PMSNBC…………………next.

CBS……………………….next

NBC……………………….next

FOX News……………..Still going strong.

The people that endorse your party are like the 140 criminals that Clinton pardoned just before he left office.

You might think first before you throw your stones.

Clinton’s

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm

Bush’s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_George_W._Bush

Heh.

LET’S GO METS!!!!!!!!!

Here ya go, Slick:

Sec. 948a. Definitions

`(2) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- The term `lawful enemy combatant’ means a person who is–

`(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;

`(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or

`(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.

As for who makes that determination, that is the function of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal, which is a military tribunal designed to determine whether an individual is properly detained as an enemy combatant.

If the tribunal determines that he may be detained, then the individual may appeal that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

In either case, responding merely keeps them coming back for more.

1) Please define (relative to this so-called war on terror)…

…”a lawful enemy combatant”…

2) Please explain…

…who gets to make that determination?

“A finding…by a Combatant Status Review Tribual or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for the purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.”

That means you cannot challenge that determination, if and when it is made.

And if the Government says a person is an alien, and that person is never allowed a hearing to challenge that determination, you could be locked up for the rest of your natural life, without charges, and subjected to treatment that has already been determined to violate international law.

But Bush can declare that smearing you with your own feces is not degrading; that piling you naked with other detainees is not degrading; that chaining you naked to a dog collar is not degrading; that all of these comport with international law, as he interprets it.

None of the methods used to elicit evidence from detainees is being revealed as a “national security” issue. How will we ever know if detainees are ever tortured? How will we ever know if someone is subjected to the rack, the iron maiden, disembowelment? If someone is injected with drugs? If someone dies in a secret prison? We won’t. That information is “classified.”

Bush now has despotic powers. Only a fool would trust in the benevolence of a dictator. Recall the image of Bush, crawling under his desk in a mock search for WMD’s. THIS is who Congress has given despotic powers to.

“By a long course of practical administrative construction by its military authorities, our Government has recognized that those who during time of war pass surreptitiously from enemy territory into our own, discarding their uniforms upon entry, for the commission of hostile acts involving destruction of life or property, have the status of unlawful combatants punishable as such by military commission. This precept of the law of war has been so recognized in practice both here and abroad, and has so generally been accepted as valid by authorities on international law that we think it must be regarded as a rule or principle of the law of war recognized by this Government by its enactment of the Fifteenth Article of War.”

It was not Bush was messed with it. It was the Supreme Court. Bush, in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief (using, in part, the example provided by FDR when he established military commissions during WWII) and as implicitly authorized by Congress’ 9/18/2001 AUMF, ordered the establishment of military commissions for use during the War On Terror.

In the Hamdan decision, the Supreme Court decided (erroneously, in my opinion) that even though FDR (and other president, such as Lincoln) had created military commissions, which had tried and convicted unlawful enemy combatants, including U.S. citizens, Bush did not have the constitutional authority as President to create such commissions without specific congressional approval. (The administration had argued that the president in his constitutional role as C-in-C and the AUMF provided all the necessary authorization to create such commissions. A majority of the Court disagreed). Thus, in keeping with the direction provided by the Supreme Court in the Hamdan decision, the Bush administration went to Congress and asked for specific, explict approval of the military commissions. This the Congress did when it passed the MCA, which the president signed this week.

It seems that you just provided evidence that what we had worked. So why is BushCo messing with it?

Moreover, the MCA specifically and explicitly states that military commissions have no jurisdiction over captured lawful combatants:

Sec. 948d: Jurisdiction of military commissions`

(b) Lawful Enemy Combatants- Military commissions under this chapter shall not have jurisdiction over lawful enemy combatants

That issue has already been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), in which the Court held that U.S. citizens held as enemy combatants cannot be held indefinitely without be afforded due process protections, as well as the right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Because the MCA leaves the Hamdi decision undisturbed, it remain the law of the land.

Clearly legal immigrants have lost their Constitutional protections. Attorney General Gonzalez didn’t even bother to address my question on the issue.

The question is, how much do you trust a President who lied to get us into a war, who has already violated the Constitution and International Law, how much do you trust Him to uphold any of your rights?

*** crickets chirping ***