Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

R.I.P. Habeas Corpus
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership ^ | October 19, 2006 | JPFO

Posted on 10/22/2006 6:28:59 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

On Tuesday, October 17, 2006, another nail was pounded into freedom's coffin when President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act into law. Within the Act, the 800-year tradition of Habeas Corpus -- the right of the accused to face their accuser in court -- was essentially eliminated.

While much of the mainstream media glossed over this news with a disinterested yawn, one brave commentator made no bones about the magnitude of this treachery. Watch MSNBC's Keith Olbermann at http://tinyurl.com/yk6osh as he comments on this appalling development. If you do nothing else, WATCH THIS VIDEO! It will make your blood boil, to say the least.

In another video from MSNBC's "Countdown," Olbermann interviews Jonathan Turley, Professor of Constitutional Law at George Washington University ( http://youtube.com/watch?v=P25QkFZ-0zk ). Turley points out that even giving "material support" (such as a donation) to an organization that has been deemed "terrorist" can get you designated an enemy combatant as well. And who determines which organizations are associated with terrorism? The president alone.

We are no longer standing at the precipice of a tyrannical dictatorship -- we've stepped off the edge. The United States is gleefully skipping down the same path as the former Soviet Union, China, and Nazi Germany. "The Most Free Country on Earth" is now merely a phrase of propaganda, not reality.

Still don't believe it? Check out our "Police State" page at www.jpfo.org/policestate.htm . We're constantly adding new articles -- too many, we believe -- that document our slide into a tyrannical, dictatorial regime. Articles like this:

FBI Director wants ISPs to Track Users
http://tinyurl.com/yhoxqs

Tracking your movements on the internet? Is this what our country is about -- quietly acquiescing as the American Stasi monitors your communications?

IT IS NOT!

America is about the Bill of Rights, that document which specifically states that there are rights upon which the federal government _cannot_ infringe. The Military Commissions Act essentially guts the Bill of Rights, and it is up to us, The People, to demand that our government follow its own charter.

JPFO is constantly exhorting our supporters to celebrate Bill of Rights Day each December 15. But is that enough? EVERY day should be Bill of Rights Day. When we think about our rights once a year (or less), this is the result.

Send this alert to everyone you know, regardless of political affiliation. Celebrate Bill of Rights Day on December 15 (we have many ideas which you can use at http://www.your10rights.com/bord.html ). But most importantly, demand that your rights be respected. There are only 56 days until December 15, Bill of Rights Day. Will you celebrate its true spirit ... or the hollow farce our government wishes to make of it?

Remember, if you don't defend your rights, don't complain when you lose them.

- The Liberty Crew


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bravosierra; enemycombatants; habeascorpus; hearings; jpfo; terrorists
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-196 next last
Here's a reply I received after I forwarded this alert to the Yahoogroups that I belong to:

Habeas Corpus My Ass

This is utter rubbish.

Are you an alien? Have you renounced your citizenship? Have you renounced the Constititution? Are you in open rebellion against the United States? Are you on foreign soil? Are you not a citizen of a member of a Geneva Convention signatory nation?

There are many other questions that could be asked, but if you answered "No" to any of those above -- sorry -- Habea Corpus still applies to you.

FDR used military tribunals for trial, sentencing, and execution of Nazi saboteurs and spies caught on U.S. soil, and some who were caught elsewhere. The Constitution does not permit SCotUS or Congress to do this, and the enemy we now fight is one that has been appeased like a misbehaving child for forty years in Europe, until the worst terrorist act in U.S. history took the lives of more Europeans and Americans than any other.

This is about giving the Commander-in-Chief and his military force the tools they need to prosecute, detain, and terminate with extreme prejudice an enemy unlike even Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan regarding rules of engagement.

And the biggest difference today is the fact that the nuclear genie is out of the lamp.

Civilization is passed on in our values, not our genes. This legislation demonstrates to the decades-behind world that this new enemy demands new consideration, new tactics, and new law. It is the rest of the damn world that's being lazy, here. They all condemn us for being the one Superpower, but it was their own stupid appeasement, isolationism, and "see-what-happens" attitude that drove us to nuclear supremacy, and terrorism to the level of diplomacy.

Blame Europe. They are still sitting there hoping that the wolf will eat them last.

The wolf will.


And finally, there is the Consitution. From Article 1, Section 9 (pertaining to Congress):

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

1 posted on 10/22/2006 6:28:59 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 3D-JOY; abner; Abundy; AGreatPer; alisasny; ALlRightAllTheTime; AlwaysFree; AnnaSASsyFR; ...

PING!

JPFO's take on the subject of the military tribunal law.


2 posted on 10/22/2006 6:30:15 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Non-smoker who hates smoking nazis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Lincoln actually suspended Habeas Corpus during the entire "Civil" War. Bush needs to do the same.


