The Bush administration proves once again that they hate your Constitutional rights as much as Al Qaeda does.
U.S. citizens suspected of terror ties might be detained indefinitely and barred from access to civilian courts under legislation proposed by the Bush administration, say legal experts reviewing an early version of the bill.
A 32-page draft measure is intended to authorize the Pentagon's tribunal system, established shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks to detain and prosecute detainees captured in the war on terror. The tribunal system was thrown out last month by the Supreme Court.
Administration officials, who declined to comment on the draft, said the proposal was still under discussion and no final decisions had been made.
Quoted news story, a refresher of your Bill of Rights, and a copy of the unconstitutional bill itself [PDF].
.
- Log in to post comments
So, what's your opinion on Amendment I, the "right of the people peaceably to assemble" that prohibits government from punishing people who choose to peaceably assemble in a business venture that refuses to employ or serve Negroes, Jews or females?
I'd also like your opinion on the clause of Amendment I which states "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech", which naturally prohibits government from enforcing civil lawsuits brought by fat and ugly women against business owners who put up photos from Penthouse, and who speak certain unpleasant truths about members of the Lesser Gender.
I'm sure that you'll also agree that the aforementioned clause prohibits the State from censoring speech and printed material produced for the purpose of selling stuff.
We'll definitely be in agreement on Amendment II, which, by declaring in an independent clause that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", prohibits the government from barring civilian ownership of certain types of firearms, or regulating their purchase or transfer.
But what about Amendment V, which prohibits the government from dictating how I must use my property because they think it's a "wetland", or because some worthless brine shrimp they've declared to be "endangered" happens to inhabit a mud puddle on my premises?
And then there's Amendment X, which pretty much means 95 percent of the federal government's activities is in violation of its constitutional mandate.
Being such a staunch defender of the Bill of Rights, I'm sure your answers will please me.
your comment reminded me that there is one overabundant species that is not endangered but which i wish would become so: Homo malevolensis, commonly known as the "internet troll" or "common hater".
Personally, I prefer the appelation H. Troglodytes. :-)
In fact, I doubt they're all that common, it's just that their assorted display behaviors make them ridiculously conspicuous. Especially the lone juveniles....
I had previously been under the impression that, at least as far as the USA was concerned, all the stuff I learned about separation of powers and an independent judiciary and so on in grade-school social studies was fact and that Darkness at Noon was fiction.
The more fool I.
A while back, I ran across a "Patriot Act II" that was drafted by the Administration. It perplexed me, because I had thought that it was the role of Congress to write legislation. Apparently, that is not always the case. Fortunately, Patriot Act II never came into being. Your post on this subject shows just how persistent and dangerous these people are.