiming someone an enemy to the throne?
Why do you think Habeas Corpus was invented in the first place?
2006-10-19 14:41:00 · answer #1 · answered by blueeyz45 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No way. It is a horrible. They can arrest a citizen and call them an alien military combatant and you will never have a chance to prove you are a citizen. So it does apply to citizens. Also, it doesn't suspend habeas corpus like the Constitution says for rebellion or invasion, it completely gets ride of it. This is unconstitutional.
2006-10-20 04:37:57 · answer #2 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
properly... we are not being invaded or rebelled adversarial to, so habeas corpus might want to be in finished result. also, you ask your self why anybody is so disillusioned? If i flow to penitentiary for something i opt to have the right to an ordeal, and not in any respect in basic terms enable the authorities dictate my wrongs, otherwise they could do in basic terms something they prefer to. extra to the point, notwithstanding, i imagine the hot project over habeas corpus to that you're touching on is the habeas corpus rights of prisoners at Guantanamo bay. actuality study, there is no longer something in the structure that states that enemy warring parties/extraterrestrial beings might want to easily accept the right of habeas corpus because the structure in difficulty-free words applies to US voters.
2016-12-05 00:42:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Before I say "Big Brother is watching you" I agree with you whole-heartedly, I do not understand how this sort of thing can happen nor why is it that the supreme court does nothing to stop this. Here is another thought that I propose to you: when congress was investigating Haliburton over their large gas prices and their recent record profits, Dick Cheney refused to surrender documents about their profits and cited Executive order to keep those documents secret. My Question is how was he able to do this when there is absolutely nothing in the constitution that allows him to do this?
2006-10-19 14:25:19 · answer #4 · answered by Adam Harrison 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think you are a little bit confused...
Enemy combatants (sorta' implies non-citizens) are not entitled to the protections of the US Constitution, although this doesn't sit well with the same liberals who don't want the US to "spread democracy..."
The Habeas is alive and well...
2006-10-19 14:28:47 · answer #5 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A terrorist could be a citizen, if they are they would deserve this, I would rather take a stand against terrorism this way than wait till they appear in our court system where some smart lawyer can get them off.
2006-10-19 14:31:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
That would be Abraham Lincoln.
And by the way, nobody is suspending Habeus Corpus.
2006-10-19 14:22:51 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Gee... pretty grim picture... who is suspending Habeus Corpus for US citizens?
2006-10-19 14:27:20 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It won't fly, our country is founded on the Bill of Rights and that is what's in jeopardy our rights!
2006-10-19 14:24:57 · answer #9 · answered by delta s 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Read more. It doesn't affect US citizens. Like this would change your mind or anything.....
2006-10-19 14:22:36 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