NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, I know a lot of you have already placed a negative judgement against the Military Commissions Act. My question is have any of you actually read the documents or are you just going along with hearsay or by the media?

I am aware that this was discussed in previous threads but I don't think anybody actually posted the document. I have read it and I accept it as needed in this day and age of terrorism.

Here is the document......I'm sure most of you probably won't read it, that is your choice, but I am posting it because I'm sure not many of you have actually read it for yourselves and are choosing to listen to the negativity from the media.......

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/nkk/documents/MilitaryCommissions.pdf#search='military%20commissions%20act'

Made it through the first 7 pages. Decided that I had a better use for my time, and that I didn't want to drive my bloodpressure too high. It's total bullshit.

Okay, I know a lot of you have already placed a negative judgement against the Military Commissions Act. My question is have any of you actually read the documents or are you just going along with hearsay or by the media?

I am aware that this was discussed in previous threads but I don't think anybody actually posted the document. I have read it and I accept it as needed in this day and age of terrorism.

Here is the document......I'm sure most of you probably won't read it, that is your choice, but I am posting it because I'm sure not many of you have actually read it for yourselves and are choosing to listen to the negativity from the media.......

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/nkk/documents/MilitaryCommissions.pdf#search='military%20commissions%20act'
Is there any law that the Republican Congress would pass and Bush wouldn't sign that you wouldn't fall all over yourself praising? Are you that big a sycophant?

Okay, I know a lot of you have already placed a negative judgement against the Military Commissions Act. My question is have any of you actually read the documents or are you just going along with hearsay or by the media?

I am aware that this was discussed in previous threads but I don't think anybody actually posted the document. I have read it and I accept it as needed in this day and age of terrorism.

Here is the document......I'm sure most of you probably won't read it, that is your choice, but I am posting it because I'm sure not many of you have actually read it for yourselves and are choosing to listen to the negativity from the media.......

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/nkk/documents/MilitaryCommissions.pdf#search='military%20commissions%20act'

First of all, my blood pressure went up considerably, and I wanted to scream when i read it. I am absolutely pissed that this was signed into law, and it confirms my worst fears.

I no longer have any trust in my government, and am thoroughly convinced after reading this, the torture bill, and the PATRIOT ACT in their entirety that our government is hell bent on being a dictatorship.

First of all, my blood pressure went up considerably, and I wanted to scream when i read it. I am absolutely pissed that this was signed into law, and it confirms my worst fears.

I no longer have any trust in my government, and am thoroughly convinced after reading this, the torture bill, and the PATRIOT ACT in their entirety that our government is hell bent on being a dictatorship.

Amazingly enough, Ihad that figured out in the first 5 pages of this. I'm sorry to say that reading the rest of it was a waste of your time.

Edit: Page 8 allows for the admission of Hearsay Evidence! The future of justice includes the admission of "He COULD have" evidence and "Rumor has it" evidence.

Okay, I know a lot of you have already placed a negative judgement against the Military Commissions Act. My question is have any of you actually read the documents or are you just going along with hearsay or by the media?

I am aware that this was discussed in previous threads but I don't think anybody actually posted the document. I have read it and I accept it as needed in this day and age of terrorism.

Here is the document......I'm sure most of you probably won't read it, that is your choice, but I am posting it because I'm sure not many of you have actually read it for yourselves and are choosing to listen to the negativity from the media.......

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/nkk/documents/MilitaryCommissions.pdf#search='military%20commissions%20act'

Yeah, I've read it, though I will also admit that like my colegues my blood pressure rose about 20 points, and I think I'm bleeding somewhere...

In any case, yeah, I've read it. Would you like to have the condensed version?

"US Constitution = Bonered".

This'll learn people to depend on constitutional law and judicial review. LOL.

Yes, I have read it, actually. And yep, it still makes me angry just thinking about it. I'm still completely blown away by the fact that this administration and future administrations can declare any citizen an unlawful enemy combatant (the wording of the document seems to allow for this), and by doing so deny them habeus corpus...I really can't get over it...what guarantees are there that someone wouldn't be mistakenly arrested for having a suspected link to terrorist activities? With no rights to be formally charged, or rights to a fair trial...please correct me if I'm misunderstanding the potential implications of this.

Amazingly enough, Ihad that figured out in the first 5 pages of this. I'm sorry to say that reading the rest of it was a waste of your time.

Edit: Page 8 allows for the admission of Hearsay Evidence! The future of justice includes the admission of "He COULD have" evidence and "Rumor has it" evidence.

Don't forget the classiied evidence that neither the accused nor his lawyer can see or challenge.

Godammit, does anyone have the email address to the US Supreme Court?! I need to tell those guys that if they at all respect their job descriptions then they had better rule this fucker "unconstitutional" which, evidently, it fucking is.

Or are those chumps too sheltered and out-of-date to have an email?!

Is there any law that the Republican Congress would pass and Bush wouldn't sign that you wouldn't fall all over yourself praising? Are you that big a sycophant?

First of all, I was and am totally against Mr. Bush's Immigrant Propasal allowing illegals to remain in our country.
Secondly, since you obviously disagree with that is fine and dandy, but to answer your IGNORANT question is No I am NOT a "sycophant" If you don't like my freaking threads then don't freaking post.

This is a forum, you can't expect everybody to agree with you, if that were the case then what fun would that be? No need to slander. Thank you.

Godammit, does anyone have the email address to the US Supreme Court?! I need to tell those guys that if they at all respect their job descriptions then they had better rule this fucker "unconstitutional" which, evidently, it fucking is.

Or are those chumps too sheltered and out-of-date to have an email?!

You need a case or controversy before they can rule. They can't just declare something unconsitutional out of hand you know.

On the plus side, since it seems this will effectively 'disappear' anyone it effects, the chances of it reaching them are remote.

Smashing.

First of all, I was and am totally against Mr. Bush's Immigrant Propasal allowing illegals to remain in our country.
Secondly, since you obviously disagree with that is fine and dandy, but to answer your IGNORANT question is No I am NOT a "sycophant" If you don't like my freaking threads then don't freaking post.

This is a forum, you can't expect everybody to agree with you, if that were the case then what fun would that be? No need to slander. Thank you.

It ain't slander when it's true. Come to grips with your position as a Republican apologist and defender of the destruction of the Constitution.

Don't forget the classiied evidence that neither the accused nor his lawyer can see or challenge.

Well, no, don't you think that's kind of idiotic to hand your enemies in al Queda our Top Secret and Classified documents.

Well, no, don't you think that's kind of idiotic to hand your enemies in al Queda our Top Secret and Classified documents.

If you're going to try them, they get to see the evidence used against them. If it's enough to convict them, then you don't have to worry about it getting out, do you?

It ain't slander when it's true. Come to grips with your position as a Republican apologist and defender of the destruction of the Constitution.

I'll do that as soon as you "come to grips" with your position as an al-Queda apologist and defender of the destruction of America.

You need a case or controversy before they can rule. They can't just declare something unconsitutional out of hand you know.

On the plus side, since it seems this will effectively 'disappear' anyone it effects, the chances of it reaching them are remote.

Smashing.

Mustn't a law that has been signed pass through the hands of the US Supreme Court before it becomes law? Or am I saddly, whimsically, (and unfortunately for us all) mistaken?

I'll do that as soon as you "come to grips" with your position as an al-Queda apologist and defender of the destruction of America.You're funny because you're so bereft of any hold on reality.

