Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JB88 on October 18, 2006, 02:31:55 AM
-
it's been fun.
-
please rephrase your post, I may have lots of time on my hands this morning.
-
Originally posted by JB88
it's been fun.
mmmmmkaaaayyyyy :huh
-
It's not all bad, if that pesky militia movement flairs up again this can be used to stomp it out post haste. I bet Hilary will be so inclined.
shamus
-
Originally posted by storch
please rephrase your post, I may have lots of time on my hands this morning.
fun it has been?
:confused:
-
What did I miss?
-
Apparently we are missing any meaningfull post at the start of the thread.
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/41/Scale_of_justice.png/100px-Scale_of_justice.png)
-
Ad Hominem is the concept best used to describe the lack of response on this board to the current situation.
"Chairboy, you CRAZY!" you might find yourself exclaiming,.
If a Democrat was behind these changes that were leading to the loss of rights, the "annulment" of portions of the constitution, and other nefariousness, this group would be jumping up and down and screaming. But the fact that it's a Republican administration doing it seems to have "blessed" these violations, no matter how egregious they are.
The president has essentially stated that he can classify anyone as an enemy combatent (domestic or foreign) and that constitutional protections no longer apply to that person. There are people being held (even US citizens) by the US who have no contact with legal representation, no access to speedy trial, and are just being sat on. This violates just about everything in the 4th and 6th amendments.
I'm no democrat, so this is hardly a "we're better than you" argument. This is a constitutional problem, and that's the perspective I'm coming to this with.
-
The legislation allows President Bush or Donald Rumsfeld to declare anyone — US citizen or not — an enemy combatant, lock them up and throw away the key without a chance to prove their innocence in a court of law. In other words, every thing the Founding Fathers fought the British empire to free themselves of was reversed and nullified with the stroke of a pen, all under the guise of the War on Terror.
Constitutional expert Jon Turley: "People have no idea how significant this is. Really a time of shame this is for the American system.—The strange thing is that we have become sort of constitutional couch potatoes. The Congress just gave the President despotic powers and you could hear the yawn across the country as people turned to Dancing With the Stars. It's otherworldly..People clearly don't realize what a fundamental change it is about who we are as a country. What happened today changed us. And I'm not too sure we're gonna change back anytime soon."
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Ad Hominem is the concept best used to describe the lack of response on this board to the current situation.
The ad hominem fallacy is an informal logical fallacy, formally known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument at the person"), where a participant argues that a belief is incorrect because of some failure or flaw in the person making the argument.
So failure to respond is a personal attack?
-
As Chairboy said, welcome to 1775.
Check to see how your representatives voted:
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=3906
- Specifies that enemy combatants are not able to invoke rights under the Geneva Convention (Sec. 948b (g))
- Prohibits courts, justices, or judges from hearing or considering writs of habeas corpus or any other action filed by or on the behalf of detained enemy combatants (Sec. 7(e(1)(2)))
-
I was mistaken, I meant to write 'fundamental attribution error'. I apologize for the confusion. Essentially, BECAUSE it comes from person 1, the logical fallacy of the argument is overlooked.
-
well a little bacl info from the thread starter would have been nice....peachy even. thanxs choirboy for clearing up some of the confusion.
I have been working alot of OT the last few days and so i havent been able to catch much of the news. Any links or further info on this?
-
I got a couple of PMs asking for links about this, figured I'd post them here:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2579729
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/17/olbermann-the-day-habeas-corpus-died/
-
gracious choirboy
-
I don't suppose it's significant that Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus without even bothering to ask Congress, and for much the same reason ("...[D]isloyal persons are not adequately restrained by the ordinary processes of law from hindering this measure [suppression of the rebellion] and from giving aid and comfort in various ways to the insurrection." ). BTW, in the same proclamation he also set up military tribunals to try civilians. (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=425).
History seems to have forgiven him, despite the fact that he was a Republican too.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I got a couple of PMs asking for links about this, figured I'd post them here:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2579729
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/17/olbermann-the-day-habeas-corpus-died/
Crooks and liars!?! :rofl Why not just link Democratic underground?:lol
-
Lincoln's actions had a tremendous long term effect on our liberties. I'm no fan of the South and the politics that it espoused, but I believe Lincoln's actions were unconstitutional as well. Armed rebellion is almost encouraged in the documents that establish our country, and changing the rules mid-stream the way he did set a dangerous precedent. Today's signing is another brick in that road that leads away from the image our founding fathers had. I don't know where this road is going, but I suspect it is not Oz.
-
Rip, care to comment on the content? I know you understand the definition Holden McGroin provided earlier in this thread.
-
Just wondering how long it is till the goons start knocking on doors delcaring us to be 'enemy combatants"
-
Hmm, preventing representation for enemy combatants of the US who want to bring in a nuclear weapon and vaporize your community...or eliminating habeus corpus....tough decision...
-
so Chairboy, please tell us how you would fight the terrorists that will kill women and childern, (maybe you or your neighbors), and call themselves heros.
tell us please, or maybe more important , tell the president and congress.
save us Chairboy, save us.
Chairboy has no answers, he can only criticize, he wants to give the protections of the constitution to those that willingly kill women and childern.
appeaser.
-
Originally posted by Hawco
Just wondering how long it is till the goons start knocking on doors delcaring us to be 'enemy combatants"
They're just waiting for our guns to be taken away.
-
just because you think that somebody might want to nook you doesnt mean that the government should EVER exclude the rights of any citizen to know thier accuser, know what charges are being brought against them or have the right to a public trial with legal representation.
suddenly, we find ourselves in an war against an unnamed enemy with no clear way of knowing when it is over.
i dont like it. not one bit.
for the life of me i cannot understand how anyone who was raised to believe in a fair and equitable society could.
-
"Chairboy has no answers, he can only criticize, he wants to give the protections of the constitution to those that willingly kill women and childern."
If said killers are US citizens, they deserve the protection of the constitution. Without that, all you're left with is vigilante justice.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by JB88
just because you think that somebody might want to nook you doesnt mean that the government should EVER eclude the rights of any citizen to know thier accuser, know what charges are being brought against them or have the right to a public trial with legal representation.
suddenly, we find ourselves in an war against an unnamed enemy with no clear way of knowing when it is over.
i dont like it. not one bit.
and for the life of me i cannot understand how anyone who was raised to believe in a fair and equitable society could.
So release everyone in Gitmo and house them in the liberal households of the US. Problem solved!
-
JAB, you talk about vigilante justice like it's a bad thing.
-
it makes great made-for-TV movies
-
whatever happened to H.R. Pufnstuf? We could sure use some of that flute action around here :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by john9001
so Chairboy, please tell us how you would fight the terrorists that will kill women and childern, (maybe you or your neighbors), and call themselves heros.
tell us please, or maybe more important , tell the president and congress.
save us Chairboy, save us.
Chairboy has no answers, he can only criticize, he wants to give the protections of the constitution to those that willingly kill women and childern.
appeaser.
Can you be civil when talking about this? Name calling is inappropriate, if you feel strongly about something you should communicate it with words, not insults.
John, do you feel that normal criminals (from burglars to murderers) are entitled to certain rights under the constitution? What makes them different from other US citizens who have had the label "enemy combatent" applied to them? If the criteria for removing constitutional protection from someone is a label, then we're in worse shape than I thought.
My answer is clear: Our constitution and our country is strong enough to weather everything from the Redcoats to the Nazis to the commies and even terrorists. If you have any faith in the legal structure that makes us the land of the free and the home of the brave, then hand wringing over the threat-of-the-day is unnecessary.
Joe American stabs a lady in the face: Right to Habeous corpus.
Joe American writes "allahu ackbar" on a building: Habeous corpus suspended, zero constitutional protection.
Timothy McVeigh was an american terrorist who was tracked, arrested, prosecuted, and executed without the requirement that HC be suspended. What has changed?
-
Originally posted by Hawco
Just wondering how long it is till the goons start knocking on doors delcaring us to be 'enemy combatants"
As soon as you disagree with anything having to do with the current administration's policies?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
whatever happened to H.R. Pufnstuf? We could sure use some of that flute action around here :rolleyes:
The way manyof these posters oogle over Chuck Norris, it's clear to me there are far too many "flute enthusiasts" on the BBs as it is.
Thank you, no.
-
you probably aren't interested in smoking a Harry J either
-
Originally posted by Debonair
you probably aren't interested in smoking a Harry J either [/QUOTE
heh
:cool:
-
actually... the goons that come knocking on peoples doors in masks and ninja outfits and machine guns and grenades are allways knocking on so called "right wing" houses like Ruby Ridge and Waco and gun owners but....
I think that every U.S. citizen has constitutional rights.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I think that every U.S. citizen has constitutional rights.
lazs
When I said that, John9001 called me an appeaser and suggested circumspectly that I supported terrorism, so heads up.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Lincoln's actions had a tremendous long term effect on our liberties. I'm no fan of the South and the politics that it espoused, but I believe Lincoln's actions were unconstitutional as well. Armed rebellion is almost encouraged in the documents that establish our country, and changing the rules mid-stream the way he did set a dangerous precedent. Today's signing is another brick in that road that leads away from the image our founding fathers had. I don't know where this road is going, but I suspect it is not Oz.
excerpt from the act
(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.
excerpt from the act
(3) ALIEN- The term `alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.
excerpt from the act
(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--
(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.
Looks like as a citizen, I still have HC rights.
-
Originally posted by john9001
so Chairboy, please tell us how you would fight the terrorists that will kill women and childern, (maybe you or your neighbors), and call themselves heros.
tell us please, or maybe more important , tell the president and congress.
save us Chairboy, save us.
Chairboy has no answers, he can only criticize, he wants to give the protections of the constitution to those that willingly kill women and childern.
appeaser.
#1 - Long before suspending OUR rights, every possible proactive measure should be taken, like sealing the Mexican border. Suspending our rights is reactive, lazy & knee jerk. Whats easier than signing a document?
#3 - Vote Independent, dem/rebublicloces have proven to be nothing but inept, corrupt drunken liars too partisan to accomplish anything.
This war on terror is a huge joke, I hope you can see that.
US citizens have been SLAUGHTERED and victimized by south of the border criminals for decades, long before a handful of nut jobs leveled the Trade Center. The # killed on 9/11 is a drop in the bucket compared to the damage that's being done by illegal alien criminals.
The idea that, suddenly, Bush needs to suspend our rights to protect us is a farce.. try seriously protecting us first.
When an Arab talks about wanting to damage our way of life its "terrorism", when the Mexican activists talk about taking over California and returning it to Mexican people, which they are doing , wheres Bush? underfunding a fence that's way too short?
Wake up and smell the burrito people.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Looks like as a citizen, I still have HC rights.
Yep...Thats the way I read it.
:lol This is just another thing that liberals are getting all up in arms about , while this lil ole conservative just keeps on abiding by the law and not worrying about it. Seems to me this won't affect me in any way.
-
holden said that it was an [SIZE=9]"[/SIZE]excerpt[SIZE=9]"[/SIZE]
is that all it said holden?
-
but I just can't give a rats arse about our "detained enemy combatants "
-
Originally posted by JB88
holden said that it was an [SIZE=9]"[/SIZE]excerpt[SIZE=9]"[/SIZE]
is that all it said holden?
Im eating some BBQ and Green Bean casserole. I'll try to find the link again where I read what this new stuff said...but reading it I took that same out of it.
but 1st .........to the BBQ:)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Looks like as a citizen, I still have HC rights.
Did you not see this part....
(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--
...
(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.
You no longer have habeus corpus rights. You have habeus corpus privileges at the sufferance of the Executive branch.
Not only that, but due to the nature of the law, there can be no test case brought before the Judiciary because the "trials" are never held in court.
-
OK, here's the language from the bill, (S.3930, Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate; )http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:3:./temp/~c109Yafr7D:e116721:
Regarding Habeas Corpus: Section 7, amending USC 2241(e):
`(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.
Regading Military Tribunals: Section 948(c):
Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.
So Holden is right, you have to be an alien before either of those provisions apply to you.
It really DOES pay to read the squealing statute!
-
I saw that, but the part restricting HC restricted it to aliens... non citizens.
It says,
(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[/b] who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.
As I read the law, the HC restriction has to do with "Aliens who have been determined..." Please find the part where citizens HC rights are violated / removed by this law and I will be outraged by the subject of this thread.
Unless I am unfortunate enough to have a foreign lawyer.
-
Originally posted by Bluefish
OK, here's the language from the bill, (S.3930, Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate; )http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:3:./temp/~c109Yafr7D:e116721:
Regarding Habeas Corpus: Section 7, amending USC 2241(e):
`(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.
Regading Military Tribunals: Section 948(c):
Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.
So Holden is right, you have to be an alien before either of those provisions apply to you.
It really DOES pay to read the squealing statute!
Blue is right to.
Read this...may help
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/S-3930.pdf
Same as blue posted I believe.
-
Everyone can contest their enemy combatant status in federal court all the way to the US Supreme Court. Alarmism over this sounds like political posturing to me.
-
I DONT THING AN ACT OF CONGRESS WILL EVER PREVENT SR-71 DRIVERS OR CREW FROM GETTING LAID
-
Holden, I stand corrected. Looks like it's being denied to non-citizens.
Originally posted by lukster
Everyone can contest their enemy combatant status in federal court all the way to the US Supreme Court.
How?
-
USA# 1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT MORANS!!!!
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Holden, I stand corrected. Looks like it's being denied to non-citizens.
How?
Page 55 of the link I posted may help.:)
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Page 55 of the link I posted may help.:)
'Fraid not. It can be referred back to the military, not the Judiciary.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
'Fraid not. It can be referred back to the military, not the Judiciary.
'Fraid so, need I copy and paste or can you just read pages 55 thorugh 57 or so as suiggested.
-
Originally posted by lukster
'Fraid so, need I copy and paste or can you just read pages 55 thorugh 57 or so as suiggested.
IT says you can appeal a judgement of the military commissions, but it doesn't say you can appeal the classification "unlawful enemy combatant", by Bush's tribunal.
-
I'm confused. I thought you liberal types liked the idea of an "elastic" constitution, changing to meet the new challenges of modern society.
Maintaining national security in these changing times is certainly proving to be a challenge. Habeas Corpus is a wonderful legal principle....which has been routinely suspended by the government many times in the past when rigid adherence to it would have endangered the public weal.
Are you people really that concerned about a nebulous threat to personal freedom....or is this just an excuse to cast stones?
I hate election years.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
I'm confused.
That's what happens when you conservative types pigeonhole people into nebulous generalisations like "you liberals".
-
Shuckins, I've been the primary 'adversary' on this thread, so I assume you're talking about me. What part of my posts have ever advocated an "elastic constitution"? EVER?
If you're NOT talking to me, then you're making a crappy strawman argument and should pull the hook out of the water.
If you're comfortable with giving up your rights, then you're no patriot and should not feel encumbered by the responsibilities given to real citizens. I'm sure there's something nice on television, why not go watch?
-
Chair,
With all due respect, and I mean that totally ,
Exactly what right are you giving up here?
I don't feel I have given up ANY rights at all and I CERTAINLY don't feel like I have given one up here in this instance.
I'm not a combatant.
I'm not an alien.
I'm not a terrorist.
I'm not an unlawful combatant.
I'm just a law abiding citizen of the U.S..
What exactly , since I'm not a lawyer , is this new "Terrible Law" going to do to me? How will it effect my daily life?
And now the BIG question.....
