Military
Commissions Act - Habeas Corpus, Geneva Convention.
Article
9 section 2 of the Constitution of the
United States
is the source of the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, to wit;
The
Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended,
unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may
require it.
The
original source of the Writ of Habeas Corpus and other
Writs is in the Judiciary Act of 1789, i.e. 1 Stat 81-82 section 14,
which is beyond the scope of the post to follow it through in all of the
changes, but you can see how the treasonous actions of 1948 abolished
unlawfully the Writs sitting today in 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
The
Judiciary Act of 1789 has never been repealed to date.
Guess
what, Congress has no Grant of Power to abolish, abridge, enlarge or
regulate the Writ of Habeas Corpus concerning the citizens of the
several States. So what is all of the hoopla in the patriot
circles and news about concerning the denial or granting of the Writ of
Habeas Corpus to the unlawful alien enemy combatants in
Cuba
? More smoke - no fire!
How
many people have ever read the Act. It has some very dangerous
parts to it being unlawful alien enemy combatants and lawful alien enemy
combatants.
The
problem lies in the definition of "alien" being a
"citizen of the
United States
." No absolutely Congress can deny or whatever to those
people.
A
very real problem is that a "lawful enemy combatant" is
military. An "alien unlawful enemy combatant" is also
military. So if I don't fit into either defined category, as I am
not military, it would seem that I would subject to their unlawful
detention.
But
not to worry, Congress has it fixed up so that you can be picked up and
sent to Cuba, and then the protections kick it in Section 7 of the
Habeas Corpus Matters (pg 58), to wit:
`(e)(1)
No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider
an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an
alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the
United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is
awaiting such determination.
`(2)
Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the
Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice,
or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action
against the United States or its agents
relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or
conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the
United States and has been determined by the United States to have been
properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such
determination.
'.
Who determines if I am an "alien" - especially if I am whisked
away to
Cuba
? Notice the use also of "enemy combatant" for
determination and this isn't defined, only "alien unlawful enemy
combatant" or "lawful enemy combatant." By their
standards in this ACT, I could be considered an "enemy
combatant." That is a warm and fuzzy thought isn't it.
I
wonder what the weather is like in
Cuba
?
The
denial of the Geneva Convention is also a real problem to demonstrate
the tyranny of our current purported government.
============
=========
=========
=========
=======
*532
Chief Justice Marshall, in the course of the debates of the Virginia
State Convention of 1829--1830 (pp. 616, 619), used the following strong
and frequently quoted language:
'The Judicial Department comes
home in its effects to every man's fireside; it passes on his property,
his reputation, his life, his all. Is it not, to the last
degree important, that he should be
rendered perfectly and completely independent, with nothing to influence
or control him but God and his conscience? * * * I have
always thought, from my earliest youth till now,
that the greatest scourge an angry Heaven ever inflicted upon an
ungrateful and a sinning people, was an ignorant, a corrupt, or a
dependent Judiciary.'
In
a very early period of our history, it was said, in words as true today
as they were then, that 'if they (the
people) value and wish to preserve their Constitution, they ought never
to surrender the independence of their judges.' Rawle on the
Constitution (2d Ed.) 281.
O'Donoghue v.
United States
, 289
U.S.
516, 532 (1933)