If you're going to try them, they get to see the evidence used against them. If it's enough to convict them, then you don't have to worry about it getting out, do you?

You don't think al queda and other terrorists have their codes and languages and other ways of finding that information out. Give me a fucking break. I am completely against handing over our top secret and classified documents over to the enemy. It's a crying shame you think it's okay to give the terrorists these Classified Documents. Unbelievable.

I'll do that as soon as you "come to grips" with your position as an al-Queda apologist and defender of the destruction of America.

Just because someone opposes what the Government does, doesn't make them an Al-Qaeda apologist.

I hate my Government. I hate the Bush Administration. I hate them all! They are ruining my country, the country my fore fathers fought and in some cases, died for in every war our nation has been in! The country that is supposed to be the beacon of light, and freedom in the world. The country I loved, is becoming the very thing I hate.

The terrorists, King Bodacious, have won. However, they didn't destroy our nation. The fucking electorate did, when the elected back the same fucking assholes who keep putting the same dumbass congressmen and senators who vote for these things, back in office.

If there is not a dramatic change in November, and an Executive Branch change in '08, I am leaving this country, and I will not return.

Mustn't a law that has been signed pass through the hands of the US Supreme Court before it becomes law? Or am I saddly, whimsically, (and unfortunately for us all) mistaken?

No. You are mistaken.

This is what happens to a country that chooses to ligtigate rather than legislate social policy and substantive rights. I have no sympathy. Everyone had clear and early warnings that this type of thing could happen. And now it has.

Now continue the partisan bickering. I'm sure it will help.

You don't think al queda and other terrorists have their codes and languages and other ways of finding that information out. Give me a fucking break. I am completely against handing over our top secret and classified documents over to the enemy. It's a crying shame you think it's okay to give the terrorists these Classified Documents. Unbelievable.

But do you not think they should be fairly tried? Do you not think they deserve to be tried by their peers (i.e people from Afghanistan/Iraq)?

I think that if you do not, you do not deserve to call yourself an American.

Read the whole thing.

I had about 10 or so segments that I responded to with "Hell no!"

However, because Adobe was being a dick, I couldn't Copy paste them to refer to now.

Bottom line, it's a bullshit, unconstitutional law, and it defiles the memory of those veterans who have fought for the freedoms of this nation. The President and the Legislature should be ashamed of themselves.

Read the whole thing.

I had about 10 or so segments that I responded to with "Hell no!"

However, because Adobe was being a dick, I couldn't Copy paste them to refer to now.

Bottom line, it's a bullshit, unconstitutional law, and it defiles the memory of those veterans who have fought for the freedoms of this nation. The President and the Legislature should be ashamed of themselves.

They should be tried for fucking treason.

They should be tried for fucking treason.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.


For all that they have shamed this nation and prooved themselves to be tyrants, they have not commited any of the following acts.

No. You are mistaken.

This is what happens to a country that chooses to ligtigate rather than legislate social policy and substantive rights. I have no sympathy. Everyone had clear and early warnings that this type of thing could happen. And now it has.

Now continue the partisan bickering. I'm sure it will help.

Yep...We're dead...

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.


For all that they have shamed this nation and prooved themselves to be tyrants, they have not commited any of the following acts.

I see your point.

Just because someone opposes what the Government does, doesn't make them an Al-Qaeda apologist.

I hate my Government. I hate the Bush Administration. I hate them all! They are ruining my country, the country my fore fathers fought and in some cases, died for in every war our nation has been in! The country that is supposed to be the beacon of light, and freedom in the world. The country I loved, is becoming the very thing I hate.

The terrorists, King Bodacious, have won. However, they didn't destroy our nation. The fucking electorate did, when the elected back the same fucking assholes who keep putting the same dumbass congressmen and senators who vote for these things, back in office.

If there is not a dramatic change in November, and an Executive Branch change in '08, I am leaving this country, and I will not return.

That quote of mine was only directed towards Nazz due to his Ignorance in my Right for MY views whether he likes it or not.
I also have the right to stand beside my government and respect their choices for the interests of America. No, I don't agree with everything our government does but I do agree that I would much rather be taking on the terrorists in their homeland than mine.
The terrorists don't play by the Geneva Convention and is in NO part of the Treaties there of therefore I do come to the conclusion that they should NOT be considered under the Geneva Conventions.
As for the Military Commissions Act, it talks of the terrorists not being allowed access to our Classified documents. I, absolutely, refuse to sympathize for those cowards. Yes, I have the right to my own beliefs and views whether or not people like Nazz who enjoys to slander others and provoke others to their very own negativity.
That is who I directed that comment towards and it was done in my own defense of his big slanderous words. Just because he declares something to be true does NOT mean that it is.

That quote of mine was only directed towards Nazz due to his Ignorance in my Right for MY views whether he likes it or not.
I also have the right to stand beside my government and respect their choices for the interests of America. No, I don't agree with everything our government does but I do agree that I would much rather be taking on the terrorists in their homeland than mine.
The terrorists don't play by the Geneva Convention and is in NO part of the Treaties there of therefore I do come to the conclusion that they should NOT be considered under the Geneva Conventions.
As for the Military Commissions Act, it talks of the terrorists not being allowed access to our Classified documents. I, absolutely, refuse to sympathize for those cowards. Yes, I have the right to my own beliefs and views whether or not people like Nazz who enjoys to slander others and proke others to their very own negativity.
That is who I directed that comment towards and it was done in my own defense of his big slanderous words. Just because he declares something to be true does NOT mean that it is.


I know it was directed towards Nazz, but I was merely making a statement to everyone. The first part of my post was to you though. The rest was to the world.

Yep...We're dead...

Well we could always hold a constitutional convention I suppose. There is no government accountability in this country. Binding judicial review, which is what americans rely on, is undemocratic and insulates politicians from their own idiocy.

But do you not think they should be fairly tried? Do you not think they deserve to be tried by their peers (i.e people from Afghanistan/Iraq)?

I think that if you do not, you do not deserve to call yourself an American.

Not when they have held guns against our soldiers, not when they wave a white flag then our soldiers lower their guns and then get shot at. To hell with al queda and all them damn terrorists.
As for their peers, "(i.e. people from Afghanistan/Iraq)" they're to damn busy killing each other to bother for a trial and when they do have time they're shooting at our soldiers.

Not when they have held guns against our soldiers, not when they wave a white flag then our soldiers lower their guns and then get shot at. To hell with al queda and all them damn terrorists.
As for their peers, "(i.e. people from Afghanistan/Iraq)" they're to damn busy killing each other to bother for a trial and when they do have time they're shooting at our soldiers.

Great generalization, htere. One slight hitch: Not everyone who is arrested is a terrorist. A FAIR trial would be a great way to weed out innocent and guilty people.

Generalizations are not good my friend.

Not when they have held guns against our soldiers, not when they wave a white flag then our soldiers lower their guns and then get shot at. To hell with al queda and all them damn terrorists.
As for their peers, "(i.e. people from Afghanistan/Iraq)" they're to damn busy killing each other to bother for a trial and when they do have time they're shooting at our soldiers.


You don't understand the people, their culture, or why the hate us so much. They have a damn good reason to dislike us, and I think we should address this issue to bring peace to the region. Not piss them off more and more.