3 posted on 10/22/2006 6:32:26 AM PDT by US Navy guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: US Navy guy

I never hear liberal complaining about Lincoln though. Do You??


4 posted on 10/22/2006 6:34:00 AM PDT by sgtbono2002 (The fourth estate is a fifth column.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Coulda- Woulda-shoulda--Mighta-Maybe--B.S.

If you have nothing to hide...What's the problem?


5 posted on 10/22/2006 6:35:51 AM PDT by radar101 (LIBERALS = Hypocrisy and Fantasy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Watch MSNBC's Keith Olbermann...as he comments on this appalling development...It will make your blood boil, to say the least.

Well, watching that ignorant dumbass would probably make me puke, as well as making my blood boil.

But, alas, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, I really thought you guys were smarter than this.

6 posted on 10/22/2006 6:35:57 AM PDT by OldSmaj (I am a sworn enemy of islam and all things muslim. And that's the end of the discussion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Well you got one thing right.

Keith Olbermann does make my blood boil.
7 posted on 10/22/2006 6:36:17 AM PDT by DB (©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: US Navy guy

So did FDR--Their HERO!


8 posted on 10/22/2006 6:36:42 AM PDT by radar101 (LIBERALS = Hypocrisy and Fantasy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
We are no longer standing at the precipice of a tyrannical dictatorship -- we've stepped off the edge.

I'm okay with that and in fact embrace it, given the alternative - a socialist state of near anarchy led by the dems in which muzlims enjoy open season against Americans.

10 posted on 10/22/2006 6:38:44 AM PDT by gotribe (It's not a religion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: waterlootruck

Yep, Sieze ALL Movie and TV studios and make them make US Armed Forces Training Films, like they did in WW II.


11 posted on 10/22/2006 6:38:45 AM PDT by US Navy guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.


12 posted on 10/22/2006 6:39:29 AM PDT by DTogo (I haven't left the GOP, the GOP left me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

It's quite strange that a 2nd amendment rights group would praise a big gun grabber such as keith olberidiot.


13 posted on 10/22/2006 6:40:46 AM PDT by Dane ("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" Ronald Reagan, 1987)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
You nailed it. These freaks writing this crap have NO idea about what the Detainee bill actually does nor what the Geneva Convention actually says about Illegal Combatants. More Leftist hysteria and nonsensical noise
15 posted on 10/22/2006 6:41:24 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (EeevilCon, Snowflake, Conservative Fundamentalist Gun Owning Bush Bot Dittohead reporting for duty!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: US Navy guy

US Armed Forces training films for WWIII--Brilliant!!!
Every American adult should have an adult beverage or two and watch some WWIII films. It would do a body good.


16 posted on 10/22/2006 6:42:05 AM PDT by xc1427 (Remember, it's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: radar101

da, comrade.

You know where that comes from? I can't hear it and not get a cold chill down myback.


17 posted on 10/22/2006 6:43:19 AM PDT by Hawk1976
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

Their problem seems to be that they listen to Keith Overtliar. Anyone stupid enough to take Overtliar seriously is not worth wasting our time one


18 posted on 10/22/2006 6:43:48 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (EeevilCon, Snowflake, Conservative Fundamentalist Gun Owning Bush Bot Dittohead reporting for duty!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Just remember, Waco was "for Safety of the children." You may not fear such powers in the hands of George Bush, but you'd better fear them in the hands of the Hildabeast.

19 posted on 10/22/2006 6:45:24 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are truly evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

You should not consent to the exercise of any power by George W. Bush that you would not allow were it to be exercised by Hillary R. Clinton.


20 posted on 10/22/2006 6:48:34 AM PDT by Jim Noble (Some moron brought a cougar to a party, and it went berserk.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Exactly. There are some parts of the document that tend to indicate the executive branch would be able to dtermine the status of teh individual or group in question. That represents too much power in the executive branch for my liking, regardless of who is the executive ata ny given moment.


21 posted on 10/22/2006 6:48:43 AM PDT by Hawk1976
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Comment #22 Removed by Moderator

To: Baynative

It's called cognitive dissonance, and is a well-known tool among advertisers.


23 posted on 10/22/2006 6:51:48 AM PDT by P.O.E.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
While I have sympathies with this organization, whenever anyone trashes the Constitution, they are on my turf. The Detainee Act does NOTHING to eliminate habeas corpus.

In 1942, the Supreme Court ruled UNANIMOUSLY (in the Quirin case) that the trial court was wrong, habeas corpus DID apply to eight German saboteurs who had been tried and convicted by a military tribunal, and six sentenced to death. Having taken jurisdiction, the Court then ruled that use of the military tribunal was constitutional, even for saboteur who was an American citizen.