Why in the world should I care about what happens to MaHatMyCoat from some country that shoots at our troops with no army designation. He isn't an Iraqi. He isn't Afghani. Perhaps he is Saudi. Maybe Iranian. He is just there to kill americans. So I should give him rights? I should feel bad that he can't get a fair trial or a trial at all for that matter. I should feel bad about he doesn't get enough prayer time? I should feel bad his koran isn't just so? Rights you say?
Heak Chair I got all the rights I had yesterday. And the day before that. And the day before that.
I wonder , if say your brother , or perhaps like some I know , a son , that was shot and killed , or just wounded , by somoeone whose fight with the U.S. was not for thier country , but just to kill the infidel , if you would feel the same.
You said a person willing to trade thier rights was not a patriot. Perhaps it's not a willingness at all to give up anything. Perhaps the LAW is what it is and some choose to stay within the bounds of it. Perhaps the constitutional changes don't infringe on our rights. PErhaps you feel violated. That doesn't mean others do and therefore are not patriots.
IF your such a Patriot , as you seem to imply , why not take up arms , and try to get things changed like you want. Then you may get a chance to try out this new law to see if it's so bad.
You'll probably relise that the only so called "Rights" people are giving up are the ones they don't ever give 2 thoughts about ever. Until it suits thier political agenda and gives them something else to gripe about. I don't see the government really takeing away rights right now. Perhaps I am blind tho and need education.
Sir...I certainly feel bad your life is so infringed upon.
-
RedTop, I'm talking about laws that affect US citizens. If this specific one doesn't, then I'm mistaken.
As for the rest of your screed, it's not worth dignifying with a response. You're a sad excuse for a citizen, and you're fooling yourself if you really think you have all the same rights that you did before the september 11th attacks.
You are entitled to exactly as much respect as you showed, which is to say, none.
-
we're gonna be liberated with abullet to the back of our head FREEDOM BULLETS FOR EVERYONE!!!!
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
RedTop, I'm talking about laws that affect US citizens. If this specific one doesn't, then I'm mistaken.
As for the rest of your screed, it's not worth dignifying with a response. You're a sad excuse for a citizen, and you're fooling yourself if you really think you have all the same rights that you did before the september 11th attacks.
You are entitled to exactly as much respect as you showed, which is to say, none.
Sad excuse for a citizen? ok.
Opinons are like azzes..everyone has one and they all stink I suppose.
Unless of course they agree with ya
Heres to your bitter life..........Cheers Sir.
-
Chair....you are one and only one "adversary" posting in this thread.
I was speaking generally, and you knew it. You need to come up with a rebuttal other than the "strawman" one....it's getting rather long in the tooth.
Leaving that aside as being beside the point and non-productive, how about posting some numbers and names of U.S. citizens who have lost some of their rights and/or been thrown in prison without the benefit of habeas corpus.
I'm thinking it would be a very short list...virtually nonexistent in fact. This law is aimed at terrorists who are unaffiliated with any foreign power recognized as a legitimate national entity by the U.S. government, and will not directly affect any of our citizens or the uniformed combatants of a hostile power. But you also know that as well.
Ergo, I can only assume that the righteous indignation evidenced here is mainly election year rhetoric and posturing.
-
Originally posted by Debonair
I DONT THING AN ACT OF CONGRESS WILL EVER PREVENT SR-71 DRIVERS OR CREW FROM GETTING LAID
Habus score puss rofl, its a "pun"...
...so does article 1 section 9 of te constituion mean this thread is over?
no, teh hitlars will always fight teh red pinkos.
your next president
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/07/Gayhitler.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Chair....you are one and only one "adversary" posting in this thread.
I was speaking generally, and you knew it. You need to come up with a rebuttal other than the "strawman" one....it's getting rather long in the tooth.
Leaving that aside as being beside the point and non-productive, how about posting some numbers and names of U.S. citizens who have lost some of their rights and/or been thrown in prison without the benefit of habeas corpus.
I'm thinking it would be a very short list...virtually nonexistent in fact. This law is aimed at terrorists who are unaffiliated with any foreign power recognized as a legitimate national entity by the U.S. government, and will not directly affect any of our citizens or the uniformed combatants of a hostile power. But you also know that as well.
Ergo, I can only assume that the righteous indignation evidenced here is mainly election year rhetoric and posturing.
That's not even the point.
This is a lazy knee jerk reaction, and a typical political 'non response' to a real problem; national security. We are not safe as long as anyone can WALK across our border. Is that not common sense?
Signing a piece of paper is lazy, but makes for great campaign rhetoric, and I agree with you.. this literally focuses on a select few real bad mofos, what? maybe 5 dozen people on the entire planet at most?, not the public at large.
Meanwhile thousands of threats to both you and I that waltz across the border DAILY are being IGNORED, or accepted like 'business as usual', too politically sensitive to address. So I ask you, whats better?; passing a law that should apply to only a few dozen bad guys but could easily be turned on you or I, or addressing the real problem of THOUSANDS of criminals who walk across our border daily?
Its a simple answer.
I'd be supporting this all day IF the clone retards in charge had at least made an attempt to address the real problem, rather than going straight to adjusting the rules that could affect you and I.
I dont consider invading a country who citizens have done much less harm to US citizens that our neighbors citizens, as an attempt at making us safe. Real problmes have been dismissed in favor possibly of fewer rights for you & I.
-
Alas, another :noid :O :noid :O :noid :O thread. Brought on by an article meant to incite such feelings as close as possible to an election. Such a stunning surprise.:eek:
-
Article I, Section 9, U.S. Constitution
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.
To my way of thinking, the MCA is clearly unconstitutional. There is no "Rebellion" going on, and characterizing the domestic terrorist threat as an "Invasion" seems like an impossible leap. No need to discriminate between Aliens and Citizens; the Constitution plainly says the Writ shall not be suspended, except for two specific cases.
Read the text of the MCA posted above, then read Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution. I don't see any wiggle room at all for the "original intent" crowd.
Now, who's arguing for an elastic Constitution? This board has turned upside down. Conservatives have become Liberals and Liberals, Conservatives.
It'd be interesting to see Toad weigh in on this one.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
IT says you can appeal a judgement of the military commissions, but it doesn't say you can appeal the classification "unlawful enemy combatant", by Bush's tribunal.
Yes, it does. That is what the appeal process all the way to the US Supreme Court is for.
-
I don't think that anything that is unconstitutional should be allowed to stand.
Saying that... I realize that my constitutional rights are being smashed every day.. have been since before I was born.
I can get angry and I do. I can vote for democrats but that is like cutting off ones nose to spite ones face. It is like voting for stalin cause you think churchill is too socialst.
But yeah.... republicans do bad things... sometimes very bad things... worse... they create powers that the socialists will use against me in the future.
And that is what most of us don't get.... evey time you give up more of your rights... you give them up for good... you give them to whoever is in power all the way down the line.
When you vote.....
Don't vote democrat no matter what...
Never vote for a new tax.
Never vote for a ban on anything or anyone elses freedom.
If you can't bring yourself to vote republican.... vote libertarian but realize... you may be letting a democrat win by doing so.
lazs
-
As the case of Joseph Padilla has shown us, you, I, or anyone can be arrested and held in detention as long as the federal government wants to, without any charges. They won't come out and say, "We don't need to charge him, and we'll keep him as long as we want," but they consistently trying to deny any overt checks on their power to do so. This is a slam-dunk, already-passed, fait accompli type of thing.
The precedent has already been set with Padilla and a few others, and once the feds discovered that there is no formidable public outrage, it's only a matter of slowly, ever so slowly, increasing the frequency with which it could be done by this or any subsequent administration.
If you arrest 10,000 people tomorrow without charge, the public would never stand for it, but if you get them used to it gradually, they'll not only support it but heap scorn and contempt on anyone who would criticize something so critical to our safety.
By gradually acclimatizing the population to detention without charge, they could slowly make it normal and acceptable, and eventually the practice can expand beyond supposedly one-off "emergency" cases like Padilla, or the terrorist of the week.
The same goes for torture. Today, if you object to torture, you have to justify your position, because Gitmo and Abu Ghraib have inoculated people against the idea that torture is, by definition, wrong. I'm beginning to understand how the abolitionists felt at the very beginning, when they were the only ones saying, "Slavery is wrong."
When I tell people, "Torture is wrong," and I have to argue the point, that leaves a very surreal, bizarre, and uneasy feeling in the back of my mind.
We shouldn't note our concerns until we have a full-fledged police state? We shouldn't say, "If we're not careful, we'll end up with a police state," until we do, in fact, have a police state?
You can be arrested and held without charge as long as the government wants to hold you. If they want you to be tortured, they can have you secreted away to a prison where there is no oversight, and no accountability if you're beaten to death. Now, I know many here would like to rephrase this as "Oh my god, they're killing all the babies, everywhere, without exception!" so I seem like a lunatic, instead of addressing what I'm actually saying.
The problem is that what I'm saying has already come to pass. You're not reading a lunatic describing hypothetical doomesday scenarios, but a concerned person who is worried about individual occurrences that can easily become a trend if we don't oppose them on principle.
You see, I care about the principle, and if you care about the principle, you don't wait for x or x+500 cases, because it's wrong the very first time you see it. If that first time is met with swift correction, and the person is freed (or charged, so due process is honored), the people responsible fired or demoted, and a public commitment made to due process, then no, you don't take to the streets decrying a headlong slide into tyranny.
But, when the President and Attorney General of the United States firmly stand by their decision, and repudiate any possible oversight over, or check on this authority, then, well, yes, I'm going to be concerned.
At what point would you consider it a legitimate concern? 10 people? 100? 10,000?
-
Oh... I agree with rolex in theory on this.. It could get as bad as he says... nothing to stop it.. worse.. as I have said, the next guy might be a socialist who thinks I am the problem.
still.. I don't think I have any alternative at this point other than voting republican.
I have written to all the politicos in my sphere with my protest tho.
lazs
-
This new bill seems to offer protection to those classified as unlawful enemy combatants. Something they did not have before. They can now challenge their status all the way to ther Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court decides that they are unlawful enemy combatants then they are subject to the provisions of this bill.
Here's the Geneva Convention article dealing with militias:
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Certainly none of the insurgents in Iraq qualify legally as combatants nor did many, if not all, of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Padilla should be shot as a spy.
-
I'm gonna take that last a bit further. I believe that any and every terrorist hiding in this country with the intent to do it harm is technically a spy and can be lawfully executed if captured. Anyone care to refute this?
-
You're not a spy unless you work for a foreign government. And even if that is the case a spy is not a spy until so proven in a court of law.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I don't think that anything that is unconstitutional should be allowed to stand.
Saying that... I realize that my constitutional rights are being smashed every day.. have been since before I was born.
I can get angry and I do. I can vote for democrats but that is like cutting off ones nose to spite ones face. It is like voting for stalin cause you think churchill is too socialst.
But yeah.... republicans do bad things... sometimes very bad things... worse... they create powers that the socialists will use against me in the future.
And that is what most of us don't get.... evey time you give up more of your rights... you give them up for good... you give them to whoever is in power all the way down the line.
When you vote.....
Don't vote democrat no matter what...
Never vote for a new tax.
Never vote for a ban on anything or anyone elses freedom.
If you can't bring yourself to vote republican.... vote libertarian but realize... you may be letting a democrat win by doing so.
lazs
I agree with everything Lazs has said in the above.
He makes an excellent point: The rights many of you are so cheerfully giving away to trade for a false sense of security are going to result in you being stomped on by Democrats, Socialists, and other nanny-statists.
-
Originally posted by Viking
You're not a spy unless you work for a foreign government. And even if that is the case a spy is not a spy until so proven in a court of law.
Certainly a spy must be tried in court, no argument there. However, Al Qaeda is not a foreign government in the traditional sense but I believe that a person who claims allegiance to Al Qaeda and is hiding in this country, collecting information and planning to do harm is still a spy.
The Geneva Convention defines the lawful execution of war. It does not detail the treatment for those that act beyond it's scope. There is no guideline for dealing with these terrorists/insugents, hence the need for this bill.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Certainly a spy must be tried in court, no argument there. However, Al Qaeda is not a foreign government in the traditional sense but I believe that a person who claims allegiance to Al Qaeda and is hiding in this country, collecting information and planning to do harm is still a spy.
The Geneva Convention defines the lawful execution of war. It does not detail the treatment for those that act beyond it's scope. There is no guideline for dealing with these terrorists/insugents, hence the need for this bill.
He should be hung for treason, after he gets his day in court, like any other US citizen that betrays their country.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
He should be hung for treason, after he gets his day in court, like any other US citizen that betrays their country.
Treason works for me as well but US citizens have been tried as spies for spying on the US.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Certainly a spy must be tried in court, no argument there. However, Al Qaeda is not a foreign government in the traditional sense but I believe that a person who claims allegiance to Al Qaeda and is hiding in this country, collecting information and planning to do harm is still a spy.
The Geneva Convention defines the lawful execution of war. It does not detail the treatment for those that act beyond it's scope. There is no guideline for dealing with these terrorists/insugents, hence the need for this bill.
Al Quada is not a nation so the Geneva Convention isn't relevant to this problem. A US citizen or resident alien giving information to Al Quada would only be an accomplice to whatever crime Al Quada plans to do next. And in a court of law you should have to prove that the information actually aided Al Quada in committing a crime. Simply giving someone information is not illegal unless the information is classified … but then again the US does not have a secrecy act, so…
You speak of war and the GC, spies and traitors. There is no war on Al Quada exactly because they're not a nation or government. They are deranged stateless criminals, nothing more.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Al Quada is not a nation so the Geneva Convention isn't relevant to this problem. A US citizen or resident alien giving information to Al Quada would only be an accomplice to whatever crime Al Quada plans to do next. And in a court of law you should have to prove that the information actually aided Al Quada in committing a crime. Simply giving someone information is not illegal unless the information is classified … but then again the US does not have a secrecy act, so…
You speak of war and the GC, spies and traitors. There is no war on Al Quada exactly because they're not a nation or government. They are deranged stateless criminals, nothing more.
You make a good argument for not applying the Geneva Convention to Al Qaeda conspirators. All the more reason to establish lawful guidelines in dealing with them.
-
Why should the Geneva Convention apply to civilian criminals?
Stay with me for a moment…
Let's say I've decided that the Norwegian government is just a US lap-dog and I'm going to make my voice heard. So … I write a political statement, grab two hand grenades and blow my self up in a café killing 14 people including 3 children.
Or…
Let's say I've decided that life is unbearable and I'm going to end it with a bang. So … I write a suicide note, grab two hand grenades and blow my self up in a café killing 14 people including 3 children.
Does the Geneva Convention apply to either of these cases? I don't think so. Have I committed treason in either case? Nope. Have I committed a crime? Yes.
-
Why not use the _existing_ legal guidelines? We already have procedures for handling people who murder and assault people. Timothy McVeigh was handled under the existing legal system and executed, why are special new laws that can be used to subvert the constitution needed?
-
You seem to believe this bill is aimed at US citizens. It isn't. I'm not sure it applies to them at all but haven't studied it yet. How should we deal with non US citizens that are [unlawful] enemy combatants captured in a foreign land? Our civil laws don't apply and that is what this bill was created for.
Originally posted by Viking
Why should the Geneva Convention apply to civilian criminals?
Stay with me for a moment…
Let's say I've decided that the Norwegian government is just a US lap-dog and I'm going to make my voice heard. So … I write a political statement, grab two hand grenades and blow my self up in a café killing 14 people including 3 children.
Or…
Let's say I've decided that life is unbearable and I'm going to end it with a bang. So … I write a suicide note, grab two hand grenades and blow my self up in a café killing 14 people including 3 children.
