-
-
How does this affect the bill of rights of us citizens? -
They have no rights.Comment
-
Enemy POW's should be handled by the military and not the civilian courts.
Or was I missing something there?Comment
-
-
I like it. Bill of rights still applies to Americans.Comment
-
Thought I was going to a link that I wasn't going to like what I read...instead I'm pleased!
The Bill of Rights are for AMERICANS not enemies of war.Comment
-
-
you people need to put some thought into this.
All someone has to do is accuse YOU of being an al qaeda terrorist, you just lost ALL your freedoms and rights, including access to an attorney.it required any suspected al Qaeda terrorists, even those captured inside the U.S., to be held potentially indefinitely by the military.
This is a bad law for everyone.Comment
-
It didn't clarify the treatment difference between citizens and non-citizens...
Or maybe it does, but that wouldn't make a good news story.Comment
-
Enemy tried by the military is great while saving US citizens rights. Now they can get all of those terrorist.Comment
-
Not only this but they also don't abide by the rules in the Geneva convention.Originally posted by SelfGuided View PostComment
-
Here's what I don't understand: Why is this necessary?
We have successfully tried and convicted many terrorists and they currently reside in prison for their crimes. A partial list here:
- Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, convicted, 1996, U.S. District Court (before then-U.S. District Judge Michael Mukasey) — plotting terrorist attacks on the U.S. (currently: U.S. prison, Butler, North Carolina);
- Zacarias Moussaoui, convicted, 2006, U.S. Federal Court — conspiracy to commit the 9/11 attacks (currently: U.S. prison, Florence, Colorado);
- Richard Reid, convicted, 2003, U.S. Federal Court — attempting to blow up U.S.-bound jetliner over the Atlantic Ocean (currently: U.S. prison, Florence, Colorado);
- Jose Padilla, convicted, 2007, U.S. Federal Court — conspiracy to commit terrorism (currently: U.S. prison, Florence, Colorado);
- Iyman Faris a/k/a/ Mohammad Rauf, convicted, 2003, U.S. Federal Court — providing material support and resources to Al-Qaeda, conspiracy to commit terrorist acts on behalf of Al Qaeda (currently: U.S. prison, Florence, Colorado);
- Ali Saleh al-Marri, On October 29, 2009, Al-Marri convicted on conspiracy to provide material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization and was sentenced to the US Penitentiary, Florence High security in Colorado
- Masoud Khan, convicted, 2004, U.S. Federal Court — conspiracy to commit terrorism as part of Lashkar-e-Taiba and Islamic jihad (currently: U.S. prison, Terre Haute, Indiana);
- John Walker Lindh, convicted, 2002, U.S. Federal Court — providing material support to the Taliban (currently: U.S. prison, Florence, Colorado).
- Omar Abdel Rahman was convicted and currently serving a life sentence in Colorado is the February 26, 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center,
Then there's this:
U.S. courts convict 91 percent in terrorism trials: study
Over and over, it's been proven that US courts are up to the task of trying terrorists.The study, conducted by former federal prosecutors for the rights group, analyzed 119 U.S. court cases filed since September 2001 against 289 people accused of terrorism-related crimes and associated with al Qaeda or other Islamist extremist groups.
Of the 214 defendants whose cases were resolved, 195 -- 91 percent -- were convicted. Many of the acquitted still did not walk free because the government subsequently brought new charges against them or detained them for immigration violations, said the study titled "In Pursuit of Justice."
Why mess with success and risk erosion to our rights? The fact is that this bill WILL allow US citizens to be held without trial indefinitely:
This bill puts military detention authority on steroids and makes it permanent,” Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. “If it becomes law, American citizens and others are at real risk of being locked away by the military without charge or trial.”Libertarians and conservatives wary of big government are speaking out against the bill as well.
"If the president thinks you are a terrorist, let him present charges and evidence to a judge,” Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle said in a statement Friday. “He has no authority to lock you up without any judicial review, just because he and Congress believe he should have unlimited power. That is the kind of power held by tyrants in totalitarian regimes. It has no place in the United States.”
Echoing arguments against federal government power made by his father, presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R) of Texas, Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky spoke forcefully against the measure: “We are talking about people who are merely suspected of a crime, and we are talking about American citizens. If these provisions pass, we could see American citizens being sent to Guantánamo Bay.”Comment
-
Be wary of a few paragraphs in the media. Read the actual bill and decide for yourself.Originally posted by SelfGuided View Post
Keep in mind that the operative wording is terrorist. Not Al Qaeda. All that is needed is an accusation and the rest of your life is gone. These bills are not literal. They are passed, set precedent, and later there meanings are decided on a case by case basis in the courts. Soon to be a military court.Comment
-
Comment