Are you "a person"? Then the torture bill applies to YOU!

[madmusic]

Section 948a of title 10 of the United States Code, as added by the Act, defines an "unlawful enemy combatant" as:

`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or

`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

Read it and weep: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006

[Hosnon]

1. "Person", in the habeas corpus context, is a subset of "alien".

See here:

Official Military Commissions Act of 2006 and Habeas Corpus Thread

[madmusic]

3. So, you are promising us...

A person is not a person but is an alien person even though it doesn't say alien person. The language was only trying to ensure we didn't think we were talking about dogs. We all know what it says is what it means:

"We begin with the fundamental rule that a court 'should ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law.' (Select Base Materials v. Board of Equal. (1959) 51 Cal.2d 640, 645 <335 P.2d 627>.) In determining such intent '(t)he court turns first to the words themselves for the answer.' (People v. Knowles (1950) 35 Cal.2d 175, 182 <217 P.2d 1>, cert. den. 340 U.S. 879 <95 L.Ed. 639, 71 S.Ct. 117>.) <3> We are required to give effect to statutes 'according to the usual, ordinary import of the language employed in framing them.' (In re Alpine (1928) 203 Cal. <21 Cal.3d 659> 731, 737 <265 P. 947, 58 A.L.R. 1500>; see also Merrill v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1969) 71 Cal.2d 907, 918 <80 Cal.Rptr. 89, 458 P.2d 33>; Chavez v. Sargent (1959) 52 Cal.2d 162, 203 <339 P.2d 801>, disapproved on another ground in Petri Cleaners, Inc. v. Automotive Employees, etc. Local No. 88, 53 Cal.2d 455, 473-475 <2 Cal.Rptr. 470, 349 P.2d 76>.) 'If possible, significance should be given to every word, phrase, sentence and part of an act in pursuance of the legislative purpose.' (Select Base Materials v. Board of Equal., supra, 51 Cal.2d 640, 645); 'a construction making some words surplusage is to be avoided.' (Watkins v. Real Estate Commissioner (1960) 182 Cal.App.2d 397, 400 <6 Cal.Rptr. 191>.) 'When used in a statute must be construed in context, keeping in mind the nature and obvious purpose of the statute where they appear.' (Johnstone v. Richardson (1951) 103 Cal.App.2d 41, 46 <229 P.2d 9>; see also West Pico Furniture Co. v. Pacific Finance Loans (1970) 2 Cal.3d 594, 608 <86 Cal.Rptr. 793, 469 P.2d 665>.) <4> Moreover, the various parts of a statutory enactment must be harmonized by considering the particular clause or section in the context of the statutory framework as a whole. (Select Base Materials v. Board of Equal., supra, 51 Cal.2d 640, 645; Stafford v. L. A. etc. Retirement Board (1954) 42 Cal.2d 795, 799 <270 P.2d 12>.)" http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/cal3d/21/650.html">21 Cal.3d 650.

You have far more faith in our government checking its own power than I do. I NEVER trusted Bush, and still don't, and don't believe a fucking word he and Cheney say, so if they want it to be "an alien" instead of "a person," they should say so. And we know damn good and well they will reach as far as they can with this and try to apply it to everyone, that is, to everyone who is "a person."

[Hosnon]

5. The "alien" provision IS IN THE BILL. Habeas corpus is denied only

to aliens who are also enemy combatants.

Yes, a U.S. citizen can be named an enemy combatant but the MCA does not strip that person of his or her right to habeas corpus.

And I have close to zero faith in power unchecked. But the bill DOES say alien...I'm simply relying on the words of the bill.

[Truthiness Inspector]

9. Thank you

There's enough to worry about without creating drama.

[madmusic]

11. Consider your aviator a mirror image.

[madmusic]

10. Only stated in another section.

If in this section it said alien instead of "a person" then I would agree it could only be interpreted as you say it is meant to be, namely, that "a person" is a referent to "alien" and only a referent to "alien". But they didn't say that even though they spent so much time with the language.

What about Jose Padilla?


However, one of the provisions of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 enacted on October 17, 2006 states: "Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, and notwithstanding any other law (including section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, or any other habeas corpus provision), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the date of enactment of this chapter, relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission convened under this section, including challenges to the lawfulness of the procedures of military commissions under this chapter."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(alleged_terrorist)

The fact that there is any debate about it at all is proof enough of ambiguity, and that, I'm sure, is intentional; because if they can grab more power out of the deal, they sure as hell will.

[Hosnon]

13. But that other section is the most important section.

This is how many people are arguing:

Example Law:

Section 1: Section 2 is not law.

Section 2: All Democrats shall be killed on 1 January 2007.

EVERYONE is ignoring Section 1 which changes the ENTIRE law.

I don't think there is any ambiguity and I don't think the Justices will think it is ambiguous.

And re: Jose Padilla, the question of habeas corpus was never addressed and as another poster pointed out, a majority of the Justices indicated they think he deserves habeas corpus.

[madmusic]

14. If you're expert enough to know how SCOTUS will rule...

Please address this in detail:

However, one of the provisions of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 enacted on October 17, 2006 states: "Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, and notwithstanding any other law (including section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, or any other habeas corpus provision), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the date of enactment of this chapter, relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission convened under this section, including challenges to the lawfulness of the procedures of military commissions under this chapter."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(alleged_terrorist)

Are you 100% positive he has habeas rights? And the majority of Justices "indicated they think he deserves habeas" BEFORE this law passed. And now you claim to know what the majority will say now. You can't know. The above language AT BEST makes it ambiguous, and at the same time it implies he has NO relief "including challenges to the lawfulness of the procedures of military commissions under this chapter."