Does the Geneva Convention apply to either of these cases? I don't think so. Have I committed treason in either case? Nope. Have I committed a crime? Yes.
-
I really believe that Clinton is at fault, and Democrats are traitors to this great nations true Republican heritage.
Did you know that all the cool founding fathers were Republicans?
Every last one of them.
True story.
-
Originally posted by lukster
You seem to believe this bill is aimed at US citizens. It isn't. I'm not sure it applies to them at all but haven't studied it yet. How should we deal with non US citizens that are enemy combatants captured in a foreign land? Our civil laws don't apply and that is what this bill was created for.
That's not what we are debating.
Originally posted by lukster
I'm gonna take that last a bit further. I believe that any and every terrorist hiding in this country with the intent to do it harm is technically a spy and can be lawfully executed if captured. Anyone care to refute this?
"…this country…"
-
Originally posted by Viking
That's not what we are debating.
"…this country…"
I didn't realize you were debating me on this point. I haven't looked up the official definition of a spy and it may require providing info to a foreign "government" but I'll stand by what I said until I see contrary info.
-
Originally posted by Hawco
Just wondering how long it is till the goons start knocking on doors delcaring us to be 'enemy combatants"
Actually, this is all done because the Repubs are planning on fixing the elections with their fancy dancy new electronic voting machines and if they get caught they can arrest anyone that gives them any grief about it..... :noid
-
Actually your right Iron! Bush made it so in 2003!
The "Police State Enhancement Act" of 2003 expanded the definition of espionage or "enemy" activity to include otherwise lawful activity, as well as activity that knowingly or not assists a foreign "power." And that power, of course, can now be a "terrorist cell" or even an individual. From section 102: "Showing that the intelligence gathering violates the laws of the United States is both unnecessary and counterproductive." Especially since searching the Internet at your local library is not, as of yet, otherwise illegal.
I'm genuinely dumbfounded! I'm SO glad I'm not living in the US these days.
-
"Those who would sacrifice a little Liberty for more Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety and will have none." Ben Franklin
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in guise of fighting a foreign enemy." James Madison, fourth US president (1751-1836)
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the rights of the people by the gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." James Madison, fourth US president (1751-1836)
“the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." Hermann Goering in his cell on the evening of 18 April 1946
We are on a slippery slope with the precipice of tyranny before us.
-
you just don't get it, the "enemy" is ploting to kill us, and you want to debate law.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Chair,
With all due respect, and I mean that totally ,
Exactly what right are you giving up here?
I don't feel I have given up ANY rights at all and I CERTAINLY don't feel like I have given one up here in this instance.
I'm not a combatant.
I'm not an alien.
I'm not a terrorist.
I'm not an unlawful combatant.
I'm just a law abiding citizen of the U.S..
What exactly , since I'm not a lawyer , is this new "Terrible Law" going to do to me? How will it effect my daily life?
And now the BIG question.....
Why in the world should I care about what happens to MaHatMyCoat from some country that shoots at our troops with no army designation. He isn't an Iraqi. He isn't Afghani. Perhaps he is Saudi. Maybe Iranian. He is just there to kill americans. So I should give him rights? I should feel bad that he can't get a fair trial or a trial at all for that matter. I should feel bad about he doesn't get enough prayer time? I should feel bad his koran isn't just so? Rights you say?
Heak Chair I got all the rights I had yesterday. And the day before that. And the day before that.
I wonder , if say your brother , or perhaps like some I know , a son , that was shot and killed , or just wounded , by somoeone whose fight with the U.S. was not for thier country , but just to kill the infidel , if you would feel the same.
You said a person willing to trade thier rights was not a patriot. Perhaps it's not a willingness at all to give up anything. Perhaps the LAW is what it is and some choose to stay within the bounds of it. Perhaps the constitutional changes don't infringe on our rights. PErhaps you feel violated. That doesn't mean others do and therefore are not patriots.
IF your such a Patriot , as you seem to imply , why not take up arms , and try to get things changed like you want. Then you may get a chance to try out this new law to see if it's so bad.
You'll probably relise that the only so called "Rights" people are giving up are the ones they don't ever give 2 thoughts about ever. Until it suits thier political agenda and gives them something else to gripe about. I don't see the government really takeing away rights right now. Perhaps I am blind tho and need education.
Sir...I certainly feel bad your life is so infringed upon.
Until Hillary gets elected and takes away your automatic weapons. You vow to keep them, won't give them back. You are then classified as
a combatant.
a terrorist.
an unlawful combatant.
You are missing a very important point here. We fought a revolution to get away from kings and give the power to the people. What is happening here is the president is slowly gaining absolute power. Maybe you feel we should go back to age of kings, because you feel we are not losing any rights, I am not ready to do that.
So while you think you have lost nothing, you are slowly losing everything. Think about that when Hillary gains absolute power
-
Originally posted by mosgood
Actually, this is all done because the Repubs are planning on fixing the elections with their fancy dancy new electronic voting machines and if they get caught they can arrest anyone that gives them any grief about it..... :noid
Arrest this man!!!
-
Originally posted by john9001
you just don't get it, the "enemy" is ploting to kill us, and you want to debate law.
please define specifically what the enemy is john.
i'll wait.
-
Originally posted by JB88
please define specifically what the enemy is john.
i'll wait.
you won't have to wait long, it's the Islamic radicals that say "convert or face the sword".
-
Originally posted by john9001
you just don't get it, the "enemy" is ploting to kill us, and you want to debate law.
Agreed, The rule of law is an outdated concept, we need to be ruled by good men.
shamus
-
Originally posted by john9001
you won't have to wait long, it's the Islamic radicals that say "convert or face the sword".
so your definition of an enemy is an islamist radical that says convert or face the sword?
oh.
well why didnt they just put that in the bill and make it easier for all of us?
-
Originally posted by john9001
you just don't get it, the "enemy" is ploting to kill us, and you want to debate law.
I do get it. We need to pursue them to the ends of the Earth and kill them all. However, I refuse to sacrifice my liberties in order to do it. Nor do we need to sacrifice our liberties.
-
Originally posted by john9001
you just don't get it, the "enemy" is ploting to kill us, and you want to debate law.
I sure that some enemy was plotting to kill Americans for most of it's existance. But for most of it's existance the right to a writ of habeus corpus wasn't questioned.
But I understand, you're scared and would rather pretend that this law somehow makes you more safer.
-
Originally posted by john9001
you just don't get it, the "enemy" is ploting to kill us, and you want to debate law.
And how do YOU propose manageing a society while the enemy is plotting to kill us? By not debating the law?
-
Olbermann sums it up nicely.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15321167/
-
chair said.... "Why not use the _existing_ legal guidelines? We already have procedures for handling people who murder and assault people. Timothy McVeigh was handled under the existing legal system and executed, why are special new laws that can be used to subvert the constitution needed?"
I believe that this is the best/only way to handle any crime commited by a citizen.
lazs
-
so. how do we get it back?
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
Olbermann sums it up nicely.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15321167/
That was well worth watching, Mickey-- thanks. Olbermann reminds me alot of Edward R Murrow. Hope he stays on the air after that.
-
i was actually going to use obermans vid in the initial post to this thread, but i didnt want it to get killed in utero by you know who.
-
This guy has a nice take (I guess it's cool to post a snippet, even talk shows are allowed to play so-many-seconds of a song as bumper music without violating copyright thingies)
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009113
During the bitter controversy over the military commission bill, which President Bush signed into law on Tuesday, most of the press and the professional punditry missed the big story. In the struggle for power between the three branches of government, it is not the presidency that "won." Instead, it is the judiciary that lost.
The new law is, above all, a stinging rebuke to the Supreme Court. It strips the courts of jurisdiction to hear any habeas corpus claim filed by any alien enemy combatant anywhere in the world. It was passed in response to the effort by a five-justice majority in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld to take control over terrorism policy. That majority extended judicial review to Guantanamo Bay, threw the Bush military commissions into doubt, and tried to extend the protections of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions to al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, overturning the traditional understanding that Geneva does not cover terrorists, who are not signatories nor "combatants" in an internal civil war under Article 3.
Hamdan was an unprecedented attempt by the court to rewrite the law of war and intrude into war policy. The court must have thought its stunning power grab would go unchallenged. After all, it has gotten away with many broad assertions of judicial authority before. This has been because Congress is unwilling to take a clear position on controversial issues (like abortion, religion or race) and instead passes ambiguous laws which breed litigation and leave the power to decide to the federal courts.
-
John Yoo has been envolved in pushing executive power for five years at least.
I dare say that if a dem takes control of 1600 in the next election Mr. Yoo will not be taking that position.
shamus
-
Again, WHERE does it say this applies to US citizens? The while squealing thing is about the nutbergers in Gitmo
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Again, WHERE does it say this applies to US citizens? The while squealing thing is about the nutbergers in Gitmo
Where in the Bill of Rights does it say US citizen?, I think if you look it says persons, these rights that you are so willing to discount for those who are not you apply to all in this country.
shamus
-
Olbermanns hubris aimed at shrub is misdirected, blame rests with the hijacking of our country and the erosion of our rights by the two prominent crime families in Wash; republicans & democrats.
Whats Bush has just done is nothing new, the drunks have given themselves more power in the past, and abused it every single time. You're all kidding yourselves if you think this time will be different, the very last thing anyone should endorse is giving the crime families 1 ounce of additional power to abuse...
How many times to the repubs & dems have to abuse their power before it becomes obvious neither can be trusted?
-
Shamus, as I'm sure you know the Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution. Here's the preamble:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Note the "to ourselves and our posterity". I think it's pretty clear our Constitution is for us.
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Where in the Bill of Rights does it say US citizen?, I think if you look it says persons, these rights that you are so willing to discount for those who are not you apply to all in this country.
shamus
How about this---if your name has no VOWELS, no rights for you!
-
Whether or not the Dems are trying to score political points with Americans is largely irrelevant to the issue. Both parties play the lowest common denominator often. A lot of the Dems that are crying foul probably haven't even read the full text of the bill, as some of the Repub proponents haven't either.
I'd suggest that the biggest issue here is that neither U.S. Law nor the Geneva Conventions were ever written to anticipate terrorism on this level. That the terrorists commit acts that found the gap between the two is ironic.
My solace is tied almost entirely to the fact that John McCain supported the compromise version of the bill. From a 7-year POW that was tortured and denied his rights under the Geneva Conventions, if he's comfortable with the language, then I am too...
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
Olbermann sums it up nicely.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15321167/
An exceptional speech. Mr. Olbermann. A true patriot and dare I say American.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
How about this---if your name has no VOWELS, no rights for you!
how about the "sometimes "Y"" guys, do they get over?
-
I dont care for olbermann at all. But I will watch this vid and give my thoughts...brb.
Ok, stopped about 10 seconds into this nutbags diatribe. Sorry but olbermann makes Limbaugh look even handed and O'reily downright smart.
Next left wing nutbag please.......(another rolly eyes for the real fear mongers, the liberal socialists)
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I dont care for olbermann at all. But I will watch this vid and give my thoughts...brb.
Ok, stopped about 10 seconds into this nutbags diatribe. Sorry but olbermann makes Limbaugh look even handed and O'reily downright smart.
Next left wing nutbag please.......(another rolly eyes for the real fear mongers, the liberal socialists)
:rolleyes:
So you barely made it past the commercial, wtg Mr. Open Mind. :rofl
-
I'm genuinely dumbfounded! I'm SO glad I'm not living in the US these days. [/B][/QUOTE]
amen
-
Olbermann is a traitor and a demagogue of the worst kind!
I bet he is a Muslim, sowing discontent and fear amongst the faithful Republicans of the US of A!
I have no doubt that he will get what is coming to him... hopefully with a little searching around in his past it will come to light that he is really an enemy combatant.
-
Cardinal Richelieu summed it up best: "If you give me six lines written by the most honest man, I will find something in them to hang him."
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Olbermann is a traitor and a demagogue of the worst kind!
I bet he is a Muslim, sowing discontent and fear amongst the faithful Republicans of the US of A!
I have no doubt that he will get what is coming to him... hopefully with a little searching around in his past it will come to light that he is really an enemy combatant.
Your ridiculous tirades reflect on no one but yourself. You might wanna give it a rest?
-
Originally posted by Viking
An exceptional speech. Mr. Olbermann. A true patriot and dare I say American.
He does have some fine points. This is a Madison event. One should read the law. It does not say "aliens", is says "persons." I would hazard that "citizens" may find themselves in Gitmo or worse. We, however, won't know of this until many years later. Unless one is one of the "citizens" that is snatched up in the name of National Security.
I fear a shadow is falling upon the land.
-
What law says "persons"?
-
luckster, are you saying that non-citizen legal residents are not afforded any protections under the Bill of Rights?
shamus
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
Olbermann sums it up nicely.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15321167/
Daaaaamn man you beat me to it!:p I was gonna post that video too...
That was a nice delivery:aok This makes Bill O'Reilly look like a sweetheartbag in comparison
-
Originally posted by Shamus
luckster, are you saying that non-citizen legal residents are not afforded any protections under the Bill of Rights?
shamus
Good question Shamus. I haven't studied this but think legal non-citizen residents are offered limited protection under our Constitution by special provision but they do not enjoy all of it's entitlements. For example, a legal alien may not vote and may be deported under circumstances for which a citizen may not.
-
Originally posted by Bluefish
What law says "persons"?
The new one President Bush just signed. The one allowing for the capture, interrogation, and prosecution of illegal combatants.
-
Originally posted by oboe
That was well worth watching, Mickey-- thanks. Olbermann reminds me alot of Edward R Murrow. Hope he stays on the air after that.
I remember when he had a pony-tail and ear stud on espn.
he gives twits a bad name
-
Originally posted by 2Slow
The new one President Bush just signed. The one allowing for the capture, interrogation, and prosecution of illegal combatants.
my advice to any enemy is to be a legal combatant, join a army and put on a uniform, then they will be treated as POW's.
-
Originally posted by 1K3
Daaaaamn man you beat me to it!:p I was gonna post that video too...
That was a nice delivery:aok This makes Bill O'Reilly look like a sweetheartbag in comparison
Nice delivery? Nothing but a fear mongering, politically motivated diatribe. Here's a much more reasoned opinion.
http://judiciary.senate.gov/print_testimony.cfm?id=2416&wit_id=5775
-
For those of you just joining us, from an earlier post...
excerpt from the act
(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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
excerpt from the act
(3) ALIEN- The term `alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.
-
I think we oughta inject each of those prisoners at Guantanamo with a tracking chip that cannot be removed then turn 'em loose. Might come in real handy later.
-
D'ya all really feel comfortable with the fact that these people haven't been charged with anything? Why is this?
-
Without reading the context can I assume that this is distinguishing between lawful enemy combatants and unlawful enemy combatants?
Originally posted by Stoney74
For those of you just joining us, from an earlier post...
excerpt from the act
(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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
excerpt from the act
(3) ALIEN- The term `alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
D'ya all really feel comfortable with the fact that these people haven't been charged with anything? Why is this?
Did we charge the many thousands of German and Japanese soldiers taken prisoner on the battlefield during WWII? Do you have a problem with that?
-
Originally posted by lukster
Without reading the context can I assume that this is distinguishing between lawful enemy combatants and unlawful enemy combatants?
It's the language in the bill that defines who the law applies to. Notice the definition of "alien" that is also included in the text of the law. The definition of unlawful enemy combatant is contained in the Geneva Conventions, although I'd have to look that up.
-
Originally posted by Stoney74
It's the language in the bill that defines who the law applies to. Notice the definition of "alien" that is also included in the text of the law. The definition of unlawful enemy combatant is contained in the Geneva Conventions, although I'd have to look that up.