In short, even those this Act is now in place, there will STILL be judicial review. Habeas corpus is still there. What they will NOT have -- just as in Quirin -- are all the guarantees of the Bill of Rights in ordinary "Article III" federal courts.

Sheesh. Get it straight.

Congressman Billybob

Latest article: "An Open Letter to President Bollinger"

Please see my most recent new statement on running for Congress, here.

24 posted on 10/22/2006 6:54:05 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob (Have a look-see. Please get involved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: waterlootruck

I don't believe the treason statutes apply without a declared war under 1-8-11. This hasn't been done, only actions authorized under the UN charter.

25 posted on 10/22/2006 6:57:15 AM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: xc1427
Every American adult should have an adult beverage or two and watch some WWIII films. It would do a body good.

As long as they show us winning, the muslims submitting to peace and freedom, and Mecca becoming just another city.

26 posted on 10/22/2006 6:57:18 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Non-smoker who hates smoking nazis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

I can't take credit for that email reply. That was sent by somebody else in one of my Yahoogroups.


27 posted on 10/22/2006 6:58:40 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Non-smoker who hates smoking nazis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Well, I posted that, since it allows the suspension of habeas corpus only in cases of rebellion or invasion. I suppose you could call some of these nuts being held at gitmo invaders, if they came to the U.S. with the long-term goal of destroying the country.


28 posted on 10/22/2006 7:01:36 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Non-smoker who hates smoking nazis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: radar101
If you have nothing to hide...What's the problem?

Mistakes. Stupidity or malice by overzealous bureaucrats. This sure has been a problem with other executive agencies.

29 posted on 10/22/2006 7:01:49 AM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

This was under Article I (The Congress) so I suspect the power to suspend h.c. is in their hands only.


30 posted on 10/22/2006 7:02:59 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Non-smoker who hates smoking nazis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: US Navy guy

You're out of your mind. The civilian government is functioning and their isn't a general uprising or a massed enemy inside of or near our borders.
I think a very limited declaration of Marshall law on our southern border with Mexico is needed. It only need to extend from the border into the U.S. for a mile or two.


31 posted on 10/22/2006 7:04:15 AM PDT by em2vn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: US Navy guy
Yep, Sieze ALL Movie and TV studios and make them make US Armed Forces Training Films, like they did in WW II.

Seize private property for the use of the state?? Can someone point me to a conservative forum on the internet, because this can't be it.

32 posted on 10/22/2006 7:05:17 AM PDT by Live and let live conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
Based on THAT logic the US should disband the FBI because they have been abused by previous directors. Then since the US Military, Border Patrol and Coast Guard MAY be used in an abusive fashion some day THEY must be disbanded.

The Detainee bill targets a specific short coming in Law. Terrorists do NOT fall under the Geneva Convention yet the SC decided they DID get that protection. Therefore the Congress was required to specifically state how the Geneva Convention would be applied in this matter to these detainees. IF at some point in the future someone abused the law that could be address by NEW action in the Courts.

Demanding that everything in Law must be utterly perfect before anything can ever be done is absurd nonsense. It is the wailing of political hysterics who know NOTHING about either this Law or Law in general.
33 posted on 10/22/2006 7:07:55 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (EeevilCon, Snowflake, Conservative Fundamentalist Gun Owning Bush Bot Dittohead reporting for duty!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: radar101

Hey Comrade, try the fourth amendment. It's not that I have to hide, it's nobody's damn business but mine. I'm glad you don't ever get have to live in a world of competitive bidding, where secret, actually means something.


34 posted on 10/22/2006 7:08:09 AM PDT by Issaquahking (Trust can't be bought)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: US Navy guy
Do you know what Habeas Corpus is, and why the founders named that writ specifically for protection, when they didn't name other writs like Prohibition, Mandamous, Quo Warranto, Possession and Nea Exeat?

35 posted on 10/22/2006 7:08:15 AM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OldSmaj
But, alas, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, I really thought you guys were smarter than this.

Well, they fornicated the canine on this one. Given their good work in the past, I'll toss this article in the circular file and expect the next to be better.

36 posted on 10/22/2006 7:09:19 AM PDT by Slings and Arrows (Natalie Maines fears me...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
re: treason statutes apply without a declared war

If it were up to me I'd have had Congress declare war, officially and in every sense of the phrase, on Sept. 12, 2001. The declaration would be against any country, organization, group, individual, etc. that attacks the US or one of its citizens anywhere in the world.

We are still having to contend with that nearly one-third of our population that fails to realize, or simply refuses to acknowledge, that we are at war, big time.

This reluctance on our part to call the situation what it is, an open war against the West by Islamofascists, is driving me to distraction.
37 posted on 10/22/2006 7:10:28 AM PDT by jwparkerjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

I for the life of me cannot understand the logic. People here watch Chrissy Matthews so they can bitch about what he says.