Like I said and none of you have proved otherwise, "a person" is YOU if you are a person.

[Hosnon]

18. No I'm not 100% positive. Never claimed I was. And I don't KNOW what

the Justices will do but you can make a pretty good guess based on what they say.

In another thread, it has been extensively shown why "person" does not mean EVERYONE when talking about the denial of habeas corpus.

[madmusic]

20. If there are debates on it between Constitutional law professors...

I doubt anyone in another thread is going to convince me.

Again, it they wanted to make it clear cut, they easily could have, but chose not to, and Cheney crafted the last draft.

I'm sure as hell not giving him the benefit of the doubt and highly suspect anyone who does is working in their favor.

[Hosnon]

21. It seems 'pretty' clear to me. There IS an ambiguity that we have found in

the other thread that is quite troubling...we've just started discussing it.

I don't give them the benefit of the doubt either. I'm simply reading the statute.

[DireStrike]

6. No, it isn't "an alien" instead of "a person"

But "alien" ALWAYS precedes the phrase "unlawful enemy combatant" in the act, everywhere except in the definition of an unlawful enemy combatant.

Of course I don't trust them at all. The difference is that if they were to disappear me today, it would be illegal. Whatever veneer of protection that offers.

[DireStrike]

2. Yes, you CAN be declared an "unlawful enemy combatant"...

However, only ALIEN unlawful enemy combatants are subject to the hideous unconstitutional rights-raping that the act makes "legal".

The only place you can find the phrase "unlawful enemy combatant" not accompanied by the word "alien" is in the definition, the section you've quoted.

There are legitimate reasons to oppose this bill, but it does NOT make it legal to disappear citizens.

[madmusic]

12. Then in that light...

Please explain the Jose Padilla quoted section.

Do you really think Bush/Cheney gave back Padilla's rights?

[teryang]

4. This relates back to the Patriot Act II draft which stripped those

...persons of citizenship. My understanding that this mechanism is not yet in place.

[DireStrike]

7. Yes, PAII was never passed... but that is a danger we must be aware of

Anything that allows the PTB to strip people of citizenship now allows them to "disappear" that person after revoking citizenship, as per the Military Comissions Act.

Anything that allows revocation of citizenship closes the loop and basically gives Bushitler dictatorial powers.

[BootinUp]

8. Leahy: The great writ is just gone. Gone.

[Cerridwen]

15. Nope. I'm a female.

Or in some circles, I'm a woman and in other circles I'm a girl or a ho or a bitch.

Even though the Constitution supposedly covers all persons of the U.S. and even with passage of the 14th amendment defining U.S. citizens, those of my sex required the 19th amendment to be able to vote, therefore not a person and not a citizen.

When unions talk about workers' rights, they rarely (at least in the early days) considered workers that weren't male.

When we discuss abortion or contraception, I'm a walking womb with fewer rights than a blastula, zygote or fetus.

And when we discuss porn, I'm just T & A and not at all exploited since the porn industry (according to some) is the only industry that doesn't exploit women at all.

When I'm compared to a "norm," chances are, "norm" is a white male.

Nope, guess this doesn't concern me.

:sarcasm:

[madmusic]

16. What the hell are you talking about?

What does that have to do with it? Are you arguing that American women do not have the rights enemy combatants do?

No wonder no one is accepting your torch.

[Cerridwen]

17. Nope. Just talking about

my place in the law and in society throughout U.S. history.

Based on much of that, I'm not considered a "person". By the way, did you see the sarcasm smiley?

[madmusic]

19. All right, damn it. I'll admit it.

This thing really has me on edge. I mean, it is a MAJOR shift in U.S. Constitutional interpretation that is so fundamental it turns the spirit of the Revolution on it's head.

And, frankly, to help explain the Bloom thread, I don't see much difference between Grace and Bloom and Bush and Chaney. They are all four accomplishing the same thing for their own selfish reasons.

So, I missed the joke.

[Cerridwen]

22. Peace. And no "problemo".

Seriously, this sucks the big one in ways I don't even want to imagine. It also, unfortunately, brings to the fore, much that women have been fighting for centuries, millennia, in the U.S. and elsewhere. Yes, I think it's outrageous and awful and a threat to "democracy" as we know it. But I also know, as a woman, that this is just "par for the course" in human history and now it's the "guys" turn so now ya'all are noticing.

I, and every woman or girl I've know throughout my life has been judged as "less than" a person and the repercussions have been horrifying. Now, it appears that all of us are about to be subjected to the same treatment.

Either I respond with sarcasm, or I start shooting randomly at "the enemy." I choose sarcasm.



:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

Ultimately, we're on the same side. Here's hoping we all survive it.

:toast:

[BeFree]

23. Right, I gotcha

It says: All men are created equal. It doesn't say all people are created equal. It didn't cover all people, just those with dicks, and not even all of those with dicks.

It has ever been thus..... some people are thought to be more equal than others....

If we are ever to have peace on this planet, it will come only after all people are indeed treated as equals. Now, whether it is nukes that do the treating is a whole 'nother discussion.

[madmusic]

24. Jesus fucking christ

There wasn't a sexist word in the OP. What the fuck?

If you jumped over here because of the Nancy Grace/Lisa Bloom thread, well, then, shut them up and tell them to get off their knees and quit worshiping the Big Guys.

We can't even look at them without getting our asses sued off.

Evidently, we are not on the same side.

I prefer shooting.