Aldeer.com Forums Alabama Deer Talk Aldeer General Forum Ron Paul

Don't be mistaken--it's not like he was in Anniston or something and our big bad police state kicked in the door and capped his ass.

He was in a foreign country, fighting on the side of the enemy of our country.

He got what he deserved.

Next you'll tell me that our soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, while engaged in a firefight, should holler "time out" and say "yoo hoo, anybody got an American passport over there? If so, come on out so we can arrest you."

Ron Paul would no doubt deem that proper and Constitutional.

... I took an oath to defend this country against all ENEMIES foreign and domestic. They were the enemy causing deaths and destruction, they were on the receiving end of that oath, administered by other oath takers.

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) is a massive legislative assault on fundamental rights, including the right to habeas corpus � the right to challenge one�s detention in a court of law. Signed into law on October 17, 2006, the MCA contains sweeping provisions that serve to shelter the Bush Administration from the legal consequences of their actions, while stripping away the fundamental rights of those held in U.S. custody.

While the Supreme Court's decision in June 2008 in Boumediene v. Bush overturned as unconstitutional the provision of the MCA that attempted to suspend the right of habeas corpus - the right to challenge one's detention in a court of law before a real judge in a fair hearing - many of the MCA's most troubling provisions remain intact.

Why the MCA?

In large part, the Military Commissions Act was the response of the Bush Administration to a major Supreme Court decision of 2006 � Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. In Hamdan, the Supreme Court rejected the President�s creation of military commissions by executive order, upheld the right of detainees held by the U.S. in Guant�namo Bay to challenge their detention in the U.S. federal courts, and held that the protections of the Geneva Conventions applied to the war in Afghanistan. In response, the Bush Administration, with Congress, passed the Military Commissions Act into law, attempting to strip those detainees entirely of their right to challenge their detention in court while shielding the Administration from accountability for their actions.


What does the MCA do?

Creates a broad definition of �unlawful enemy combatant.� The MCA�s definition of �unlawful enemy combatant� � a term which, prior to the MCA, had no meaning in U.S. or international law � applies to both citizens and non-citizens, and is broad, with the potential for constant expansion. It leaves in the hands of the President or Defense Secretary a nearly unrestricted authority to declare people �unlawful enemy combatants.�

Grants U.S. officials immunity for their illegal actions. The MCA attempts to grant immunity upon officials who engaged in and authorized the abuse of detainees at Guant�namo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and other US detention facilities, granting immunity from prosecution under the War Crimes Act for actions committed after November 1997 and attempts to prohibit civil suits relating to any aspect of detention, treatment or conditions of confinement for non-citizens detained by the US as �enemy combatants� or �awaiting such determination� � even those who were later freed, as nearly half of the men and boys held at Guantanamo Bay have been.

Protects the U.S. government and U.S. officials from accountability for their actions against detainees. The Military Commissions Act attempts to block any legal actions by current or former detainees for damages for abuses suffered during their detention, despite the fact that such actions are often a critical brake upon illegal activities by government officials. The law blocks the application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, civil rights laws, or the Alien Tort Statute, by current or former detainees after September 11, 2001 who were determined to be "enemy combatants" or while "pending such determination" - no matter what the final status of those detainees.

Furthermore, the Military Commissions Act narrows the definition of torture to allow U.S. officials to legally engage in practices that amount to torture, allows the use of statements obtained through coercion in prosecution, authorizes military trials that provide little protection for the accused and permit secret evidence, narrows the definition of �sexual assault� to allow for sexualized abuses in interrogation and detention, and attempts to limit the use of international law in U.S. courts.

What can we do?

The MCA is a frightening and dangerous law that attempts to suspend the right of habeas corpus while protecting U.S. officials engaged in war crimes and torture. It is imperative that citizens and residents of the U.S. act to ensure that its odious provisions are repealed and overturned.

The Center for Constitutional Rights is engaged in legal challenges to the Military Commissions Act. The Supreme Court ruling in Boumediene v. Bush was an important defeat for the provision of the MCA that attempted to strip the right of habeas corpus. In addition, CCR filed a case in November 2006, seeking damages on behalf of 2 released detainees who suffered physical, psychological and sexual abuse at the hands of their U.S. captors. Our court challenges are significant and important. However, it is equally critical � and perhaps more so � that many people join in opposing the MCA and calling for its repeal.

... bdhunts makes the best case for killing him in his above post. He pledged to defend this country against both foreign and domestic enemies.

I'm good with going after Islamic terrorists no matter who, what, when or where. We didn't start this but I'm good with finishing it as brutally as need be.

I respected our POTUS for his decision to obey the law & STOP once we had liberated Kuwait, even though I knew we'd have to go back to finish it. Not because of what he or I wanted, or what was easy or popular but because it was right.

I posted the actual oath he took above. You might want to read it again to see what he really pledged to do.

And that is exactly what was done... It was defended........ Against a Domestic ENEMY that went FOREIGN. He chose his place and he was taken out. You don't think that he was trying to destroy the Constitution? Destroying any and all things about the USA is the whole scheme of Al Qaeda and others? So yes killing him did defend the Constitution and My Country...

You openly support individual gun rights that Obama opposes.

If Obama decides you are an �unlawful enemy combatant� because of your views that he believes to be a threat to the safety of the citizens of our nation and decides to kill you, would you still consider that to be defense of our Constitution?

but he was an American citizen. Due process is one of the foundations of our Country. He was denied Due Process period.