Why do people not turn them off? Listening to the Junk Media for "News" these days is like listening to Radio Berlin in Jun 1943 to find out how the Allied War effort was going in WW2.


38 posted on 10/22/2006 7:11:03 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (EeevilCon, Snowflake, Conservative Fundamentalist Gun Owning Bush Bot Dittohead reporting for duty!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Hawk1976

"Exactly. There are some parts of the document that tend to indicate the executive branch would be able to dtermine the status of teh individual or group in question. That represents too much power in the executive branch for my liking, regardless of who is the executive ata ny given moment."

Yes. And "Vigilantes" on the border comes to mind.


39 posted on 10/22/2006 7:11:43 AM PDT by Kimberly GG (Tancredo '08 www.firecoalition.com/www.unitedpatriotsofamerica.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: OldSmaj; All

What you said.

Amazing how the scaremongers are out there using the signing of this act to try and convince us OUR civil rights have disappeared.

Only radical Liberal's and RINO's are having a hard time figuring out ho the "enemy combatants" are in this piece of legislation.


40 posted on 10/22/2006 7:17:35 AM PDT by txradioguy (In Memory Of My Friend 1SG Tim Millsap A Co. 70th Eng. K.I.A. 25 April 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: All

On and FWIW...ANYONE that tries using Keith Olbermann as a source to back up anything is NOT a Conservative or Republican of ANY stripe.


41 posted on 10/22/2006 7:18:46 AM PDT by txradioguy (In Memory Of My Friend 1SG Tim Millsap A Co. 70th Eng. K.I.A. 25 April 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Thanks Congressman Billybob!

This claim raised my eyebrow:

Turley points out that even giving "material support" (such as a donation) to an organization that has been deemed "terrorist" can get you designated an enemy combatant as well. And who determines which organizations are associated with terrorism? The president alone.

The question "What would (or could) Hillary Do?" should automatically apply to any assessment.

How does this stand in your view from this vantage point? I'm just seeking reassurance; I'd feel better if these things automatically ended within a designated period.

Thanks,

Tom

42 posted on 10/22/2006 7:20:21 AM PDT by tsomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Comment #43 Removed by Moderator

To: waterlootruck

And, on this subject traitors, lets not forget a few law makers as well.


44 posted on 10/22/2006 7:25:27 AM PDT by buck61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Furthermore, judgments of military tribunals are still reviewable through the federal appellate system.

We are not replacing a judicial system with no justice - just a different set of Courts with different administrators.

45 posted on 10/22/2006 7:31:38 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Please note that the suspension of Habeas Corpus is a power given to the Congress, and not to the Executive.


46 posted on 10/22/2006 7:34:42 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kimberly GG
And for my next trick, I shall learn to use spell check.
47 posted on 10/22/2006 7:36:44 AM PDT by Hawk1976
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson
Please note that the suspension of Habeas Corpus is a power given to the Congress, and not to the Executive.

I am aware of that.

48 posted on 10/22/2006 7:38:26 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Non-smoker who hates smoking nazis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: All

Just a little rational information on the new Military Comissions Act of 2006:


‘‘§ 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
‘‘Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.

‘‘§ 948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions
‘‘(a) JURISDICTION.—A military commission under this chapter
shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.

Even the leftist bunch at findlaw.com agrees:


Quote:
And note, in assessing the provision's scope, that the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" is not limited to aliens (even though U.S. citizens cannot be tried by military commissions, and are not covered by the bill's habeas-stripping provisions).



Quote:
Military Commission Proceedings

The bill provides that alien unlawful enemy combatants (but not U.S. citizens) are subject to trial by military commission.


http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20061009.html

Key word in there...ALIEN...not a legal citizen of the U.S. for the slow readers at home.

For those here that claim to be "conservative" yet are peddling this fear mongering crap and using a radical Lib like Keith Olbermann as your "proof" this Act is bad...take your sh*t somewhere else.


49 posted on 10/22/2006 7:39:31 AM PDT by txradioguy (In Memory Of My Friend 1SG Tim Millsap A Co. 70th Eng. K.I.A. 25 April 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
I agree with you, except for one part that has/does/will give me worry:

The President can name any individual as a threat, citizen or no, and that's that. That individual can be arrested, imprisoned, and left to rot for as long as the President deems it is needed.

Do I think for a second that President Bush will start naming names and opening prison space? No, not at all. But what of a (spits on the ground) President H Clinton? Or some desperate future leader who is about to lose an election and finds an attack 'convenient' to postpone the vote and jail those he says are disruptor's?

OK, maybe this is a little Sunday AM paranoia, but with this law as it is, it's legal.
50 posted on 10/22/2006 7:43:30 AM PDT by kAcknor (Don't flatter yourself.... It is a gun in my pocket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-196 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson