I think Bush should be held criminally liable for crimes against humanity, treason and war crimes. If Obama doesn’t make this happpen I have no faith in him as a vehicle for change – just more of the same.

YOU can be declared an unlawful enemy combatant who is not subject to Geneva Convention or basic rights if you:

Commit Assault “Any person subject to this chapter who intentionally engages in an attack upon a civilian population as such, or individual civilians not taking active part in hostilities, shall be punished…” – Section 950V

Damage Private Property “Any person subject to this chapter who intentionally engages in an attack upon a civilian object that is not a military objective shall be punished…”- Section 950V

Damage Public Property “Any person subject to this chapter who intentionally engages in an attack upon protected property shall be punished…” – Section 950V NOTE: In this same chapter ‘protected property’ is defined as “property specifically protected by the law of war such as buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science, or charitable purposes,” etc.

Commit Theft “any person subject to this chapter who intentionally and in the absence of military necessity appropriates or sizes property for private or personal use, without the consent of a person with authority to permit such appropriation or seizue, shall be punished…” – Section 950V

One may argue that such common crimes surely must only apply to forigners or forigners during times of war. Leading constitutional scholars and news papers agree this smashes founding rights afforded to the public.

The NY Times – http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/opinion/28thu1.html?ex=1163480400&en=ef56c2ca9da3bd5b&ei=5070

The LA Times –
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ackerman28sep28,0,619852.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

Perhaps worst of all, it is illegal (even for the supreme court) to challange the lawfullness of the bill.

Section 950j states…

…no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever…relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military cimmission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions…

Quit refusing to believe your house is burning down all arround you.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h6166ih.txt.pdf

Some minor corrections, Habeus Corpus is only revokable to for non-citizens. WHile still unacceptable, its irrresponsible to leave out that distinction.

Enemy combatant is clearly defined in the document, I don’t see how it leaves that definition open to change by any Presidential committee. And once again, there is no way for a citizen to be declared such. This invalidates your assumption that any person who donates to a charity linked to a terrorist group can be declared an enemy combatant.

I also saw that rape was considered listed as a crime, but nothing about its status as torture or not.

I am not by any means supporting this bill. It’s a disgusting effort to undermine the constiution and continue the path toward consolidatin all power in the Presidency. However there is plenty of real bad in it, so it’s best to clarify statements that seem innaccurate. If any of my points are wrong, please help me sort them out.

I’m not necessarily an advocate of the brash style of reporting that FOX News pioneered and the rest of the news stations have adopted to keep up, but I would love to see someone who argues that America is a better place since Habeus Corpus can be removed from anyone (including the president himself).