Did the Military Commissions Act of 2006, kill "The Bill of Rights" ?

Question

This Act "permanently eliminates" Habeas Corpus (The right to ask why you are being imprisoned). Once you have been imprisoned and are not allowed to ask why, have you lost all of your other rights ?

The Bill of Rights

1. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble peaceably, freedom to petition the government.

2. The right of the people to keep and bear arms.

3. No soldier shall be quartered in any house without the owners permission.

4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

5. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime , unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury: Nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

6. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.

7. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.

8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


Olbermann on the Murder of Habeas Corpus
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xUzUljH8EHU

The Bill of Rights
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm

Military Commissions Act 2006—Unchecked Powers?
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11095

Answer 1

Only for non-US citizens.

The MCA directly contradicts Supreme Court precedent, and the plain text of the constitution, which mandates that 5th and 6th Amendment protections apply to anyone held in custody by the US govt, and anyone prosecuted by the US govt.

It also directly violates Article I Section 9, by suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus. As the Supreme Court ruled over a hundred years ago, the phrase "except during rebellion or invasion when the public safety may require it" means that as long as the federal courts are open for business, they can hear Habeas petitions for anyone detained or held prisoner by the federal government.

The law is facially unconstitutional. The only question is, can someone come up with a creative jurisdictional standing argument and find a way to get a federal court to hear the constitutional challenge?

Answer 2

Last Thursday or Friday the folks within the USA Constitutional renewed movement increased encouragement to buy guns and ammo and if possible learn martial arts, not the sport kind. We still have our constitution but unfortunately there are more than enough useful idiots in federal government to commit treasonous atrocities against us. Could it be that instead of "Drug Bust" door breaking cops will in the near future yell, " Terrorist check" whilst breaking down someone door ? The war on terror is a scam. We have been terrorized by our own leaders.

Answer 3

You only lose your rights to habeus corpous if you happen to be caught committing acts of war.Without actually representing a country at war.
You know,
Like having a bomb strapped your butt, while out of uniform. hiding amongst the women and children. Your case is reviewed by a commision, But for the most part you are quilty untill proven innocent.Which is still much, much more then any other country offers you in time of war.
Fortunatly many of the bills are sunsetted, so they expire after a set amount of time.

Answer 4

I think the argument was that the Act only applies to non-citizens, who I guess are not "people," in that interpretation of the constitution. I think we'll find out when someone challenges the constitutionality of that Act.

Answer 5

You put two far out left views and the bill of rights as links. Actually read the bill for yourself and you'll see that it did not kill the bill of rights.