Without reading the context I'm guessing that they are distinguishing between a lawful combatant and an unlwaful combatant. The unlwaful combatant may challenge his status in the courts while the lawful combatant may not.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Did we charge the many thousands of German and Japanese soldiers taken prisoner on the battlefield during WWII? Do you have a problem with that?
They were prisoners of war, covered under the Geneva conventions. That is apparently not the case here.
So I ask again, why haven't these people been charged?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
D'ya all really feel comfortable with the fact that these people haven't been charged with anything? Why is this?
Let's pretend that we did try them in a U.S. court of law. What would the charge be? We picked most of these guys up in Afghanistan, so I'm not sure we would have legal jurisdiction anyway.
So, lets assume that we DID have jurisdiction (I'm fairy dusting here--stay with me) and we did charge them with...say, murder or attempted murder. None of the governments evidence would be admissible, due to the laws governing evidence. Furthermore, did the U.S. military Mirandize them when they were captured? My point is that their is a host of legal issues under current U.S. law that would prevent the prosecution of these guys in a U.S. court.
So, lets try them under the Geneva Conventions. First of all, their combative status does not, and I repeat, does not afford them ANY protection under the GC. As they are not uniformed combatants that carried their arms openly, etc., etc. The closest GC definition of their status would be for spies, which can be summarily executed under the GC.
So, what do we do with them? We don't have to charge them with anything. The U.S. has identified them as hostile and dangerous, a definition with which I'm sure they themselves would certainly agree.
The irony in all of this is that if we had taken no prisoners, (and I'm not talking about intentionally shooting them) as a result of them all being KIA, the world would have nothing to argue. Who out there is defending Zarqawi's rights? No one.
That there are unprecendented legal issues created by this situation, I will agree whole-heartedly. That these individuals should be granted the same legal protections of a U.S. citizen, I could not disagree more.
Links to the entire text of the bill are posted earlier in this thread. Read the language in its entirety, and then ask some of these questions...
Cheers,
-
Well said Stoney.
-
Definition from the Geneva Conventions regarding the definition of those protected by the GC:
1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. (3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a Government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. (4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civil members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany. (5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions in international law. (6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
The key qualifiers under part 2.B and part 6 in the preceding paragraph is "they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."
-
These "people" haven't been charged because in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, decided by the USSCT last June, the Supremes knocked the whole military commission arrangement previously set up to try them into a cocked hat. If they HAD been charged and tried under the old arrangement, then Hamdan had come down, they'd all have to be tried again. The latest legislation is a response to that USSCT decision. The WSJ article cited by BJ229r above summarizes the situation pretty accurately.
Great posts, btw, Stoney!
-
Originally posted by Stoney74
The definition of unlawful enemy combatant is contained in the Geneva Conventions, although I'd have to look that up.
I'm afraid it is not. The GC doesn't even contain the word "combatant" at all let alone "unlawful enemy combatant". Like "assault weapon" the term "unlawful enemy combatant" is invented by your government and has no precedence in law, US or international.
-
Originally posted by Stoney74
So, lets try them under the Geneva Conventions. First of all, their combative status does not, and I repeat, does not afford them ANY protection under the GC. As they are not uniformed combatants that carried their arms openly, etc., etc. The closest GC definition of their status would be for spies, which can be summarily executed under the GC.
No I don't agree. They would have to be treated as civilians. However civilians that commit murder can be executed as well. The GC is not specific with regard to the prosecution and punishment of criminals.
Originally posted by Stoney74
The irony in all of this is that if we had taken no prisoners, (and I'm not talking about intentionally shooting them) as a result of them all being KIA, the world would have nothing to argue. Who out there is defending Zarqawi's rights? No one
Under the GC you do not have the right to refuse a surrender by the enemy, but you do have the right to execute them if a competent tribunal determines them to have been operating outside the GC and they have committed murder.
So I guess the final point is that you do have the right to execute most of the terrorists/insurgents/favorite term of the enemy/etc. However you do not have the right to torture them under any circumstances.
-
Originally posted by Stoney74
Definition from the Geneva Conventions regarding the definition of those protected by the GC:
1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. (3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a Government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. (4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civil members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany. (5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions in international law. (6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
The key qualifiers under part 2.B and part 6 in the preceding paragraph is "they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."
Part 6: "Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."
That part may include many "combatants" in both Iraq and Afghanistan since most of Iraq and Afghanistan is not actually occupied by US forces. In fact all but the largest metropolitan areas of both countries are largely lawless no-man's land.
Most of them also carry their AK's openly, but whether they respect the laws and customs of war is less clear. Most of them probably don't know the GC. Nevertheless unless the enemy clearly violates the GC they are to be treated as if they respect the laws and customs of war.
And just so we are clear: Mines, IED, booby-traps, ambushes and snipers are perfectly legal means of conducting warfare.
Also the GC states that the enemy must have a "fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance" to be considered "uniformed". Mind you a colored arm-band is enough to satisfy the GC. And let's take a look at some Iraqi insurgentswhatever:
(http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/images/0408-05.jpg)
(http://www.military.com/ppt/slide0001_image001.jpg)
(http://www.defensetech.org/archives/images/iraqi_insurgent_sniper_training.jpg)
(http://www.notinourname.net/graphics/falluja4.jpg)
(http://www.worldproutassembly.org/images/Iraq_insurgent.jpg)
(http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2004/04/09/9n_insurgent.jpg)
They clearly carry their arms openly, and I would consider the headscarf distinctive and recognizable at a distance.
-
"Whether they respect the laws and customs of war is less clear." You've got to be squealing kidding me- they still mutilate the dead fer chrissake! Remember this?
U.S. Civilians Mutilated in Iraq Attackhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A40722-2004Mar31¬Found=true
Viking, with all due respect, you are a moron
-
Originally posted by Bluefish
"Whether they respect the laws and customs of war is less clear." You've got to be squealing kidding me- they still mutilate the dead fer chrissake! Remember this?
Yes, mutilating the dead is a violation of the laws of war. However you would have to prove in each case the person in question (facing the tribunal) actually took part or assisted in the mutilations.
Just like the Abu Ghraib incident doesn't make your whole army war criminals, nor does that incident make every Iraqi insurgentwhatever a war criminal.
Originally posted by Bluefish
Viking, with all due respect, you are a moron
I guess respect is a word foreign to you then.
-
I believe it is possible to respect a moron, viking :aok
But you are not a moron. I believe funkED would spell it moran :rolleyes:
j/k :D
-
viking, you seem intelligent with opinions. let me ask you this question:
If you were in charge of teh militry what would you do in Iraq today? what would be the likely consequences of your decision?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I believe it is possible to respect a moron, viking :aok
Perhaps, but calling someone a moron (or moran ;)) is not respectful, and really does not belong in a discussion. (Where's MP3 when you need him?!)
-
Originally posted by Yeager
viking, you seem intelligent with opinions. let me ask you this question:
If you were in charge of teh militry what would you do in Iraq today? what would be the likely consequences of your decision?
That would depend on what your goals are. If the goal is to "democratize" Iraq, then the war was a lost cause before it even began IMHO.
If the goal is to get rid of Saddam and his alleged WMD - mission accomplished, go home. Chaos would ensue in Iraq, but that will happen anyway at this stage.
If the goal is to make Iraq a base in your "war on terror", then you need to lose the silk gloves and start taking names. Curfew, public executions, the whole nine yards. That's the only thing those people understand because that's the only thing they have ever known. The consequences would of course be unsustainable political outcry in west. But you would get your base.
Basically you're screwed.
-
Originally posted by Stoney74
For those of you just joining us, from an earlier post...
excerpt from the act
(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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
excerpt from the act
(3) ALIEN- The term `alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.
I stand corrected. The American Sons of Liberty site has posted unreliable information. That the act says "alien" makes it ok with me. As long as no one mistakenly identifies a citizen as an alien. One so mistakenly identified will have no recourse but to suffer the detention and hope that the truth comes out in the long run, during ones lifetime.
-
Originally posted by Viking
I'm afraid it is not. The GC doesn't even contain the word "combatant" at all let alone "unlawful enemy combatant". Like "assault weapon" the term "unlawful enemy combatant" is invented by your government and has no precedence in law, US or international.
Yeah, its the term our government uses to identify the knuckleheads.
Anyone who is detained and fits the classification as defined by the GC must be considered a Prisoner of War. As these guys do not, they are not lawful combatants (lawful as having protections as a uniformed member under the GC). You can call them a Ham Sandwich, I don't care--but they do not have rights. Further, they are not treated as civilians because they took part in hostilities. There is a definition of non-combatant or civilian in the GC.
I'll post the whole dang document if I have to.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Also the GC states that the enemy must have a "fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance" to be considered "uniformed". Mind you a colored arm-band is enough to satisfy the GC. And let's take a look at some Iraqi insurgentswhatever:
They clearly carry their arms openly, and I would consider the headscarf distinctive and recognizable at a distance.
The guys in question, detained at Gitmo, are not Iraqi insurgents. Those guys are Al Qaeda folks from different countries picked up on the battlefield in Afghanistan.
The uniform of the Iraqi insurgent is a whole other issue for a different thread
-
Originally posted by 2Slow
I stand corrected. The American Sons of Liberty site has posted unreliable information. That the act says "alien" makes it ok with me. As long as no one mistakenly identifies a citizen as an alien. One so mistakenly identified will have no recourse but to suffer the detention and hope that the truth comes out in the long run, during ones lifetime.
Of course if you're accused of being an "enemy combatant", you might conceivably be stripped of your citizenship, making you a de facto alien.
-
Originally posted by Stoney74
The guys in question, detained at Gitmo, are not Iraqi insurgents. Those guys are Al Qaeda folks from different countries picked up on the battlefield in Afghanistan.
The uniform of the Iraqi insurgent is a whole other issue for a different thread
Most of the guys in question, detained at Gitmo, are not anything but guys unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. If your version were true, why haven't there been a whole slew of tribunals by now, or lined up?
The answer is because there is no evidence or reason to detain the vast majority of them.
Legal immigrants and those with permanent resident visas -- who pay taxes, are subject to the draft and serve now in the armed forces -- have always been granted all civil liberties and legal protections of the Constitution afforded to citizens, except the right to vote.
They all come under this law now.
The US government has rounded up, detained and seized the possessions of American citizens without due process in the past. What makes you think it's not capable of doing it again?
They have rounded up citizens of other countries (Brazil) and shipped them to detainment camps in the US. You can only say "rounded up," because there was no legal extradition, no legal basis for doing it, no crimes were committed, no rights afforded them, no regress, no hearings, no charges, no nothing. In actuality, they were kidnapped.
Trusting the good nature and common sense of those who govern is only for fools. Even the most explicitly written law will be under threat of circumvention by politicians.
-
excerpt from the act
(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.
I think you guys are missing a critical phrase of the act. It doesn't matter what the detainee's status is - alien, citizen, combatant legal or illegal. As long as their classification is "awaiting determination" they can be held indefinitely. Essentially, the Writ of Habeas Corpus is gone for everybody.
Not trying to be a fear-monger, but it strikes me as a potentially dangerous situation which could lead to abuses. Obviously, the Founding Fathers recognized such peril and that is why our Constitution specifically prohibits suspension of the Writ.
-
Originally posted by Stoney74
Further, they are not treated as civilians because they took part in hostilities. There is a definition of non-combatant or civilian in the GC.
Would you please quote definition of "non-combatant or civilian" in the Geneva Conventions? This is the second time you've claimed the GC contains non-existent definitions.
-
ok, I've been convinced, they are POW's, and they can be held prisoner until the end of the war. No trial, no court, no habeus corpus, no lawyers, just a POW camp. Happy now?
-
Sure, POW camp is fine. Most of them don't deserve more than a bullet in the head though.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Would you please quote definition of "non-combatant or civilian" in the Geneva Conventions? This is the second time you've claimed the GC contains non-existent definitions.
civilian
A civilian is any person who does not belong to any of the following categories: members of the armed forces, militias or volunteer corps, organized resistance movements, and residents of an occupied territory who spontaneously take up arms. If there is any doubt whether a person is civilian, then he or she is to be considered a civilian. (Protocol I, Art. 50, Sec. 1)
combatant status
Combatants have protections under the Geneva Conventions, as well as obligations. Convention I offers protections to wounded combatants, who are defined as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war. (Convention I, Art. 13, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2)
Convention II extends these same protections to those who have been shipwrecked (Convention II, Art. 13)
Convention III offers a wide range of protections to combatants who have become prisoners of war. (Convention III, Art. 4)
However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections. For example, civilians in an occupied territory are subject to the existing penal laws. (Convention IV, Art. 64)
The 1977 Protocols extend the definition of combatant to include any fighters who carry arms openly during preparation for an attack and during the attack itself, (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3) but these Protocols aren't as widely accepted as the four 1949 conventions.In addition to rights, combatants also have obligations under the Geneva Conventions. In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)
A mercenary does not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war. (Protocol I, Art. 37)
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Most of the guys in question, detained at Gitmo, are not anything but guys unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
And you know this how? I think I'll trust the troops that captured them more than you.
-
Originally posted by oboe
I think you guys are missing a critical phrase of the act. It doesn't matter what the detainee's status is - alien, citizen, combatant legal or illegal. As long as their classification is "awaiting determination" they can be held indefinitely. Essentially, the Writ of Habeas Corpus is gone for everybody.
Not trying to be a fear-monger, but it strikes me as a potentially dangerous situation which could lead to abuses. Obviously, the Founding Fathers recognized such peril and that is why our Constitution specifically prohibits suspension of the Writ.
excerpt from the act
(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 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.
excerpt from the act
(3) ALIEN- The term `alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Most of the guys in question, detained at Gitmo, are not anything but guys unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Oboe, I respect what you're saying, but if you really believe this, its gonna be hard to continue this discussion. Most of the "average Joes" that were rounded up have been released back to thier country of origin. There are some pretty nefarious guys down there right now.
-
So there is no definition of "non-combatant or civilian" then. Like I said.
Originally posted by Stoney74
civilian
A civilian is any person who does not belong to any of the following categories: members of the armed forces, militias or volunteer corps, organized resistance movements, and residents of an occupied territory who spontaneously take up arms. If there is any doubt whether a person is civilian, then he or she is to be considered a civilian. (Protocol I, Art. 50, Sec. 1)
Tell me are the terrorists "members of the armed forces, militias or volunteer corps, organized resistance movements, and residents of an occupied territory who spontaneously take up arms"? No? If not then therefore "if there is any doubt whether a person is civilian, then he or she is to be considered a civilian" seems to be the correct interpretation.
They are either warriors eligible for POW status, or civilians (criminals). There is no such thing as an "unlawful combatant".
-
There is a definition of civilian--I posted it.
There is a definition of combatant--I posted that too. If you do not fit the definition of a combatant, then you are a non-combatant.
I guess I should have just used civilian--since there is an explicit definition
-
Originally posted by Viking
They are either warriors eligible for POW status, or civilians (criminals). There is no such thing as an "unlawful combatant".
Now you're getting it. The purpose of this bill is to create procedure to handle these unlawful combatants. As has been stated here multiple times, it is inappropriate to put these guys through our civilian courts.
-
Stoney,
Do you have me confused with Rolex? I'm the guy trying to shoehorn a discussion of the Act's unconstitutionality into the thread (without luck so far). I haven't commented on the specifics of the Gitmo detainees.