That quote of mine was only directed towards Nazz due to his Ignorance in my Right for MY views whether he likes it or not.
I also have the right to stand beside my government and respect their choices for the interests of America. No, I don't agree with everything our government does but I do agree that I would much rather be taking on the terrorists in their homeland than mine.
The terrorists don't play by the Geneva Convention and is in NO part of the Treaties there of therefore I do come to the conclusion that they should NOT be considered under the Geneva Conventions.
As for the Military Commissions Act, it talks of the terrorists not being allowed access to our Classified documents. I, absolutely, refuse to sympathize for those cowards. Yes, I have the right to my own beliefs and views whether or not people like Nazz who enjoys to slander others and provoke others to their very own negativity.
That is who I directed that comment towards and it was done in my own defense of his big slanderous words. Just because he declares something to be true does NOT mean that it is.Oh, you have a right to your views, and I have the right to call them unAmerican. I'd never try to shut you up, and I'd never try to get you called an enemy combatant and locked away at Gitmo with no chance in hell in ever fighting for your freedom. Hell, much as I think you're ignorant, I'd put my ass on the line to make sure that didn't happen to you. Would you do the same for me? Doesn't fucking sound like it. So which one of us is the patriot, huh?

Okay, I know a lot of you have already placed a negative judgement against the Military Commissions Act. My question is have any of you actually read the documents or are you just going along with hearsay or by the media?looking at the responses so far... apparently not.

I am aware that this was discussed in previous threads but I don't think anybody actually posted the document. I have read it and I accept it as needed in this day and age of terrorism.

Here is the document......I'm sure most of you probably won't read it, that is your choice, but I am posting it because I'm sure not many of you have actually read it for yourselves and are choosing to listen to the negativity from the media.......

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/nkk/documents/MilitaryCommissions.pdf#search='military%20commissions%20act'thanks.

First of all, my blood pressure went up considerably, and I wanted to scream when i read it. I am absolutely pissed that this was signed into law, and it confirms my worst fears.I'm honestly curious. what fears were confirmed? please indicate which line numbers of the Military Commission Act confirmed those fears.

Don't forget the classiied evidence that neither the accused nor his lawyer can see or challenge.and please show where this is stated in this document and not in any earlier act signed into law?

“(D) has been determined to be eligible for access to information classified at the level Secret or higher; and

Civilian defense counsel shall protect any classified information received during the course of their representation of the accused in accordance with all applicable law governing the protection of classified information, and shall not divulge such information to any person not authorized to receive it. so Civilian Defense can be given classified Evidence should they be cleared to receive it.

(e) LIMITED EXCLUSION OF THE ACCUSED FOR THE PROTECTION OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.—(1) The military judge may, subject to the provisions of this subsection, permit the admission in a military commission under this chapter of classified information outside the presence of the accused. the Accused, not his Council. who, if rated to recieve this classified information, is sworn to protect it, but can still argue against it.

(i) is necessary to protect classified information the disclosure of which to the accused could reasonably be expected to cause identifiable damage to the national security, including intelligence or law enforcement sources, methods, or activities; or again, only the Accused is exluded from this, not security cleared defense Council.

(B) the exclusion of the accused— “(i) is no broader than necessary; and
(ii) will not deprive the accused of a full and fair trial.limits the Exclusion of the Accused.

(B) If the accused is excluded from a portion of the proceeding, the accused shall be provided with a redacted transcript of the proceeding and, to the extent practicable, an unclassified summary of any evidence introduced. Under no circumstances shall such a summary or redacted transcript compromise the interests warranting the exclusion of the accused under this subsection. and the accused is informed of what is introduced up to the point of the classified information itself.

(B) Civilian defense counsel shall be permitted to be present and to participate in all trial proceedings, and shall be given access to evidence admitted under subparagraph (4), provided that civilian defense counsel has obtained the necessary security clearances and that such presence and access are consistent with regulations that the Secretary may prescribe to protect classified information.
Oh look, defense council can be given that information if they are cleared for that information.

and there are many, many more areas in the entire bill that defines that only the ACCUSED and those not cleared for the information will not recieve that information should it be proven to be of a sensitive nature.

But do you not think they should be fairly tried? Do you not think they deserve to be tried by their peers (i.e people from Afghanistan/Iraq)?

I think that if you do not, you do not deserve to call yourself an American.
being that the crime was against your Nation... would you want civilians of a Nation hostile to your country be the jury for people accused of committing acts of violence against you and yours?

The MCA is a totalitarian's wet dream.

being that the crime was against your Nation... would you want civilians of a Nation hostile to your country be the jury for people accused of committing acts of violence against you and yours?

If the people of their nation do not try them, it is not a fair trial. Have you ever seen Amistad?

I managed to wade though 21 pages. There are a couple of valid points, but mostly bullshit. I know we'd have a fit if Americans were treated like this by a forein power.

If the people of their nation do not try them, it is not a fair trial. Have you ever seen Amistad?

Did you not hear of the Marines tried for rape in Japan?

Godammit, does anyone have the email address to the US Supreme Court?! I need to tell those guys that if they at all respect their job descriptions then they had better rule this fucker "unconstitutional" which, evidently, it fucking is.

Or are those chumps too sheltered and out-of-date to have an email?!

al Qaeda this al Qaeda that, I thought Bush said that we had nothing to fear from them since they were on the run.

Page 31

Line: 9 to 18.
The military judge may close to the public all or a part of the proceedings of a military comission under this chapter only upon making a specific finding that such closure is necessary to-
(A) protect information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause identifiable damage to the public interest or the national security, including intelligence or law enforcement sources,methods, or activities
If it makes the US look bad... We aren't allowed to know about it.

Page 34 lines 14 to 21. Page 35 lines 1 and 2
Civilian defense council shall be permitted to be present and to participate in all trial proceedings, and shall be given access to evidence admitted under sub-paragraph(4), provided that the civlilian defense council has obtained the necessary security clearances. and that such presence and access are consistant with regulations that the Secretary my prescribe to protect classified information. So it's on the Secretary of Defenses whim is a civilian is even allowed in.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any defense counsel who receives classified information admitted pursuant to subparagraph (4) shall not be obligated to, and may not disclose that evidence to the accused. Even then if by some account a civilian defense IS allowed in. They aren't allowed to tell the person they're defending what the evidence is.


Last but not least
A "Geneva can kiss my" ruling.

Page 79
Line 7 though 13
RIGHTS NOT JUDICIALLY ENFORCEABLE
(1) In General--- No person in any habeas action or in any other action [b]may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto as a source of rights, whether directly or indirectly, for any purpose in any court of the United States or its States or territories.
Translation: Geneva Convention has no power here.

Page 31 Line: 9 to 18.

If it makes the US look bad... We aren't allowed to know about it.
the RIGHT to know does not overturn the NEED to know. what goes on in those closed proceedings can still be revealed, just not classifed information.

(B) If the accused is excluded from a portion of the proceeding, the accused shall be provided with a redacted transcript of the proceeding and, to the extent practicable, an unclassified summary of any evidence introduced. Under no circumstances shall such a summary or redacted transcript compromise the interests warranting the exclusion of the accused under this subsection. this summary can then be released to the public.


Page 34 lines 14 to 21. Page 35 lines 1 and 2
So it's on the Secretary of Defenses whim is a civilian is even allowed in.
Even then if by some account a civilian defense IS allowed in. They aren't allowed to tell the person they're defending what the evidence is.

Page 28 - 29 defines the civilian defence council.

and there are councils that are rated for eligiblity for access to information classified at the level Secret or higher. and if the accused does not have such a lawyer, to not get one, or if his council does not obtain a lawyer with such a rating... then that proves the stupidity of the accused to keep an inneffective council on retainer.


Last but not least
A "Geneva can kiss my" ruling.

Page 79
Line 7 though 13

Translation: Geneva Convention has no power here.
Page 8 line 22 - Page 9 Line 2
defines the Geneva convention to be a National level protection and not an Individual Right and only to the nations that signed them.

So no individual person can say the Geneva Convention protects me, but the Nation of Iraq can say "As a signatory of the Geneva convention, I expect you to handle our lawful combatants according to the rules you also signed."

so if the US says, "I got me some people here that say they are from Iran and they are acting on orders from your Government (they are Lawful Enemy Combatants) and Iran replies. "They are not members of our army, they are acting on their own." then that redefines them as Alien Unlawful Enemy Combatants, and Iran (or whichever country) just removed the Protection the Geneva Convention affored those men.

So those people can still file under habeas corpus, but they cannot say the Geneva Convention protects them.

surprise, surprise (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/19/AR2006101901692.html?nav=rss_nation/special)

Moving quickly to implement the bill signed by President Bush this week that authorizes military trials of enemy combatants, the administration has formally notified the U.S. District Court here that it no longer has jurisdiction to consider hundreds of habeas corpus petitions filed by inmates at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.

In a notice dated Wednesday, the Justice Department listed 196 pending habeas cases, some of which cover groups of detainees. The new Military Commissions Act (MCA), it said, provides that "no court, justice, or judge" can consider those petitions or other actions related to treatment or imprisonment filed by anyone designated as an enemy combatant, now or in the future.

now, who gets to make that designation again?
ah yes,

“(7) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.—The term ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ means an individual determined by or under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense to be..."

My opinion is not important. The opinions that are important are those of the Constiutional scholars who say that the MCA strikes at Habeas Corpus in a way never done in US history. The US Congress surrenders direct oversight over the Executive Branch in an unprecendented way.

The more liberal scholars are comparing it (the MCA) to the Enabling Act signed by Adolf Hitler. The more conservative scholars, while not making direct allusions to the Enabling Act, are calling this law "dangerous." For the first time in the history of this country a citizen of it may be branded an "unlawful combatant" and be denied a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Any person taken in this manner is not entitled to stand and face their accuser in a Court of US Law within competent US jurisdiction. Their fate is decided by a three person tribunal appointed by either the President or the SecDef. They are not guaranteed the opportunity to face those accusers either. They are not entitled to proper legal representation. Still see nothing wrong?

So, you tell me...just where do you get off on lacking the common decency or the common sense to see just how badly this particular piece of legislation may be used by the President? The President can disappear a political enemy and hold them indefinitely simply for disagreeing with him, and who checks the President if HE chooses to abuse the law?

Wake up out of your dream of conservative utopia. This man is not the solution, nor is he really conservative.

This President is a bad man and a criminal who will never face up to his crimes. He is a national embarassment and the shame of this nation.

Okay, I know a lot of you have already placed a negative judgement against the Military Commissions Act. My question is have any of you actually read the documents or are you just going along with hearsay or by the media?

I've read it...it's the primary reason I plan to move to another country.

If this nation is to self-destruct, I'd prefer to watch from a comfortably safe distance.

pffft, We have a second Amendment for a reason, and no that reason wasn't for hunting,self defense against criminals (well, not for certain values of 'criminal' anyway) nor for the establishment of state militias that would be over-rided by the National Guard.

Vfor Vendetta may have made this hopelessly cliche but "People should not fear their government, governments should fear their people"

My opinion is not important. The opinions that are important are those of the Constiutional scholars who say that the MCA strikes at Habeas Corpus in a way never done in US history. The US Congress surrenders direct oversight over the Executive Branch in an unprecendented way.

The more liberal scholars are comparing it (the MCA) to the Enabling Act signed by Adolf Hitler. The more conservative scholars, while not making direct allusions to the Enabling Act, are calling this law "dangerous." For the first time in the history of this country a citizen of it may be branded an "unlawful combatant" and be denied a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Any person taken in this manner is not entitled to stand and face their accuser in a Court of US Law within competent US jurisdiction. Their fate is decided by a three person tribunal appointed by either the President or the SecDef. They are not guaranteed the opportunity to face those accusers either. They are not entitled to proper legal representation. Still see nothing wrong?

So, you tell me...just where do you get off on lacking the common decency or the common sense to see just how badly this particular piece of legislation may be used by the President? The President can disappear a political enemy and hold them indefinitely simply for disagreeing with him, and who checks the President if HE chooses to abuse the law?

Wake up out of your dream of conservative utopia. This man is not the solution, nor is he really conservative.

This President is a bad man and a criminal who will never face up to his crimes. He is a national embarassment and the shame of this nation.


Don't worry, judicial review will save you! (Oh that's right, it won't).

LOL. LOL. and LOL.

You were warned, as were your scholars. Face your own damn music.

Vfor Vendetta may have made this hopelessly cliche but "People should not fear their government, governments should fear their people"

and given the context here, even more apt is v's conversation with madam justice:


Frankly, I wasn't surprised when I found out. You always did have an eye for a man in uniform.

"Uniform? Why, I'm sure I don't know what you're talking about. It was always you, V. You were the only one..."

Liar! Slut! Whore! Deny that you let him have his way with you, him with his armbands and jackboots!
Well? Cat got your tongue? I thought as much.
Very well. So you stand revealed at last. You are no longer my Justice. You are his Justice now. You have bedded another. Well, two can play at that game!

"Sob! Choke! Wh-who is she, V? What is her name?"

Her name is Anarchy. And she has taught me more as a mistress than you ever did! She has taught me that justice is meaningless without freedom. She is honest. She makes no promises and breaks none. Unlike you, Jezebel.
I used to wonder why you could never look me in the eye. Now I know.
So goodbye, dear lady. I would be saddened by our parting even now, save that you are no longer the woman that I once loved.

Why is not the passing of this disgraceful, disgusting bill considered an impeachable offence? How dare he spit on our Constitution that he is sworn to defend, and how dare any of you defend this criminal? Those of you supporting this are traitors.

I've read it...it's the primary reason I plan to move to another country.

If this nation is to self-destruct, I'd prefer to watch from a comfortably safe distance.

Have a safe trip, Good Luck.....

Ugh, legalese hurts my brain. Yay for not living in America.

Funny. None of the environmental bills I've read contain information as to why one should vote for it. They're basic facts and don't try to play any sympathy cards. I suppose whoever included all the references to terrorist attacks had something in mind when they were writing this up.

Funny. None of the environmental bills I've read contain information as to why one should vote for it. They're basic facts and don't try to play any sympathy cards. I suppose whoever included all the references to terrorist attacks had something in mind when they were writing this up.

Oh, no! Never! Our beloved chimp-in-chief always has only the purest of motives.

Ugh, legalese hurts my brain. Yay for not living in America.

Please pray for us who do. We need all the help we can get.

The prosecution of such individuals by military commissions established and conducted consistent with this Act fully complies with the Constitution, the laws of the United States, treaties to which the United States is a party, and the law of war.

Oh well, I guess that settles that. With no declared war the president can pick anyone out of a crowd and say "he's an enemy combatant," and that's just fine with the Constitution, regardless of 'due process of law' because this bill says it is.