EDIT: I see you response to my post above now; I hope you are right. It doesn't change my opinion that the suspension of Habeas Corpus in unconstitutional, however.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Stoney,
Do you have me confused with Rolex? I'm the guy trying to shoehorn a discussion of the Act's unconstitutionality into the thread (without luck so far). I haven't commented on the specifics of the Gitmo detainees.
Sorry, I was in a flurry....:aok
-
just to be clear rolex... are you saying that all or even most of the prisoners at gitmo are just unlucky innocent citizens of foriegn countries that we have rounded up for no reason?
viking... your comments on our situation and what we can do is pretty accurate except... I like the Abrams strat... build the iraqi police and let them take over... it is slightly more complex given the backward bloodthirsty nature of the people there but if need be.... partition the place... it's not like it was a real country anyway... maybe we need to partition the whole middle east into tribal areas. They want to live in the fourth century? let em.
as for the bill of rights.... I think the bill of rights is only for citizens. sorry... get if anyone doesn't like that they can become a citizen or get their own bill of rights.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Stoney74
There is a definition of civilian--I posted it.
There is a definition of combatant--I posted that too. If you do not fit the definition of a combatant, then you are a non-combatant.
I guess I should have just used civilian--since there is an explicit definition
There is no such thing as an "unlawful combatant" in the GC. You are either a combatant eligible for protection as a POW or a civilian. Period.
"A civilian is any person who does not belong to any of the following categories: members of the armed forces, militias or volunteer corps, organized resistance movements, and residents of an occupied territory who spontaneously take up arms."
If they do belong in any of those categories they are to be afforded POW status. If they don't belong in any of those categories they are civilians. Period.
"If there is any doubt whether a person is civilian, then he or she is to be considered a civilian."
There is no such thing as an "unlawful combatant". "Unlawful civilian" on the other hand…
-
Originally posted by Viking
There is no such thing as an "unlawful combatant".
There is now.
-
Originally posted by lukster
There is now.
In the demented minds of your leaders, not in the Geneva Conventions.
-
Originally posted by Viking
In the demented minds of your leaders, not in the Geneva Conventions.
If these guys don't want to play by the rules of the GC then what business is it of yours or anyone outside of the US how we deal with them? You've already stated that the GC does not apply to them. Just think of this as an addition to our civilian procedures dealing with civilian combatants if you can't grasp the term unlawful combatant.
-
Originally posted by lukster
If these guys don't want to play by the rules of the GC then what business is it of yours or anyone outside of the US how we deal with them?
We're not making it our business; we are however voicing our opinions. Just like we're voicing our opinions on other nations that condone torture and other atrocities. If we made it our business we would be actively helping your enemies.
Right now we are content with pointing fingers and criticizing. Soon to be replaced with "we told you so", and perhaps a little laugh.
-
For those of you in fear that this means US citizens will be held indefinitely as unlawful combatants consider this scenario.
Joe Blow, a US citizen, converts to Islam and falls in with Al Qaeda. He then attemps to blow up a shopping mall (maybe in the US , maybe not) but is captured. Can he be held as an unlawful enemy combatant? According to this new bill he can challenge his new found status. If the Supreme Court agrees that he is an unlawful enemy combatant then a military tribunal decides his fate. If the court finds he is not an unlawful enemy combatant then he can be tried in civilian court and I suggest he should be charged with nothing less than treason.
-
Originally posted by Viking
We're not making it our business; we are however voicing our opinions. Just like we're voicing our opinions on other nations that condone torture and other atrocities. If we made it our business we would be actively helping your enemies.
Right now we are content with pointing fingers and criticizing. Soon to be replaced with "we told you so", and perhaps a little laugh.
I think you've already started with the finger pointing and this is preventing you from seeing that this new law is needed to handle a situtation for which there is no established procedure.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Right now we are content with pointing fingers and criticizing. Soon to be replaced with "we told you so", and perhaps a little laugh.
you are really going to laugh when the "unlawful combatants" start blowing up your people.
-
Originally posted by lukster
I think you've already started with the finger pointing ...
I don't understand why you have to think about it. We started pointing fingers more than three years ago.
-
Originally posted by Viking
I don't understand why you have to think about it. We started pointing fingers more than three years ago.
You know what they say about pointing fingers.
-
Originally posted by john9001
you are really going to laugh when the "unlawful combatants" start blowing up your people.
Terrorism is nothing new in Europe.
-
"it is slightly more complex given the backward bloodthirsty nature of the people there but if need be.... partition the place... it's not like it was a real country anyway... maybe we need to partition the whole middle east into tribal areas."
Very good point (although a bit off topic.) From what I understand, the British Empire drew lines in the sand to define nations with the explicit purpose to make them weak and non-functional.
Hmmm...here is a brilliant idea! Let's combine Assyrians, Persians, and Kurds into one political unit that sits on a large preserve of oil. We can then maintain control of the area by pitting them against one another.
As an alternative to the failed effort of the Treaty of Sevres;
They Assyrian area could be named Enron (they would have no oil rights and be bankrupt), the Kurd area could be named Shell (gotta give something to the Brits), and the Persian area would be named Texaco. (Names are a poor attempt at humor)
If one reads the history of the region one must ask one's self, "What the hell are we doing there?" If it were not for the "cheep" oil, I think we would care less.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Right now we are content with pointing fingers and criticizing.
which, at the end of the day, is all your really good for...
-
Originally posted by 2Slow
the Kurd area could be named Shell (gotta give something to the Brits)
.. :D
*cough*
-
Originally posted by Viking
Terrorism is nothing new in Europe.
Considering the long standing record of bombers actually enacting political change in the continent, I'm glad the United States isn't looking across the pond for advice. No offense, but your ways are your ways, our ways are our ways.
I think the message the US is broadcasting is clear enough: when you attack the US or our interests abroad, you don't get what you want or even a sympathetic ear. You AND all your little like-minded friends get the **** kicked out of you and we'll take your cool stuff home with us.
The sideliners might scream "no fair" and adroitly compare us to Hitler, but I'm sure that we'll find it in our hearts to forgive them and lend them a hand when the need arises.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
as for the bill of rights.... I think the bill of rights is only for citizens. .
lazs
Well you would be wrong then, when law enforcement hits the front porch they cant say "if you cant produce proof of citizenship we dont need a warrant"
You dont have prisons broken down to one area for citizens the other area has cat o nine tails and fingernail pulling in use.
You dont have to be a citizen to own a gun.
A non citizen cant be flogged untill he testifies against himself.
Now many of you will probably say, "maybee not but thats the way it should be" I fear that you may get your way.
I think we should remove the protections provided under the Bill of Rights from gay's next..cuz after all I am not one.
shamus
-
Originally posted by john9001
you are really going to laugh when the "unlawful combatants" start blowing up your people.
By your logic, why not classify all murderers as enemy combatents? You still haven't answered any of my questions directed at you. You don't have any response, I take it, to the Timothy McVeigh inquiry?
-
The bill of rights is nothing more than the first ten amdendments to the Constitution. I have pointed out that while legal resident aliens are protected by our laws they do not enjoy all of the privleges our Constitution provides to citizens.
Originally posted by Shamus
Well you would be wrong then, when law enforcement hits the front porch they cant say "if you cant produce proof of citizenship we dont need a warrant"
You dont have prisons broken down to one area for citizens the other area has cat o nine tails and fingernail pulling in use.
You dont have to be a citizen to own a gun.
A non citizen cant be flogged untill he testifies against himself.
Now many of you will probably say, "maybee not but thats the way it should be" I fear that you may get your way.
I think we should remove the protections provided under the Bill of Rights from gay's next..cuz after all I am not one.
shamus
-
The suspension of Habeas Corpus has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights.
Congress is specifically prohibited from suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus, except in cases of Rebellion or Invasion, by Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution. It is not part of an amendment - it is in the original text of the main body of the Constitution.
Yet that is exactly what Congress has done in this act. Every one of those congressmen who voted 'yes' took an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution, yet look what they did.
It'll be up to the Supreme Court now, I guess. We'll just have to wait and see what happens.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
By your logic, why not classify all murderers as enemy combatents? You still haven't answered any of my questions directed at you. You don't have any response, I take it, to the Timothy McVeigh inquiry?
sorry chairboy, i must have missed the question, what did you want to know about McVeigh?
-
Originally posted by oboe
The suspension of Habeas Corpus has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights.
Congress is specifically prohibited from suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus, except in cases of Rebellion or Invasion, by Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution. It is not part of an amendment - it is in the original text of the main body of the Constitution.
Yet that is exactly what Congress has done in this act. Every one of those congressmen who voted 'yes' took an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution, yet look what they did.
It'll be up to the Supreme Court now, I guess. We'll just have to wait and see what happens.
Are you suggesting that Habeus Corpus should apply to the Taliban now being held in Gitmo? These Taliban that were captured by US troops while fighting in Afghanistan without respect for the GC? Does the GC stipulate the penalty for militia who fight out of uniform and often target civilians? Perhaps it should, until then this new law will fill the bill.
-
I'm suggesting Congress should've chosen a tack that would allow them to deal with these detainees in a way that did not involve doing something they are expressly forbidden from doing by our Constitution.
How many suits have been filed challenging the act already? How long for the legal wheels to turn and render a decision? It's just hard to believe this was the best, most efficient way to handle it.
-
Originally posted by oboe
I'm suggesting Congress should've chosen a tack that would allow them to deal with these detainees in a way that did not involve doing something they are expressly forbidden from doing by our Constitution.
I think they did just that. We'll just have to disagree.
-
so many things wrong with the MCA. First of all, it’s blatantly unconstitutional. In the section defining an unlawful enemy combatant it says “(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006…” ummm, it doesn’t take a genius to see that the retroactive language there makes this an ex post facto law. yet, it still passed…
second point I’d like to make, especially to you die-hard Republicans, is this: How in the hell are you supposed to prove you’re NOT an unlawful enemy combatant if you’re locked up and kept incommunicado for a period of time and without means to defend yourself?
third point, possibly the most important one, is this power to summarily determine that an individual is an Unlawful Enemy Combatant that Bush is granting himself, will be transfered to our next president, and to the one after that, ad nauseum. How’d you like Hillary empowered to knock down doors and abduct people, citizens even, as she sees fit?
-
excerpt from the Act:
(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.
Article I, Section 9, U.S. Constitution:
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.
I don't see how the Act doesn't run afoul of the Constitution but I'm sure you're not alone in your thinking. Suspending the writ for only certain cases still amounts to suspending it, and the Constitution is clear that the Congress does not have authority to do such.
Guess we'll have to wait until the SC renders a decision.
-
well, let's hope that we havent gotten so far off track that the congress or the president decides to ignore the rulings of the court.
whole thing falls then.
it seems to me that they are testing that line.
-
Originally posted by lukster
The bill of rights is nothing more than the first ten amdendments to the Constitution. I have pointed out that while legal resident aliens are protected by our laws they do not enjoy all of the privleges our Constitution provides to citizens.
First off, they are not privleges, they are rights, and I am not saying that resident aliens have all the rights of citizens. I am saying that historicaly they have been accorded the rights provided by the Bill of Rights. That seems to be under attack now..that is my beef.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Shamus
First off, they are not privleges, they are rights...
shamus
amen.
inalienable at that.
-
Originally posted by oboe
I think you guys are missing a critical phrase of the act. It doesn't matter what the detainee's status is - alien, citizen, combatant legal or illegal. As long as their classification is "awaiting determination" they can be held indefinitely. Essentially, the Writ of Habeas Corpus is gone for everybody.
Not trying to be a fear-monger, but it strikes me as a potentially dangerous situation which could lead to abuses. Obviously, the Founding Fathers recognized such peril and that is why our Constitution specifically prohibits suspension of the Writ.
This was written by lawyers "loop holes" built in... It used to be "criminal goes free because of legal loop hole", well now its "citizen goes to jail because of loop hole".
Anyone here can be picked up, held, denied a lawyer or access to judge.. all while "awaiting determination" on your status. If it takes 6 months, oh well... you have ZERO recourse, none, zilch, nada, you lose, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
Technically every illegal alien caught at the border could be held indefinitely while "awaiting determination". Whos hungry?, Soylent green anyone?
Oh wait, this makes us safer... now I get it. Meanwhile, DAILY, an average of 3000 possible terrorists, criminals, gang members and grape pickers moon walk across the Mexican border laughing at what suckers we are. One minutemen dude made a movie as he walked across the border and delivered a simulated WMD in a backpack to some state building.
When given power like this, the government has always abused it... why will this be any different?
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
second point I’d like to make, especially to you die-hard Republicans, is this: How in the hell are you supposed to prove you’re NOT an unlawful enemy combatant if you’re locked up and kept incommunicado for a period of time and without means to defend yourself?
Govt: "Let me see your papers"
Citizen:
Govt: "These look fake, come with us while we determine your status"
Citizen: "I want to call my lawyer"
Govt: "You vill shtun ze mouth, NOW!"
Citizen: "Bummer"
1930's Germany, or 2006 USA
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
Govt: "Let me see your papers"
Citizen:
Govt: "These look fake, come with us while we determine your status"
Citizen: "I want to call my lawyer"
Govt: "You vill shtun ze mouth, NOW!"
Citizen: "Bummer"
1930's Germany, or 2006 USA
sure seems like it's going to come to that. them even having the discretion to hold someone indefinately is BAD.
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
1930's Germany, or 2006 USA
if you don't know the difference, no one will able to show it to you either ...
-
Originally posted by Eagler
if you don't know the difference, no one will able to show it to you either ...
we may not quite be there yet, but if you done see the parallels you're effing blind.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
we may not quite be there yet, but if you done see the parallels you're effing blind.
or secretly overjoyed maybe?
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
so many things wrong with the MCA. First of all, it’s blatantly unconstitutional.
affirmative action is blantantly unconstitutional, but there it is...
-
Originally posted by RedRadr
Originally posted by bsdaddict
so many things wrong with the MCA. First of all, it’s blatantly unconstitutional.
affirmative action is blantantly unconstitutional, but there it is...
your point?
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
your point?
if you don't know the difference, no one will able to show it to you either ...:lol
-
Originally posted by john9001
if you don't know the difference, no one will able to show it to you either ...:lol
please... I see distinctions, but as to why he's bringing it up I'm in the dark. Only thing I can infer is he's saying one unconstitutional policy is legitimized by the existance of other unconstitutional policies. That arguement is so assinine that I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and giving him the opportunity to clarify his point.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
we may not quite be there yet, but if you done see the parallels you're effing blind.
All the more reason to vote out the socialists. We do not want to go tjhe way of Socialist Germany (nazi to you).
-
Yea, because the dirty socialists are the ones setting up a police state.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Yea, because the dirty socialists are the ones setting up a police state.
They certainly did in Germany. They appear to have mellowed since what with the nannny state but I suspect that if push comes to shove this can be quickly converted into a police state.
-
The good news is that if they wait a year or two, they'll have a nice template to follow.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
The good news is that if they wait a year or two, they'll have a nice template to follow.
This may be news for you but the socialists have been whittling away at our liberties for decades.
-
Is this a :noid moment?
OMG OMG TEH COMEES R COMIN!
If "socialists" have been whittling away at our rights for "decades".. then those socialists are in the Republican party. The Democrats have never had the power to force their "gay marriage, abortion on demand, gunsnatching, tax and spend, etc etc." "agenda" on the American people.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Is this a :noid moment?
OMG OMG TEH COMEES R COMIN!
If "socialists" have been whittling away at our rights for "decades".. then those socialists are in the Republican party. The Democrats have never had the power to force their "gay marriage, abortion on demand, gunsnatching, tax and spend, etc etc." "agenda" on the American people.