I wonder why they don't write that into more bills. Would save SCOTUS a lot of time if Congress just labeled all their bills "constitutional" or "unconstitutional."

Those fucktards.

and given the context here, even more apt is v's conversation with madam justice:


Frankly, I wasn't surprised when I found out. You always did have an eye for a man in uniform.

"Uniform? Why, I'm sure I don't know what you're talking about. It was always you, V. You were the only one..."

Liar! Slut! Whore! Deny that you let him have his way with you, him with his armbands and jackboots!
Well? Cat got your tongue? I thought as much.
Very well. So you stand revealed at last. You are no longer my Justice. You are his Justice now. You have bedded another. Well, two can play at that game!

"Sob! Choke! Wh-who is she, V? What is her name?"

Her name is Anarchy. And she has taught me more as a mistress than you ever did! She has taught me that justice is meaningless without freedom. She is honest. She makes no promises and breaks none. Unlike you, Jezebel.
I used to wonder why you could never look me in the eye. Now I know.
So goodbye, dear lady. I would be saddened by our parting even now, save that you are no longer the woman that I once loved.

I take it that's fromt he graphic novel? I certainly don't remember it from the movie.

Great generalization, htere. One slight hitch: Not everyone who is arrested is a terrorist. A FAIR trial would be a great way to weed out innocent and guilty people.

Generalizations are not good my friend.

Got a problem with Generals? Why do you hate our troops?

Jesus Christ! This bill is nothing more than a FOX news pundit piece given the force of law. It's just one fallacy based on a lie after another. I'd say I hope lies built into a law are grounds for striking it down, but with this new crop of fuckers on the SC, I don't think it matters.

Well you conservative assholes. You've gone and fucked up the country. You'd better hope that those blasphemous plays that depict Christ as gay are right, because you're going to have to suck dick awful hard to make him look the other way on everything you've done the last 6 years.

Oh, no! Never! Our beloved chimp-in-chief always has only the purest of motives.

Careful. That's something an enemy combatant might say.

It's funny to watch how people twist and turn the very facts of the Military Commission.
What don't you understand? bin Laden declared war against the USA and our allies of the Free World. al-Queda is NOT a recognized and legitimate form of military by any nation. Therefore, they do NOT and canNOT be treated under the treaties of the Geneva Convention. al-Queda does NOT and will NOT abide by the rules of war.
al-Queda and other terrorists do NOT fall under our constitution and they should NOT have any of our civil rights.
Yes, the terrorists should be tried under the authority of our military. Not our civilian courts. Remember, they declared war on us. So who better to try them than the very ones that the terrorists chose to pick up arms against.
Again, I ask, Do you not realize that we ARE at war?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus#Suspension_in_the_United_States_during_the_War_on_Terrorism

As for the Military Commission Act, it only applies to aliens deemed "enemy combatants" NOT "US Citizens" The United States legal Citizens are protected by the constitution. It seems though, that some of you, absolutely refuse to understand that the Military Commission Act is directed towards the aliens labeled "enemy combatants".

I take it that's fromt he graphic novel? I certainly don't remember it from the movie.It is. It's his "dialoge" monologue with the statue on the Old Bailey before he blows it up.

IAs for the Military Commission Act, it only applies to aliens deemed "enemy combatants" NOT "US Citizens" The United States legal Citizens are protected by the constitution. It seems though, that some of you, absolutely refuse to understand that the Military Commission Act is directed towards the aliens labeled "enemy combatants".

In your glee to fellate the Bush administration, you seem to have lost the point we are making. "Enemy combatants" is an entirely made up term with no legal definition whatsoever. It is applied to whomever this administration wants whenever this administration wants. In the current legal situation there is absolutely nothing preventing this administration from declaring anyone they wish to an "enemy combatant". There's no qualifications for "enemy combatant". All it takes is the administration saying that a person is an "enemy combatant" and poof! They're now an enemy combatant, with no rights whatsoever. If I were high enough in this administration, I could, right now, declare you an "enemy combatant" based on classified evidence that you'll never see, and have you arrested and detained indefinitely with no charges at all. There would be NOTHING stopping me from doing that.

In your glee to fellate the Bush administration, you seem to have lost the point we are making. "Enemy combatants" is an entirely made up term with no legal definition whatsoever. It is applied to whomever this administration wants whenever this administration wants. In the current legal situation there is absolutely nothing preventing this administration from declaring anyone they wish to an "enemy combatant". There's no qualifications for "enemy combatant". All it takes is the administration saying that a person is an "enemy combatant" and poof! They're now an enemy combatant, with no rights whatsoever. If I were high enough in this administration, I could, right now, declare you an "enemy combatant" based on classified evidence that you'll never see, and have you arrested and detained indefinitely with no charges at all. There would be NOTHING stopping me from doing that.

al-Queda and other terrorists and extremists gave cause for us to redefine and to rething "enemy combatant"........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant

It's funny to watch how people twist and turn the very facts of the Military Commission.
What don't you understand? bin Laden declared war against the USA and our allies of the Free World. al-Queda is NOT a recognized and legitimate form of military by any nation. Therefore, they do NOT and canNOT be treated under the treaties of the Geneva Convention. al-Queda does NOT and will NOT abide by the rules of war.
al-Queda and other terrorists do NOT fall under our constitution and they should NOT have any of our civil rights.
Yes, the terrorists should be tried under the authority of our military. Not our civilian courts. Remember, they declared war on us. So who better to try them than the very ones that the terrorists chose to pick up arms against.
Again, I ask, Do you not realize that we ARE at war?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus#Suspension_in_the_United_States_during_the_War_on_Terrorism

As for the Military Commission Act, it only applies to aliens deemed "enemy combatants" NOT "US Citizens" The United States legal Citizens are protected by the constitution. It seems though, that some of you, absolutely refuse to understand that the Military Commission Act is directed towards the aliens labeled "enemy combatants".
I don't think you get it? Someone mentioned it earlier and it hasn't sunk in yet? The TERRORISTS have WON!! You so live in fear, that you are willing to jeopardize the freedoms of fellow Americans and yourself just so you can deny "enemy combatants" basic human rights.

Basic soundbytes like we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here, and we haven't been attacked in the past 5 years, have taken hold of your pschye and you feel safe and secure. :rolleyes:

Congratulations. The old saying that if someone states something often enough then it must be true, even if it is a lie.

Saddam Hussein, Iraq, 9/11, terrorists, WMD, nuclear weapons, rape and torture, democracy, freedom, threat to America, Saddam Hussein, Iraq, 9/11, terrorists, WMD, nuclear weapons, rape and torture, democracy, freedom, threat to America, Saddam Hussein, Iraq, 9/11, terrorists, WMD, nuclear weapons, rape and torture, democracy, freedom, threat to America, Saddam Hussein, Iraq, 9/11, terrorists, WMD, nuclear weapons, rape and torture, democracy, freedom, threat to America, Saddam Hussein, Iraq, 9/11, terrorists, WMD, nuclear weapons, rape and torture, democracy, freedom, threat to America, Saddam Hussein, Iraq, 9/11, terrorists, WMD, nuclear weapons, rape and torture, democracy, freedom, threat to America, Saddam Hussein, Iraq, 9/11, terrorists, WMD, nuclear weapons, rape and torture, democracy, freedom, threat to America, Saddam Hussein, Iraq, 9/11, terrorists, WMD, nuclear weapons, rape and torture, democracy, freedom, threat to America,

al-Queda and other terrorists and extremists gave cause for us to redefine and to rething "enemy combatant"........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant

You quote a Wikipedia article as a legal definition of "enemy combatant"?

and given the context here, even more apt is v's conversation with madam justice:


Frankly, I wasn't surprised when I found out. You always did have an eye for a man in uniform.

"Uniform? Why, I'm sure I don't know what you're talking about. It was always you, V. You were the only one..."

Liar! Slut! Whore! Deny that you let him have his way with you, him with his armbands and jackboots!
Well? Cat got your tongue? I thought as much.
Very well. So you stand revealed at last. You are no longer my Justice. You are his Justice now. You have bedded another. Well, two can play at that game!

"Sob! Choke! Wh-who is she, V? What is her name?"

Her name is Anarchy. And she has taught me more as a mistress than you ever did! She has taught me that justice is meaningless without freedom. She is honest. She makes no promises and breaks none. Unlike you, Jezebel.
I used to wonder why you could never look me in the eye. Now I know.
So goodbye, dear lady. I would be saddened by our parting even now, save that you are no longer the woman that I once loved.

Ah yes. I was too lazy to type that one and most people haven't read the Graphic Novel anyway.

al-Queda and other terrorists and extremists gave cause for us to redefine and to rething "enemy combatant"........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant

I take it you nver actually bothered to read that page did you?


detemtion of enemy combatants act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.1076.IH:)

(8) The term 'enemy combatant' has historically referred to all of the citizens of a state with which the Nation is at war, and who are members of the armed force of that enemy state. Enemy combatants in the present conflict, however, come from many nations, wear no uniforms, and use unconventional weapons. Enemy combatants in the war on terrorism are not defined by simple, readily apparent criteria, such as citizenship or military uniform. And the power to name a citizen as an 'enemy combatant' is therefore extraordinarily broad. (Emphasis added)
followed closely by:
9) There is precedent for detaining American citizens as enemy combatants. In Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), 2 of the 8 German soldiers who planned acts of sabotage within the United States claimed American citizenship. Detention of enemy combatants who are United States citizens is appropriate to protect the safety of the public and those involved in the investigation and prosecution of terrorism, to facilitate the use of classified information as evidence without compromising intelligence or military efforts, to gather unimpeded vital information from the detainee, and otherwise to protect national security interests.

If anything, the redefinition of 'Enemy Combatants' has made it broader!

I don't think you get it? Someone mentioned it earlier and it hasn't sunk in yet? The TERRORISTS have WON!! You so live in fear, that you are willing to jeopardize the freedoms of fellow Americans and yourself just so you can deny "enemy combatants" basic human rights.

Basic soundbytes like we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here, and we haven't been attacked in the past 5 years, have taken hold of your pschye and you feel safe and secure. :rolleyes:

Congratulations. The old saying that if someone states something often enough then it must be true, even if it is a lie.

Saddam Hussein, Iraq, 9/11, terrorists, WMD, nuclear weapons, rape and torture, democracy, freedom, threat to America, Saddam Hussein, Iraq, 9/11, terrorists, WMD, nuclear weapons, rape and torture, democracy, freedom, threat to America, Saddam Hussein, Iraq, 9/11, terrorists, WMD, nuclear weapons, rape and torture, democracy, freedom, threat to America, Saddam Hussein, Iraq, 9/11, terrorists, WMD, nuclear weapons, rape and torture, democracy, freedom, threat to America, Saddam Hussein, Iraq, 9/11, terrorists, WMD, nuclear weapons, rape and torture, democracy, freedom, threat to America, Saddam Hussein, Iraq, 9/11, terrorists, WMD, nuclear weapons, rape and torture, democracy, freedom, threat to America, Saddam Hussein, Iraq, 9/11, terrorists, WMD, nuclear weapons, rape and torture, democracy, freedom, threat to America, Saddam Hussein, Iraq, 9/11, terrorists, WMD, nuclear weapons, rape and torture, democracy, freedom, threat to America,

Well, you said it yourself....We haven't been attacked within the past 5 years. Conclusion: Our Government must be acting appropriately in deterring the Terrorists from hitting us again in our Homeland. Unfortunately, the way some talk here, it may take us to be hit again for you to realize that the terrorist threat is still very much real. That it is NOT going away, it has only been delayed due to a job well done by this administration.
To pretend that the terrorists powers are very much limited is absurd.
I disagree with you in your stating that the Terrorists have won. We are at War. The War will NOT go away by doing nothing. The Terrorists must be destroyed like the virus they are. This is a different world that we live in today. The best action against the terrorists is the "Preemptive Attack" We must continue the offensive against these terrorists and the regimes who completely support the terrorism.
You cannot be successful vs the terrorists by attempting the Diplomacy process. They will NOT sit at the table of negotiations and if they would do you truly believe that they would agree towards peace? I doubt it.
I agree we can NOT nor should we negotiate with terrorists.
I fully support the Military Commission Act. As far as I am concerned, the terrorists should not be given the same rights as the US Citizen.
Again, I will repeat myself, Loud and Clear, "WE ARE AT WAR!"

I got to the part in the beginning where it says that hearsay evidence might be excluded from trials of terrorist suspects "even though such evidence often will be the best and most reliable evidence that the accused has committed a war crime" and then my head exploded. I did save a copy of the PDF, however, and I'll try to get through it. Maybe if I wrap my head in a towel ...

Reminds me a lot of apartheid South Africa's Suppression of Communism Act. The government could name anyone it chose a "communist," and they could ban or detain the person. There was no right of appeal, either. Incidentally, the act had very little to do with suppressing "communism." The government conveniently chose to label anyone it deemed too troublesome a "communist," and voila! Away with them.

In your glee to fellate the Bush administration, you seem to have lost the point we are making. "Enemy combatants" is an entirely made up term with no legal definition whatsoever. It is applied to whomever this administration wants whenever this administration wants. In the current legal situation there is absolutely nothing preventing this administration from declaring anyone they wish to an "enemy combatant". There's no qualifications for "enemy combatant". All it takes is the administration saying that a person is an "enemy combatant" and poof! They're now an enemy combatant, with no rights whatsoever. If I were high enough in this administration, I could, right now, declare you an "enemy combatant" based on classified evidence that you'll never see, and have you arrested and detained indefinitely with no charges at all. There would be NOTHING stopping me from doing that.

According to the Bush administration, if you fight against the US, you're an enemy combatant, and not subject to the Geneva Convention.

At least thats the impression they're giving me...:mad:

Is there any law that the Republican Congress would pass and Bush wouldn't sign that you wouldn't fall all over yourself praising? Are you that big a sycophant?


DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR THE BILL OR IT COULD NOT HAVE PASSED .



http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2006-491







Nazz in your opinion whats wrong with the law ?

How would YOU fight terrorism ?




Totals
Ayes: 253 (58%)
Nays: 168 (39%)
Not Voting: 12 (3%)
Required: 1/2



This server sucks. BTW .

I cant find anyplace where an American Citizen can be whipped up off the street and declared an enemy combatant unless he is part of a terrorist group operating on American soil ? Maybe even....???

Show me where in this act it says you can willy nilly start claiming Ameriicans walking down the street are " enemy combatants " and have no rights ?