Most the things you speak of were done by their proxy, the Supreme Court
-
And that must be because so many of the justices were nominated by the "evil commees", right?
-
Originally posted by JB88
or secretly overjoyed maybe?
don't play word games, say what you mean ...
If you are calling me a Nazi, you have not read my posts on various subjects on this board or are too thick to comprehend their meaning.
-
Where is habeus corpus christi?
-
lol, that was better than mine
-
Originally posted by Eagler
don't play word games, say what you mean ...
If you are calling me a Nazi, you have not read my posts on various subjects on this board or are too thick to comprehend their meaning.
um.
that's yer business, but i didn't take it there.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
And that must be because so many of the justices were nominated by the "evil commees", right?
Indeed there were. Pay attention.
-
Originally posted by lukster
This may be news for you but the socialists have been whittling away at our liberties for decades.
Absolutely true. But, you do realise that Republicans and especially the Bush administration are a bunch of socialists right?
-
jb88... you asked what we could do about it...
We have done nothing but vote our way into more of it.
I see the whole gun control thing as much more of a threat than how we treat foriegh combatants who are not really covered by international law.
I see nazi germany as the first big gun control nation and germany as socialism. I see that happening here.
I find it odd that one or the other side only gets upset when the other side gets more power.
We should get upset no matter what side takes away our rights.
What am I gonna do about it?
Same thing I allways do....
NEVER vote for a democrat... no matter what he says... he will vote socialist and sell you down the river.
NEVER vote for a new tax on anything that isn't fully dedicated and acounted for the task asked for. no gas tax to go to the general fund for instance.
Never vote to ban anything that is maybe dangerous simply because it is said that it costs you money.... they will not give you the money and they will have to build more enforcement (more police and government and more and more and more)
Less government is the solution.... it is hard for me to believe that some here want to get rid of the abuses of government by making it richer and more powerful.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Eagler
if you don't know the difference, no one will able to show it to you either ...
In the loop hole I provided, where your 'papers' are suspect and you can be locked up without due process until they decide your status, its that more like the USA, or Nazi Germany?
Another loop hole big enough to drive through; how many of you can "prove" you're a US citizen at any given time of the day? What standard of proof will the Gov use?, oh never mind.. whatever standard they want.
Even a regular old retired cop like me can see these mile wide loop hole in this law, but clever DOJ / military lawyers will find dozens more you folks cant even imagine... and there's no way to petition the courts to challenge it.
Your right to challenge the Gov in court when locked up is what used to separate us from 1930s Germany... now we're one step close to yesteryear.
-
and let me reiterate, to you who haven't yet seen the light and feel Bush can do no wrong... Our next president will probably be a Democrat. Bush and his lackeys have alienated (pun intended?) a lot of people and turned them again the GOP. Some will vote L or another third party, some idiots who don't know there's more than two choices will vote D. But a D will win. Hillary, Barack or one of the others will be entrusted with the power to (appoint a tribunal who will) determine who is and who isn't an Unlawful Enemy Combatant, and hold people indefinately while the determination is made.
Think on that one for a while...
-
Habeus Corpus has never in the history of the US applied to enemy combatants, legal or otherwise. It is only at this time in history where the "loyal" opposition has decided that by pretending HC does include enemy combatants they have something with which to attack a sitting President at time of war.
The new law is nothing but a reitteration of powers understood to belong to the President under his war powers given in the Constitution. This law originated to prohibit US courts from inserting themselves into the conduct of the war, conduct which is clearly part of the Presidents powers, again as provided for in the Constitution.
The courts have taken upon themselves, despite two hundred years of precident, the power to decide how enemy combatants are handled and has attempted to provide them legal recourse through our own legal system. The Congress has the Constitutional power to define the extent of the Court's power and is clearly attempting to stop the Court's attempt to take power clearly belonging to the President.
Again, never in our history have we provided these rights to enemy combatants and at no time in history or in international law has there been any requirement to find enemy combatant's "guilty" of being enemy combatants in a court of law, nor has there ever been a restriction on how long these enemy combatants can be restrained other than until the war is over.
So, what are the real changes? None. The Congress is attempting to reassert the balance of powers as defined by the Constitution. It is those that have decided that new "privledges and rights" should apply to those that in any other war would have been summarily executed as spies.
Those of you that think this is all about you and your rights need to put back on your aluminum foil hats and go back to looking for the Black helicopters that always seem to follow you.
-
keep telling yourself that...
-
sounds about right to me.....
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
Our next president will probably be a Democrat.
Think about that for a minute. Many republicans didn't vote or voted for Bush only to keep the democrat choices out of power. If the republicans can come up with someone the republicans really like it will probably be a landslide.
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
In the loop hole I provided, where your 'papers' are suspect and you can be locked up without due process until they decide your status, its that more like the USA, or Nazi Germany?
Another loop hole big enough to drive through; how many of you can "prove" you're a US citizen at any given time of the day? What standard of proof will the Gov use?, oh never mind.. whatever standard they want....
yes, it must be happening daily or otherwise we wouldn't be seeing these poor souls paraded in front of your tele during the evening news by the bush hating - we start for nothing, and have zero plans for anything, but looky at this scandal - dumbarsecrats .. yeah, I must see half a dozen a week .. how many do you know of? pls don't count the losers they snagged out of afganhastan or Iraq and are now rotting in gitmo as I can't feel anything for them ...
-
Originally posted by Eagler
yes, it must be happening daily or otherwise we wouldn't be seeing these poor souls paraded in front of your tele during the evening news by the bush hating - we start for nothing, and have zero plans for anything, but looky at this scandal - dumbarsecrats .. yeah, I must see half a dozen a week .. how many do you know of? pls don't count the losers they snagged out of afganhastan or Iraq and are now rotting in gitmo as I can't feel anything for them ...
dude, the act just got passed. give it time. if Bush doesn't abuse this power then then next pres might, or the next, or the next. The crux of the matter is that it's an unconstitutional power for ANY president to have.
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
In the loop hole I provided, where your 'papers' are suspect and you can be locked up without due process until they decide your status, its that more like the USA, or Nazi Germany?
Another loop hole big enough to drive through; how many of you can "prove" you're a US citizen at any given time of the day? What standard of proof will the Gov use?, oh never mind.. whatever standard they want.
Even a regular old retired cop like me can see these mile wide loop hole in this law, but clever DOJ / military lawyers will find dozens more you folks cant even imagine... and there's no way to petition the courts to challenge it.
Your right to challenge the Gov in court when locked up is what used to separate us from 1930s Germany... now we're one step close to yesteryear.
So this is a "loophole"? Sorta like not requiring identification before allowing someone to vote? I have no problem at all proving who I am. Driver's license, Birth Certificate, SS#, Military ID, Home Mortgage, etc., etc., etc.
Also, you've obviously never dealt with "clever DOJ/military lawyers". For most of what we (the DoD) have tried to do in an attempt to win the war has been impeded by lawyers, not helped. Every plan we come up with is reviewed ad-nausium by lawyers who's knee-jerk reaction is no. Why? Not because it's illegal, but because if the "secret plans" were "leaked" (yeah, I know, that'd never happen) what we want to do would be "spun" by the "loyal" opposition in exactly the same way as this Habeus Corpus thing has been.
Originally posted by bsdaddict
dude, the act just got passed. give it time. if Bush doesn't abuse this power then then next pres might, or the next, or the next. The crux of the matter is that it's an unconstitutional power for ANY president to have.
This is not and never has been unconstitutional. It's NOT unconstitutional to deny Habeus Corpus to either Legal or Illegal Enemy Combatants. As a matter of fact, it's good that the Congress is finally feeling it's oats with regard to reining in the Courts who keep grabbing more and more power to themselves. This is exactly what the Constitution calls for to redress power grabs by one of the three branches.
-
The crux of the matter is that it's an unconstitutional power
====
You have the power to decide this? or is this a guess on your part? Did some talking head on CNN "educate" you on the issue?
-
I certainly don't expect to change the minds of you die-hard republicans. Of course you don't see a problem with this, The GOP has been raping the constitution for decades and you've been ok with it.
I have no problem at all proving who I am. Driver's license, Birth Certificate, SS#, Military ID, Home Mortgage, etc., etc., etc.
goes to prove a fundamental difference between you and I. I DO see a problem with having to prove who I am. You just bend over and figure they're not bothering me, why should I worry.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
I certainly don't expect to change the minds of you die-hard republicans. Of course you don't see a problem with this, The GOP has been raping the constitution for decades and you've been ok with it.
goes to prove a fundamental difference between you and I. I do see a problem with having to prove who I am. You just bend over and figure they're not bothering me, why should I worry.
What heinous things has the GOP done to the constitution?
-
Originally posted by bj229r
What heinous things has the GOP done to the constitution?
how far back do you want me to go?
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
how far back do you want me to go?
WOW, really? i never knew they did all that.
-
Originally posted by john9001
WOW, really? i never knew they did all that.
I was waiting to see how far back he wanted me to go, but since you seem anxious here's the obvious recent stuff...
patriot act
real ID
Military Comissions Act
wiretapping
-
Ahh....there's nothing like starry-eyed idealism...unaffected by reality and firmly convinced of its own moral superiority. To that mentality, no foreign threat could be as dangerous as a government dominated by a political party founded on corporate wealth wrenched from an oppressed proletariate, and led by child molestors, war-mongers, religious demagogues, and gun-toting, right-wing militia racists.
Oh...for a return to enlightened rule and the politics of compassion and kissy-face diplomacy.
Pardon me if I give offence. I've got to put my old dog down tomorrow and I'm feeling a little surly. I have little patience with election-year political posturing and mountain-in-a-molehill the sky-is-falling crisis mongering.
Quite frankly, I hope the democrats do wrest control of Congress from the Republicans. A few years of their rule-making is just what middle-American needs to remind itself of why they voted the dems out of office in 1994.
If there were any real justice in the world...the attack of 911 should have taken place in 1995....so that master of international politics then occupying the White House could have finessed us through the entire thing.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
I was waiting to see how far back he wanted me to go, but since you seem anxious here's the obvious recent stuff...
patriot act
real ID
Military Comissions Act
wiretapping
All those items have been signed off by more than the 30 seat majority the GOP has in the House. Congress (what is "Real ID? not heard of that one), and none is directed at US Citizens, unless they are trying to blow up a skyscraper--anyway...you mentioned DECADES, and all the afore-mentioned items ares since 9/11?
(btw, here are a few REAL changes to our constitution that WERENT done by the Gop:
"Anchor baby" The Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965, pushed through by Democrats, creates US citizens out of Mexican families who sneak across the border right before the mother cranks out a pup. I think THAT has affected us a wee bit
Abortion--Dems couldnt get it through via the democratic process, so the liberal-heavy Supreme Court did it in 197..3?
Gay marriage== didn't get through via Congress, and a number of liberal judges keep finding rights buried in the Constitution which allow this (as well as over-riding VOTED in bans in various municipalities)
Busing--(again, liberal-heavy courts) decided that white kids from the burbs had to be sent into ghettos for school because their great-great grandfathers may have been racist slave owners. EVERYbody hated that one, including most of the black kids
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
I certainly don't expect to change the minds of you die-hard republicans. Of course you don't see a problem with this, The GOP has been raping the constitution for decades and you've been ok with it.
goes to prove a fundamental difference between you and I. I DO see a problem with having to prove who I am. You just bend over and figure they're not bothering me, why should I worry.
My point is that I have no difficulty in proving who I am should I have to. If I want to vote, if I commit a crime, if I want a credit card, if I want to cross international borders, etc., etc., I believe there is a reasonable justification to ask someone to identify themselves.
I suppose that even you might ask for someone else to identify themselves? What if someone came to your house and asked to come in? Would asking for some proof if identity be forcing that person to "bend over" or don't you carry this "right to not identify yourself" that far? Is it only you that should never have to identify yourself or are there others? How about that guy hanging around outside your house at 3am, should the police have the authority to force him to identify himself? Should you have to prove your identity to vote? How about taking out a loan? or do you just do that in someone elses name? (sure makes repayment easy). My point is, identity is important but it is not a secret.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
I certainly don't expect to change the minds of you die-hard republicans.
Here's the thing. What you assume to be "die-hard republicans" aren't really so much pro-republican as they are anti-progressive liberal socialists.
-
This is not and never has been unconstitutional. It's NOT unconstitutional to deny Habeus Corpus to either Legal or Illegal Enemy Combatants. As a matter of fact, it's good that the Congress is finally feeling it's oats with regard to reining in the Courts who keep grabbing more and more power to themselves. This is exactly what the Constitution calls for to redress power grabs by one of the three branches.
(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.
Congress is specifically prohibited from suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus, except in cases of Rebellion or Invasion, by Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution.
The last paragraph, in blue, negates the ones in bold and italics. It is that simple. All it awaits is a court challenge. There has been no declaration of Rebellion or Invasion. Therefore, the act is invalid. One cannot legislate constitutionality. It is, or isn't.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
I DO see a problem with having to prove who I am..
you do not believe in personal identification? wow
-
Your papers, immediately.
-
This dead horse has been flogged beyond recognition. I think it is time to unsubsribe from this thread and lay to poor animal to rest. :)
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Your papers, immediately.
Kinda like cops have been doing for the last 70 years when they detain you on the side of the road? Next the government will be squelching our freedom of speech and demanding our hard earned money. Whoops, there they went.
-
Originally posted by 2Slow
This dead horse has been flogged beyond recognition. I think it is time to unsubsribe from this thread and lay to poor animal to rest. :)
it has not. the law still exists.
-
Originally posted by 2Slow
This is not and never has been unconstitutional. It's NOT unconstitutional to deny Habeus Corpus to either Legal or Illegal Enemy Combatants. As a matter of fact, it's good that the Congress is finally feeling it's oats with regard to reining in the Courts who keep grabbing more and more power to themselves. This is exactly what the Constitution calls for to redress power grabs by one of the three branches.
(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.
Congress is specifically prohibited from suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus, except in cases of Rebellion or Invasion, by Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution.
The last paragraph, in blue, negates the ones in bold and italics. It is that simple. All it awaits is a court challenge. There has been no declaration of Rebellion or Invasion. Therefore, the act is invalid. One cannot legislate constitutionality. It is, or isn't.
Three points.
I find it kind of appalling that you don't consider Sept 11 and other acts or plans of terrorism within the US as an "invasion".
In any case, no where does the Constitution say that a Rebellion or Invasion has to be "declared". The only mention of even a remotely relevant "declaration" regards a declaration of war. Even so, the war powers of the President do not require such a declaration for him to act.
The law does not constitute a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus by the Congress (which is the section you quote), nor does it apply to US Citizens. The Congress BTW, has the right to "make rules concerning captures on land or water" so they do have some say in how captives are handled while the Constitution says nothing about Judicial power in this area. Most importantly though, the law denies the court's authority in this matter, something that is completely within the Legislature's power and reasserts the limits to Judicial power recognized by all previous Supreme Courts. These limits are part of "checks and balances."
-
Quick question for the folks who support the legislation: If Hillary Clinton were elected president, do you feel she should have the legal ability to decide that anyone she wants is an 'enemy combatent', then have them arrested without charges?
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
If there were any real justice in the world...the attack of 911 should have taken place in 1995....so that master of international politics then occupying the White House could have finessed us through the entire thing.
Well, the first one on the WTC did.
In the World Trade Center bombing (February 26, 1993) a car bomb was detonated by Arab Islamist terrorists in the underground parking garage below Tower One of the World Trade Center in New York City. The 1,500-lb urea nitrate-fuel oil device killed six and injured 1,042 people. It was intended to devastate the foundation of the North Tower, causing it to collapse onto its twin.
The attack was planned by a group of conspirators including Ramzi Yousef, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, El Sayyid Nosair, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Ahmad Ajaj, and Abdul Rahman Yasin. They received financing from al-Qaeda member Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, Yousef's uncle.
The bomb exploded in the underground garage at 12:17 P.M., generating a pressure estimated over one GPa and opening a 30-meter-wide hole through four sublevels of concrete. The detonation velocity of this bomb was about 15,000 ft/s (4.5 km/s). The cyanide gas generated is assumed to have burned in the explosion.
-
But wait.... shouldn't the first WTC bombing actually be Bush senior's fault? Since 9/11 is Clintons fault, even though he had left office already. I thought the consensus was that the only possible way 9/11 could have been stopped is if Clinton stopped it, since Bush had no time to do it.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Quick question for the folks who support the legislation: If Hillary Clinton were elected president, do you feel she should have the legal ability to decide that anyone she wants is an 'enemy combatent', then have them arrested without charges?
Read again the pertinent part:
(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.
Your point is well taken however. I don't trust Hillary either but I'd be more concerned about my tax records seeing as she's shown a propensity for collecting private tax records before, and, despite the fact the records belonged to Republicans I think that even the most vociferous Democrates would not go so far as to say Republicans aren't US citizens. Also, the collection of these tax records by the Clinton administration was demonstrably illegal in every aspect. Doesn't appear as if the law matters one way or the other to them so what difference would it make?
Bottom line is that I'm not, and no other American citizen is an "alien" so, just by simply reading the law it clearly doesn't apply to US citizens.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
But wait.... shouldn't the first WTC bombing actually be Bush senior's fault? Since 9/11 is Clintons fault, even though he had left office already. I thought the consensus was that the only possible way 9/11 could have been stopped is if Clinton stopped it, since Bush had no time to do it.
Blame for the bombings lies with the bombers. It's the inaction thereafter that Clinton must bear for all time.
-
Salt on a raw nerve there Urchin?
I didn't allude any fault to anyone.
The response was to this bit I quoted from Shuckins:
so that master of international politics then occupying the White House could have finessed us through the entire thing.
You can unclench your hair now.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
But wait.... shouldn't the first WTC bombing actually be Bush senior's fault? Since 9/11 is Clintons fault, even though he had left office already. I thought the consensus was that the only possible way 9/11 could have been stopped is if Clinton stopped it, since Bush had no time to do it.
Interesting thought but you don't carry it through. My vote for the first failure to prevent both the first WTC bombing and 9/11 goes to Zynab bint al-Harith. She was a Jewish woman from the Khaybar oasis that was captured by Muhammad. She tried to kill him with poison but unfortunantly she failed.
-
Mace, the old 'Islam is the debil' kitsch is getting old.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Blame for the bombings lies with the bombers. It's the inaction thereafter that Clinton must bear for all time.
And they inaction of Bush?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Mace, the old 'Islam is the debil' kitsch is getting old.
Oh, aren't we sophisticated, we used the word "kitsch" in a sentence but have you read the Qur'an? Maybe any of the Hadiths? Or, do you just assume that rioting and murder because of a cartoon is normal? How about reading something more 21st century like Mukhlas, the leader of the 2002 Bali bombings and what he had to say to other Jihadists:
You who still have a shred of faith in your hearts, have you forgotten that to kill infidels and the enemies of Islam is a deed that has a reward above no other.....Aren't you aware that the model for us all, the Prophet Muhammed and the four rightful caliphs, undertook to murder infidels as one of their primary activities, and that the Prophet waged jihad operations 77 times in the first 10 years as head of the Muslim community in Medina
Nah...these jihadists are just like us, they don't take their religion seriously.
-
well since we're quoting dead people...
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
-
Mace, plenty of abortion clinic bombers, crusaders, and so on have used the bible to rationalize their actions, it sure doesn't damn christianity as a whole. Why the double standard?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Salt on a raw nerve there Urchin?
I didn't allude any fault to anyone.
The response was to this bit I quoted from Shuckins:
You can unclench your hair now.
Not at all, I just find the internet confusing at times. Who gets blamed for what often seems sort of like a capricious and arbitrary decision.
By the way Mace, I LOL'd :). Good response.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
well since we're quoting dead people...
He's not dead...yet. He's been sentenced to death but you know how that goes.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Mace, plenty of abortion clinic bombers, crusaders, and so on have used the bible to rationalize their actions, it sure doesn't damn christianity as a whole. Why the double standard?
Not a double standard at all. Lots of people pervert religion to their own interpretation but the difference between Christianity and Islam is the source. Find anywhere where Jesus said to kill non-believers, no he taught forgiveness and turning of the other cheek. Muhammud sent out assassins to murder people who criticised or joked about him. Pretty different fundamental approaches and completely different religions.
-
Anyhow, Mace, can you stick to the subject? Or do you want to threadjack this to be about religion?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Anyhow, Mace, can you stick to the subject? Or do you want to threadjack this to be about religion?
LOL, just responding to you dude.:D
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
And they inaction of Bush?
I've heard Bush blamed for a lot of things from long menstrual cycles to the price of tea in China but this is the first time I've heard him accused of inaction in regards to terrorism.
Which does create a stark contrast by which both he and Clinton will undoubtedly be compared by futture generations. Liberals don't write all of the history books.
-
I believe that the "inaction of Bush" refers to before 9/11.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
I believe that the "inaction of Bush" refers to before 9/11.
8 years vs 8 months, hardly comparable and when there was an attack on Bush's watch he acted.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
Read again the pertinent part:
(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.
Your point is well taken however. I don't trust Hillary either but I'd be more concerned about my tax records seeing as she's shown a propensity for collecting private tax records before, and, despite the fact the records belonged to Republicans I think that even the most vociferous Democrates would not go so far as to say Republicans aren't US citizens. Also, the collection of these tax records by the Clinton administration was demonstrably illegal in every aspect. Doesn't appear as if the law matters one way or the other to them so what difference would it make?
Bottom line is that I'm not, and no other American citizen is an "alien" so, just by simply reading the law it clearly doesn't apply to US citizens.
or is awaiting such determination
Loophole? How long may one be held, in secret, while ones status is "awaiting determination"? Status being "enemy combatant" or "citizen and the law does not apply to one so you get out of jail?"
IMHO "awaiting determination" allows the enforcers to do as they see fit.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
Three points.
I find it kind of appalling that you don't consider Sept 11 and other acts or plans of terrorism within the US as an "invasion".
In any case, no where does the Constitution say that a Rebellion or Invasion has to be "declared". The only mention of even a remotely relevant "declaration" regards a declaration of war. Even so, the war powers of the President do not require such a declaration for him to act.
The law does not constitute a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus by the Congress (which is the section you quote), nor does it apply to US Citizens. The Congress BTW, has the right to "make rules concerning captures on land or water" so they do have some say in how captives are handled while the Constitution says nothing about Judicial power in this area. Most importantly though, the law denies the court's authority in this matter, something that is completely within the Legislature's power and reasserts the limits to Judicial power recognized by all previous Supreme Courts. These limits are part of "checks and balances."
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/invasion
Main Entry: in·va·sion
Pronunciation: in-'vA-zh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English invasioune, from Anglo-French invasion, from Late Latin invasion-, invasio, from Latin invadere to invade
1 : an act of invading; especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder
2 : the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion
An invasion is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of conquering territory or altering the established government. An invasion can be the cause of a war, it can be used as a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in and of itself.
The term usually connotes a strategic endeavor of substantial magnitude; because the goals of an invasion are usually large-scale and long-term, large forces are needed to hold territory and protect the interests of the invading entity. Smaller and lighter tactical infiltrations are not generally considered invasions, being more often classified as skirmishes, sorties, targeted killings, assassinations or reconnaissance in force. By definition, an invasion is an attack from outside forces. As such, rebellions, civil wars, coups d'etat, and internal acts of democide or other acts of oppression are generally not considered invasions.
One could nitpick this thing to pieces. I see no invasion here, nor rebellion. Congress has not declared, by act of law, that an invasion has taken place and therefore it is suspending habeas corpus. That is what I think is required.
-
damn, i tried to kill this thread last week, but it is still plenty alive.:mad: :mad: :mad: :O
:O :O :O zOMG i hope it isn't after revenge!!!!11:eek: :eek: :noid
-
Originally posted by 2Slow
or is awaiting such determination
Loophole? How long may one be held, in secret, while ones status is "awaiting determination"? Status being "enemy combatant" or "citizen and the law does not apply to one so you get out of jail?"
IMHO "awaiting determination" allows the enforcers to do as they see fit.
Use the whole quote and deconstruct the sentence. Selecting just five words isn't very illustrative or accurate.
(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
"Alien" is clearly written and is not qualified in any way. The discussion of "awaiting such determination" refers to the alien's status as "an enemy combatant" not as an "alien". It is already established that the person in question is an alien so the law doesn't apply to US citizens. Sixth-grade english dude...maybe you should consider getting that GED after all.
Originally posted by 2Slow
I see no invasion here, nor rebellion. Congress has not declared, by act of law, that an invasion has taken place and therefore it is suspending habeas corpus. That is what I think is required.
OK, so Pearl Harbor wasn't technically an "invasion" either...ok, fine. 19 representatives of al-Qai'da enter the US and reside here for an extended period of time, capture four airliners and conduct an attack on civilians and the US Military killing 3,000 US citizens, mostly civilians but you'll rely on the Wikipedia to parse this into a non-invasion.
William Ralph Inge
It takes in reality only one to make a quarrel. It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favour of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion.
-
An invasion is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of conquering territory or altering the established government. An invasion can be the cause of a war, it can be used as a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in and of itself.
"OK, so Pearl Harbor wasn't technically an "invasion" either" According to the way I read it, it was. 9-11 was not because it was not conducted by the armed forces of a nation.
Perhaps we both need revisit our 6th grade english class and work on our GED's. "Sixth-grade english dude...maybe you should consider getting that GED after all."
""Alien" is clearly written and is not qualified in any way. The discussion of "awaiting such determination" refers to the alien's status as "an enemy combatant" not as an "alien". It is already established that the person in question is an alien so the law doesn't apply to US citizens. "
I agree with you. I was picking the whole thing apart and ignoring the sum. However, if I (as an educated citizen) can make a mess of interpreting this, imagine what a government bureaucrat lawyer type can do with it. :)
H.S. graduate, B.S. Computer Information Systems.
-
Whats does Corpeus Habus mean?
:t
-
Originally posted by 2Slow
Perhaps we both need revisit our 6th grade english class and work on our GED's. "Sixth-grade english dude...maybe you should consider getting that GED after all."
I was, you know, talking like we used to...you know, like in high school, we always used to call guys like......ah....never mind;)
-
After diligent research (I have read the DTA and MTA cover to cover) I think habeus corpus for citizens is well intact.
Should an amendment ever be passed modifying the DTA and MTA in a fashion that the word "alien" is substituted with the word "person" then we will all be in trouble.
My very last word on the subject...
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
and let me reiterate, to you who haven't yet seen the light and feel Bush can do no wrong... Our next president will probably be a Democrat. Bush and his lackeys have alienated (pun intended?) a lot of people and turned them again the GOP. Some will vote L or another third party, some idiots who don't know there's more than two choices will vote D. But a D will win. Hillary, Barack or one of the others will be entrusted with the power to (appoint a tribunal who will) determine who is and who isn't an Unlawful Enemy Combatant, and hold people indefinately while the determination is made.
Think on that one for a while...
Nonsense, Hillary isin't running, and Obama isin't suicidal
-
Originally posted by JB88
it's been fun.
University of Central Florida physics professor Costas Efthimiou's work debunks pseudoscientific ideas, such as vampires and zombies, in an attempt to enhance public literacy. Not only does the public believe in such topics, but the percentages are at dangerously high level, Efthimiou told LiveScience.
Legend has it that vampires feed on human blood and once bitten a person turns into a vampire and starts feasting on the blood of others.
Efthimiou's debunking logic: On Jan 1, 1600, the human population was 536,870,911. If the first vampire came into existence that day and bit one person a month, there would have been two vampires by Feb. 1, 1600. A month later there would have been four, and so on. In just two-and-a-half years the original human population would all have become vampires with nobody left to feed on.
If mortality rates were taken into consideration, the population would disappear much faster. Even an unrealistically high reproduction rate couldn't counteract this effect.
"In the long run, humans cannot survive under these conditions, even if our population were doubling each month," Efthimiou said. "And doubling is clearly way beyond the human capacity of reproduction."
So whatever you think you see prowling around on Oct. 31, it most certainly won't turn you into a vampire.
time to drive a friggin stake into this thread
-
Originally posted by 2Slow
After diligent research (I have read the DTA and MTA cover to cover) I think habeus corpus for citizens is well intact.
Should an amendment ever be passed modifying the DTA and MTA in a fashion that the word "alien" is substituted with the word "person" then we will all be in trouble.
My very last word on the subject...
My last word will be that the Constitution prohibits Congress from suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus, excepting two conditions which have not been met. The MCA is unconstitutional.
-
Military tribunals have been used to try enemy combatants lawful, unlawful, or status to be determined, since the founding of the republic. Using such tribunals has meant denying those accused of a writ of habeas corpus.
Since the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Congress has passed another statue authorizing military commissions in hopes of meeting the new requirements laid down by the court.
There's no telling if the Supreme Court will accept the use of such military tribunals even though Congress now has approved them. After all, the Court has ignored the couple of hundred years of precedent on which military commissions are based. George Washington was the first commander to use them.
Whenever I come across the argument that such tribunals are unconstitutional, and the war on terror ought to be conducted by litigation, I think: Madness, madness....
To borrow another phrase, this one from the Hon. Robert Jackson, late an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and one of the prosecutors in the Nuremberg Trials, "Let's not confuse the Constitution of the United States with a suicide pact."
Can you imagine the GIs caught in the Battle of the Bulge having to supply every German prisoner they took with a lawyer to file a writ of habeas corpus on his behalf - including those unlawful combatants caught in U.S. Army uniforms, the better to confuse and misdirect American forces. Yep, that's just what the laws of warfare need: another incentive to take no prisoners.
(Paraphrased from an article by Paul Greenberg in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.)
-
Make up your mind, are they POWs then? Because if they are, then the Geneva convention applies. That's the specific example you just gave, after all.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Make up your mind, are they POWs then? Because if they are, then the Geneva convention applies. That's the specific example you just gave, after all.
As has been said, they don't fit the GC description of POWs but do fit the GC description of spies. Unless we want to shoot them all as spies we need new guidelines.
-
they cant be spies, they dont drink martinis or play rotisserie league baseball
-
Originally posted by Eagler
yes, it must be happening daily or otherwise we wouldn't be seeing these poor souls paraded in front of your tele during the evening news by the bush hating - we start for nothing, and have zero plans for anything, but looky at this scandal - dumbarsecrats .. yeah, I must see half a dozen a week .. how many do you know of? pls don't count the losers they snagged out of afganhastan or Iraq and are now rotting in gitmo as I can't feel anything for them ...
Spirit of the law vs letter of the law is a stale argument, if you haven't seen how lawyers ignore the spirit of a law while adhering to the letter.. you haven't been paying attention.
The spirit of this is to punish a few dozen real bad dudes that most of us would rather see summarily executed, great. But as written, the "letter of the law", gives powers to creative & clever prosecutors who can and will use this law whenever it suits them. Chances are this BS isn't going to affect me, my friends or anyone I know, so frankly I could really care less who the idiots sweep off the street and torture..