And since I am reading about the judicial review in the section that says JUDICIAL REVIEW....???

Are you fella's talking about the same act ?

The Military commisions act that spells out what US agencys can do to collect information and how they can try and treat suspected terrorist ?

And here all this time I was thinking that CONGRESS voting on something was a GOOOD thing instead of having the President just decree it like he had war powers...

Seems like a case of damned if you do and damned if you dont.

You either accept the fact we are at war with islamic radical terrorist or you do not .

If you do not ...thats fine its your life ...vote accordingly...die ...surrender..ignore ..whatever.

But if you do aggree we are at war with Islamic radical terrorist...the ones that blow stuff up and crash plaanes into things ? Than WHATS THE PROBLEM ?

You need tools to fight them do you not ?

If you're going to try them, they get to see the evidence used against them. If it's enough to convict them, then you don't have to worry about it getting out, do you?


Public record dude...what are you going to do throw all the lawyers in jail with them and anyone else with access to classified info...?

Get just a tad realistic ...please .

According to the Bush administration, if you fight against the US, you're an enemy combatant, and not subject to the Geneva Convention.

At least thats the impression they're giving me...:mad:


Really now ...please show me what in the commision laws gave you that impression .

Also show me where in the geneva convention it covers Al Queda type groups and individuals and gives them the same protection as A soldier .

Take your time .



This is a VERY important debate . Please try to take it seriously ...once the Government removes your rights its a real tough effort to get them back .


I would LOVE to see a true discourse on the actual bill and take out the politics .

Hey if you dont even think we are in a war...then go start a thread on it...but if you do think we are at war than talk sense about this bill and how it will effect MY rights and yours as citizens of the US.

DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR THE BILL OR IT COULD NOT HAVE PASSED .



http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2006-491







Nazz in your opinion whats wrong with the law ?

How would YOU fight terrorism ?




Totals
Ayes: 253 (58%)
Nays: 168 (39%)
Not Voting: 12 (3%)
Required: 1/2




Sure, but take a look at the indivdual breakdown:
Democrat Republican Independent
Aye 34 218 0
Nay 160 7 1
Absent 7 5 0

Even if the Dem who voted Aye had voted against the bill, they still would have been in the minority. Albeit smaller, but still the minority.

According to the Bush administration, if you fight against the US, you're an enemy combatant, and not subject to the Geneva Convention.

At least thats the impression they're giving me...:mad:

Most of your first sentence makes sense to me. "If you fight against the US, you're an enemy combatant." Now the ending to the first sentence, "...and not subject to the Geneva Convention.", you completely made up.
If you signed the treaties within the Geneva Convention then yes the Geneva Convention would apply. If not, you are SOL. It's that simple.

Now to your final sentence of "impression". You were not forced to misunderstand or misinterpret. You did that all on your own due to the fact that you hear only what you want to hear. That's okay though, do like most everybody else does and blame that on Mr. President, too.

That's okay though, do like most everybody else does and blame that on Mr. President, too.

Do what you do, and continue your unconditional whitewashing and scyophany.

Sure, but take a look at the indivdual breakdown:
Democrat Republican Independent
Aye 34 218 0
Nay 160 7 1
Absent 7 5 0

Even if the Dem who voted Aye had voted against the bill, they still would have been in the minority. Albeit smaller, but still the minority.


It makes it a Bipartisan bill . Period ...seven republicans voted against it 34 Democrats voted for .

160 Democrats against.

AND this is days before an election and that makes the vote especially significant.

I just want to know what right of MINE got fucked with.

So I am still reading thhe bill and looking at all the differing opinions on it.

I don't know yet Honestly if it struck the right balance for what it wants to accomplish ...or even meets the standards the Supreme court sort of set.

I'm reading the minority opinion now on the decision that made this whole vote a reality...next up tthe decision itself..this vote means diddly if it wont pass the Supremes..

You know, reading the responses and replies, I've come to the conclusion that arguing with "King Bodacious" is about as effective as trying to sexually seduce a brick wall.

He is immune to the most carefully constructed, concise arguments, the heaviest logic, the most learned debate. Not to "Godwin" the thread, but if KB was around in 1940 Germany, he'd be in the Hitlerjugund.

Do what you do, and continue your unconditional whitewashing and scyophany.


Why dont we try something novel and try to actually have a true debate on the bill itself instead of an idiotic flamefest.

Having your rights fucked with is kinda important dont ya think ?

You know, reading the responses and replies, I've come to the conclusion that arguing with "King Bodacious" is about as effective as trying to sexually seduce a brick wall.

He is immune to the most carefully constructed, concise arguments, the heaviest logic, the most learned debate. Not to "Godwin" the thread, but if KB was around in 1940 Germany, he'd be in the Hitlerjugund.


Put him in the O D catagory and just dont bother .

( I hear if you drill a hole with a core drill it makes screwing walls easier).

I hope that helps .:D

Why dont we try something novel and try to actually have a true debate on the bill itself instead of an idiotic flamefest.

Having your rights fucked with is kinda important dont ya think ?

You debate. I'll make popcorn and watch. :)

Sure, but take a look at the indivdual breakdown:
Democrat Republican Independent
Aye 34 218 0
Nay 160 7 1
Absent 7 5 0

Even if the Dem who voted Aye had voted against the bill, they still would have been in the minority. Albeit smaller, but still the minority.

Which just proves the case that our National Security would be in grave dangers under the helm of the Democrat Party.

Can you show me any sources on what the Democrats are doing to make us safer? Can you show me any sources on how the Democrats supported any bills or Acts into Law that are to better Protect the American Citizens?

Thank God the "Military Commission Act" was passed into Law. Thank you, Mr. President for better protecting us Americans from the likes of Terrorists. Thank you Mr. President for signing the "Military Commissions Act" into Law.
Thank you Mr. President for not giving these known terrorists and these unlawful "enemy combatants" the same rights as our brave men and women. Thank you Mr. President for realizing that our brave men and women are not giving the same "human rights" as we give to them terrorists. Thank you, Mr. President for seeing past these evils and not to cave in to the world's propaganda and pressures to protect these terrorists versus our very own brave men and women serving for the United States of America and the fight for a Free World that so many obviously have forgotten. I thank you, Mr. President, for standing up for what is Right from the wisdom of your concience.
God Bless America and the Future of the Free World, Worldwide.

You debate. I'll make popcorn and watch. :)

Can I have some popcorn too, Pleaseeeee? ;)

It makes it a Bipartisan bill . Period ...seven republicans voted against it 34 Democrats voted for .

160 Democrats against.

AND this is days before an election and that makes the vote especially significant.

I just want to know what right of MINE got fucked with.

So I am still reading thhe bill and looking at all the differing opinions on it.

I don't know yet Honestly if it struck the right balance for what it wants to accomplish ...or even meets the standards the Supreme court sort of set.

I'm reading the minority opinion now on the decision that made this whole vote a reality...next up tthe decision itself..this vote means diddly if it wont pass the Supremes..

I'm not arguing that the bill isn't bipartisan, I'm arguing the fact that the Dems were NEEDED to pass the bill, regardless of whether they voted for it or not, the way it stands, the bill would have passed with or without their support.