After 10+ years of being "the man", countless trials, court appearances and interaction with state & federal (military as well) prosecutors.. experience has taught me you cant trust these people to apply the law for its purpose. I cant even tell you how many times I left a DAs office amazed at how they manipulate some laws in ways the people who wrote it never imagined. It happenes every day too.
I have to laugh when people rally around the spirit of a law, its almost like you assume those in charge will be responsible all the time, and they will ONLY use the law to reflect the Spirit... but they dont, they'll use in how they want, when they want, on who they want.
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
Chances are this BS isn't going to affect me, my friends or anyone I know, so frankly I could really care less who the idiots sweep off the street and torture..
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller
-
what a selfish bastard (no offense intended to FBDs), too bad it's obvious nothing happened to him (other than choirboy sex) cause that poem is in teh past tense
-
Me sex? What? Did it happen again?
-
viking... I believe the quote you make has impact because it is about nazis coming after their own citizens.
This may seem to be a minor difference to you but... it was their own government.
I would say that your quote would more aptly apply to the situations under a past administration where citizens were demonized and then hunted down and killed for no other reason than the breaking of minor laws that were probly not even constitutional in the first place.
I am refering to the murder of citizens at Ruby Ridge and Waco
lazs
-
"Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, 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." §1005(e)(1), 119 Stat. 2742.
it says" of an alien ", no mention of citizens, you can sleep tonight, the neoconnazis are not going to break down your door.
-
Just out of curiousity, what's your opinion on Jose Padilla? He's a US citizen.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Just out of curiousity, what's your opinion on Jose Padilla? He's a US citizen.
Cite as: 542 U. S. ____ (2004) 23
Opinion of the Court
rules because the merits of this case are indisputably of “profound importance,” post, at 1, 7. But it is surely just as necessary in important cases as in unimportant ones that courts take care not to exceed their “respective juris-dictions” established by Congress.
The District of South Carolina, not the Southern Dis-trict of New York, was the district court in which Padilla should have brought his habeas petition. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for entry of an order of dismissal without prejudice.
It is so ordered.
my opinion is al quida should have hired a better attorney, the SC ruled that his attorney filed the petition in the wrong court, the SC sent it back to the court of appeals.
-
One thing about it there Chair....My freedon of speech is just as good as yours. I even served to protect it. But you go on thinking your so much better a citizen than I.
The rest of you that don't agree...welcome to my world I guess.
Sad excuses the lot of ya.
Originally posted by Chairboy
snippet.....You're a sad excuse for a citizen, snippet....You are entitled to exactly as much respect as you showed, which is to say, none.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
viking... I believe the quote you make has impact because it is about nazis coming after their own citizens.
This may seem to be a minor difference to you but... it was their own government.
I would say that your quote would more aptly apply to the situations under a past administration where citizens were demonized and then hunted down and killed for no other reason than the breaking of minor laws that were probly not even constitutional in the first place.
I am refering to the murder of citizens at Ruby Ridge and Waco
lazs
It is correct that the poem refers to the Nazi persecutions of their own citizens. However, the same has happened in numerous countries. The "Untermensch" in Germany, the Holodomor Ukrainians in the Soviet Union, the "Keffer" in South-Africa, the "******s" and Communists in America, the "Tater" in Norway and so on and so forth.
What's common between all these crimes against humanity is that the government slowly but surely desensitized the population to the crimes by gradually implementing them legally and demonizing their victims in the media.
That is what I think is relevant about the poem.
The US government is implementing new laws to combat their "demons", but what will the next amendment of those laws bring, and who will those laws will be used against in the future? Perhaps you since you are somewhat of a rebel in spirit. By that time you will be isolated and demonized as a threat to America, making sure that few if any will speak up in your defense.
Edit: Added one of Norway's crimes for balance.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
One thing about it there Chair....My freedon of speech is just as good as yours. I even served to protect it. But you go on thinking your so much better a citizen than I.
The rest of you that don't agree...welcome to my world I guess.
Sad excuses the lot of ya.
Are you snippet? Also, where did I say you didn't have freedom of speech?
-
Just to add a few thoughts Lazs: Your government (or rather the political party running it atm.) is running a huge demonizing/desensitizing campaign in the Republican controlled part of the media. Have you seen the Fox TV show "24"? Do you remember why Firefly was cancelled by Fox? Why are more and more guns being banned?
On their own each case is not so worrying and few people care, but when you put all of them in context the propaganda and agenda is obvious. There are no coincidences.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Why are more and more guns being banned?
i thought the republicans unbanned the "assault rifles" that the democrats had baned. also the repubs passed laws to protect gun mfg from frivolous and expensive lawsuits.
but i understand your point, the muslims haven't attacked Oslo yet, but your time will come.
-
Originally posted by JB88
it's been fun.
I agree entirely JB, this time Mr. Lincoln has gone entirely too far! I can't believe even the radical Republicans who control both houses will be able to support this. And all of this just to fight an unnecessary war we all know he provoked to further his own extremist political agenda. And who is going to get rich in the end at the cost of so many lives? The industrialists and robber barons with contracts with the federal government that's who! Well you know that aside from the real rah-rah types the majority of the country don't support this war, and those demonstrations in New York are getting nasty, I think their will probably be riots if they try to institute a draft - and you know they are going to have to what with the losses in this hopelessly mismanaged affair.
Oh, and did I mention that the state's right to secede was a actually guaranteed by the Constitution? Why is no one alarmed at this unlawful enforcement of federalism?
I tell you, if Lincoln is allowed to get away with this gross abuse of power using war as a pretext, it will be the end of democracy in America! Thank you for pointing that out JB, someone else finally has the guts to stand up and say what I've been alarmed about for the last 145 years!
- SEAGOON
-
youve been worried that long?
wow.
-
at issue is federalism yes. but not just on a local scale here in the US, rather it is a massive reorganization on a global scale, where federalism is renamed "globalism".
that is your next civil war sir.
so. who exactly is the enemy again?
-
Originally posted by john9001
but i understand your point, the muslims haven't attacked Oslo yet, but your time will come.
I'm afraid that time has come and past long ago. Even in my tiny home town of only 50.000 people a Muslim nutbag tried to crash a plane in the town by attacking the crew with an axe. He was overpowered by the other passengers but it was a close call and both pilots received serious wounds. I've even personally been involved in a terror incident; in 1993 when I was in the army I stood guard at Gardemoen airport when a Tupolev landed having been hijacked by Muslim terrorists. Just recently a number of Muslim terror suspects have been arrested after they allegedly shot up a Jewish synagogue. They have revealed that they were going to assassinate prominent Norwegians like the Royal family and commit other acts of terror as well.
Like I've said earlier: Terror is nothing new in Europe.
-
Originally posted by john9001
i thought the republicans unbanned the "assault rifles" that the democrats had baned. also the repubs passed laws to protect gun mfg from frivolous and expensive lawsuits.
That law was ineffective anyways, so no big loss for the power-elite. Still handguns are completely banned in some US cities and the restrictions are just getting worse. I know that the Republicans are probably not the worst in this case, but they and the Democrats are like two mafia families fighting for dominance; a two-party democracy is just one party away from dictatorship. Sooner or later they will try to gain control over your guns. Just sayin'.
-
viking, i respect your opinion, even if we don't agree
-
Likewise Sir.
-
viking I believe that you are making my point. It is a government that demonzies it's own citizens that is the worry to me.
Also... the governments and situations you describe all have one thing in common.. the governments tried or succeeded in disarming everyone but themselves before they started murdering citizens.
I believe that the democrtats want to disarm us. I believe that bigger government and a disarmed sheeple is not a good thing.
chair makes a good point about one U.S. citizen affected by the law. I would say, but don't know the particulars or the law, that if you fight for an enemy of your country then you are no longer considered a citizen or... at least... you would give up your rights as one.
Even at that... I would like to see any citizen go through a civilian court system.
viking is correct tho that we are losing more of our freedoms.. and it does bother me. I think that we aren't losing our freedoms to each other tho or because of the economy... we are losing em because our government is becoming more powerful.
Every citizen looks over his shoulder these days because he is either breaking or about to break some rule or regulation or law..
Is it because we are a lawless and imoral people or....
It it because we have too many laws and to big a government?
I say the latter.
lazs
-
Agreed.
On an aside, I hope the folks who support these changes to the law have thought out the following:
Eventually the democrats will get elected again, and this means that _they_ will have this unprecedented executive power. Perhaps you can have faith that the Republican administration won't abuse these powers, but can you be as sure that the democrats will excercise the same restraint? The power of the government and the branches should be limited at every opportunity.
-
agreed chair... that is the big con that we all fall for over and over..
We don't mind giving power to "our guy" cause he won't use it against us...but... we are too stupid to realize that when the other guy get's in he has a whole lot more power than he would have had and now he will go after the guys he doesn't like.
What happens is.. when the lefties get in they use the power in ways like ruby ridge and Waco... the right wingers go after the left wing groups.
Either way...government forces kill citizens over the most minor infractions in the myriad of laws they have to charge people with.
I guess we do get the government we deserve.
If you vote for new laws or want to take away someone elses freedom to maybe save you a buck or feel a little safer.... you are part of the problem..
If you vote for more taxes on anyone.... you are part of the problem.
If you vote for more regulations...you are part of the problem...
If you vote for democrts you most assuredly are part of the problem.
If you never write your representitves then you are part of the problem.
lazs
-
I agree with all of the above and add Republicans to the 'if you vote for them, you're part of the problem'. The Republicans might not be as bad as the Democrats on some personal liberty issues, but they're worse in some of the others.
Both parties apply a vigorous vacuum to any environment they cohabitate.
-
I agree... but... I am pragmatic... the republicans are walking toward big government and socialism while the democrats and their women politicians are running toward it.
while I admit there is little choice I say that some is better than none. I say that if there is no way a democrat will get in then...
vote your consience... I will vote libertarian this time for gov of kalifornia because the democrat doesn't stand a chance.
perhaps people tracking the results will see that given a choice... we don't like socialism.
To vote democrat in any election tho or to protest vote and let one get in is simply cutting of your nose to spite your face.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Viking
That law was ineffective anyways, so no big loss for the power-elite. Still handguns are completely banned in some US cities and the restrictions are just getting worse. I know that the Republicans are probably not the worst in this case, but they and the Democrats are like two mafia families fighting for dominance; a two-party democracy is just one party away from dictatorship. Sooner or later they will try to gain control over your guns. Just sayin'.
The restrictions are getting worse in some states (blue) but in the majority of US states handgun restrictions are being lifted.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Agreed.
On an aside, I hope the folks who support these changes to the law have thought out the following:
Eventually the democrats will get elected again, and this means that _they_ will have this unprecedented executive power. Perhaps you can have faith that the Republican administration won't abuse these powers, but can you be as sure that the democrats will excercise the same restraint? The power of the government and the branches should be limited at every opportunity.
The democrats apply their own interpretation to and abuse the law anyhow so what difference does it make?
-
Originally posted by lukster
The democrats apply their own interpretation to and abuse the law anyhow so what difference does it make?
Seriously? That's your response?
You're handing the democrats a loaded gun, helping them aim it at your kids, and shrugging apologetically and saying "these guys are going to do bad stuff anyhow, what difference does it make?"
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Seriously? That's your response?
You're handing the democrats a loaded gun, helping them aim it at your kids, and shrugging apologetically and saying "these guys are going to do bad stuff anyhow, what difference does it make?"
I'm not handing the democrats anything. I'll do my best to keep them out of power. This new law, as has been pointed out repeatedly, does not apply to US citizens or lawful enemy combatants. It was designed to give us procedures for dealing with Islamic Facists who will not observe the GC. You're going to make yourself dizzy if you keep trying to spin this.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
19 representatives of al-Qai'da enter the US and reside here for an extended period of time, capture four airliners and conduct an attack on civilians and the US Military killing 3,000 US citizens, mostly civilians but you'll rely on the Wikipedia to parse this into a non-invasion.
representatives from 84 countries were killed on 9-11, they were not all US citizens. And, at lest 20 were in the US at the time of the attack. And, it wasn't an invasion.
Don't you have something better to do, like run around the house with a pair of scissors or go somewhere and chew on an extension cord? Either of those choices would make a whole hell of a lot more sense than trying to put another adolescent argument together.
-
Originally posted by 2Slow
or is awaiting such determination
Loophole? How long may one be held, in secret, while ones status is "awaiting determination"? Status being "enemy combatant" or "citizen and the law does not apply to one so you get out of jail?"
IMHO "awaiting determination" allows the enforcers to do as they see fit.
People get excited by the term "alien", then say "see it doesn't apply to US citizens.." but thats not how lawyers / gendarme read it. What definition of alien will they use? and do aliens glow a special color so they stick out?
Otherwise there is no reasonible way to seperate Aliens from US citizens other than detention and status determination, or something like a new national US Citizen ID card...
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
representatives from 84 countries were killed on 9-11, they were not all US citizens. And, at lest 20 were in the US at the time of the attack. And, it wasn't an invasion.
Don't you have something better to do, like run around the house with a pair of scissors or go somewhere and chew on an extension cord? Either of those choices would make a whole hell of a lot more sense than trying to put another adolescent argument together.
I don't really care very much how many were non-US citizens if the attack took place in our playground and especially if it's not relevant to the discussion. Personally, I prefer the standard black US Gov pen planning technique, so 3,000 is a good enough round number so go blow smoke up someone else's tailpipe.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
Read again the pertinent part:
Bottom line is that I'm not, and no other American citizen is an "alien" so, just by simply reading the law it clearly doesn't apply to US citizens.
You and an "alien" are walking down the street, how does the .gov G-man know who is who? Can you prove you are a US citizen? aliens get ID cards, bank accounts, and can forge any document... now what?
Is the alien glowing? is there a "kick me I'm an alien" sign on his back? or is the only way to determine the difference between you & and alien detention and status determination?
Please, tell me how the .gov WILL apply this law. We both know how they should, but lawyers always ignore the "Spirit of the law"... thats why a married man who walks into a church to get married can get charged with felony BURGLARY... same goes for "beer-runners"
Was the spirit of burglary to lock up beer running kids and bigamists? no, but it gets used like that DAILY, I've personally done it. A law is like a gun, you can aim it at a proper target, or not..
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
People get excited by the term "alien", then say "see it doesn't apply to US citizens.." but thats not how lawyers / gendarme read it. What definition of alien will they use? and do aliens glow a special color so they stick out?
Otherwise there is no reasonible way to seperate Aliens from US citizens other than detention and status determination, or something like a new national US Citizen ID card...
I have an ID card and am already in the governments database. I'm not worried and I think you should have to have an valid id card to vote.
-
Corruption of the voting system would be a bigger priority, supposing it's prevalent.
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
What definition of alien will they use?
Probably, as shown on the first page of the thread, the one in the law.
excerpt from the act
(3) ALIEN- The term `alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.
-
Q for anyone: can a naturalized citizen be stripped of thier citizenship?
-
Originally posted by JB88
Q for anyone: can a naturalized citizen be stripped of thier citizenship?
Yup, you can be "denaturalized" for the following:
1. Convicted For An Act Of Treason Against The United States
2. Holding A Policy Level Position In A Foreign Country
3. Serving In Your Native Country’s Armed Forces If That Country Is Engaged In Hostilities Or At War With The United States
4. Serving In Your Native Country’s Armed Forces As An Officer Or A Non-Commissioned Officer
5. Lying To The USCIS During The Naturalization Process
6. Refusal To Testify (for the first 10 years) Before Congress About Your Subversive Activities
-
so in essence, one could be exiled?