Can I have some popcorn too, Pleaseeeee? ;)

Sure. *hands KB a huge bag*

Thank God the "Military Commission Act" was passed into Law. Thank you, Mr. President for better protecting us Americans from the likes of Terrorists. Thank you Mr. President for signing the "Military Commissions Act" into Law.
Thank you Mr. President for not giving these known terrorists and these unlawful "enemy combatants" the same rights as our brave men and women. Thank you Mr. President for realizing that our brave men and women are not giving the same "human rights" as we give to them terrorists. Thank you, Mr. President for seeing past these evils and not to cave in to the world's propaganda and pressures to protect these terrorists versus our very own brave men and women serving for the United States of America and the fight for a Free World that so many obviously have forgotten. I thank you, Mr. President, for standing up for what is Right from the wisdom of your concience.
God Bless America and the Future of the Free World, Worldwide.

Nice speech. Completely vapid, a non-argument, the equivalent of burying your face in Bush's asshole and inhaling deeply - but you got the "God Bless America" right and you even have periods at the end of the sentences. That's what counts!

al-Queda and other terrorists and extremists gave cause for us to redefine and to rethink "enemy combatant"........


Here you go .


This is a true statement is it not ? So shouldn't we be doing things to adjust to this new reality ?


Or should we stick to what doesn't work and get killed ?


I think the object should be to find the right balance between protecting our rights as a free society and still being able defend ourselves against an EVOLVING and INTELLIGENT along with QUITE DEADLY threat .


So whats it going to be ?

Sure. *hands KB a huge bag*

Thank you. :)

and Thank you Greater Trostia for the compliment. :D

Thank you. :)

and Thank you Greater Trostia for the compliment. :D

Why, no problem! I would also suggest you add extra spaces between the paragraphs. It's easier to read and looks more mature for some reason.

I'd also have other suggestions but they're probably not nearly as practical. ;)

Okay, I know a lot of you have already placed a negative judgement against the Military Commissions Act. My question is have any of you actually read the documents or are you just going along with hearsay or by the media?

I am aware that this was discussed in previous threads but I don't think anybody actually posted the document. I have read it and I accept it as needed in this day and age of terrorism.

Here is the document......I'm sure most of you probably won't read it, that is your choice, but I am posting it because I'm sure not many of you have actually read it for yourselves and are choosing to listen to the negativity from the media.......

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/nkk/documents/MilitaryCommissions.pdf#search='military%20commissions%20act'

I've read it, and am basing an English midterm paper on it. It scares the shit out of me. Did you realize that, if other countries made copycat laws of this, our soldiers would effectively be no longer protected by the geneva conventions (as it says that no person may invoke them as a source of rights.)

Sure. *hands KB a huge bag*


dont bogart the popcorn dude...I'm done..:D

I take it that's fromt he graphic novel? I certainly don't remember it from the movie.

yup. definitely worth a read.

No need to slander.

That was in no way slander.

In text it's libel

Here you go .


This is a true statement is it not ? So shouldn't we be doing things to adjust to this new reality ?


Or should we stick to what doesn't work and get killed ?


I think the object should be to find the right balance between protecting our rights as a free society and still being able defend ourselves against an EVOLVING and INTELLIGENT along with QUITE DEADLY threat .


So whats it going to be ?

I really don't understand the big deal. Some words in the English language are forever changing and other "new" words are being created each day. So is it really to hard to understand the fact that the terrorists and extremists are the cause for redefining "enemy combatant"?

Terrorists/Extremists caused the need to redefine "enemy combatant"
and we all know where there's a cause there are effects close by......

"Patriot Act" "Military Commissions Act" ........

This is a true statement is it not ?

no.

next question.

Why, no problem! I would also suggest you add extra spaces between the paragraphs. It's easier to read and looks more mature for some reason.

I'd also have other suggestions but they're probably not nearly as practical. ;)

Thank you for the advice. It makes perfectly good sense and I will be sure to do so from now on. :)

Note to some: I'm not as much as a Bastard as some may think. I do, however, strongly believe in and support the "Military Commissions Act".

Thank you all for hearing me out even if you disagree. ;)

That was in no way slander.

In text it's libel

Thanks for the correction. :D

Well, you said it yourself....We haven't been attacked within the past 5 years. Conclusion: Our Government must be acting appropriately in deterring the Terrorists from hitting us again in our Homeland. Actually, the fact that we haven't been hit in the last five years is not proof that they're doing a good job. It's just as possible that it's a coincidence we haven't been hit, and it's equally likely that we just haven't been targeted.

Unfortunately, the way some talk here, it may take us to be hit again for you to realize that the terrorist threat is still very much real. That it is NOT going away, it has only been delayed due to a job well done by this administration.Do you have a side job writing speeches for the White House? Because that's precisely the point Bush was selling this week. It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now. Let's be clear here--the Democrats have said that one of their first orders of business should they take the House will be to pass legislation codifying the suggestions of the 9/11 Commission. The fact that the Republican Congress has not done so shows how little they care about protecting the US from the threat of terrorists.

To pretend that the terrorists powers are very much limited is absurd.
Why? Because you say so? Because you're so busy pissing your pants over this that you assume the rest of us must be doing so as well? Some of us have stones, bub.

I disagree with you in your stating that the Terrorists have won.Which is your right. You're wrong, but that's your right.

We are at War.
Congress is the only one who can declare war. They have not done so. Bush, regardless of his Unitary Executive theory, does not have that power. Therefore, no matter how much he bleats about us being at war, if Congress doesn't declare it, it's not the case.

The War will NOT go away by doing nothing. The Terrorists must be destroyed like the virus they are. This is a different world that we live in today. The best action against the terrorists is the "Preemptive Attack" We must continue the offensive against these terrorists and the regimes who completely support the terrorism.
You cannot be successful vs the terrorists by attempting the Diplomacy process. They will NOT sit at the table of negotiations and if they would do you truly believe that they would agree towards peace? I doubt it.
I agree we can NOT nor should we negotiate with terrorists.
Well, one thing is certain. What the US has been doing is not working in reducing the number of terrorists worldwide or in reducing the number of terrorist attacks worldwide in the last five years. In fact, the numbers have gone up. So a wise person would look at the situation, see that we're indeed making the situation worse, and say "hmmm, maybe we ought to try something different." But being a Bushite means never having to realize you're stupid, I guess.


I fully support the Military Commission Act. As far as I am concerned, the terrorists should not be given the same rights as the US Citizen.
Again, I will repeat myself, Loud and Clear, "WE ARE AT WAR!"
Repeat it all you like, and repeat it as often as you like--it doesn't change the facts on the ground. We're not at war in any legal sense of the word, and we don't even have a well-defined enemy in this "struggle." (P.S. One Arabic word for struggle is "jihad." Are we in a jihad against jihadism?) According to Bush, we're in a war against a tactic. As for your support for the Military Commissions Act, I think I've stated my position on that quite succinctly. You and anyone who supports this abomination of a law is unAmerican.

This act has as much to do with terrorists as the Iraq war had to do with WMDs. Terrorists are the excuse. This act is a blatant attempt to steal our civil liberties. I pray for it's quick removal, along with every man or woman (did any women in the house vote for it?) who ever put their name behind it, and the man who signed it. Soon, there will be cases of men being taken away and imprisoned indefinitely under this law.

I've read the law extensively, and let me lay down what's wrong with it. I read the copy from the library of congress website. To find it, go to http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c109query.html and type in "Military commissions act of 2006" then click the one that says (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate) This is the version as it was passed into law.

Here are the parts wrong with it.

`(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.

This means a tribunal that the president or secretary of defense set up can determine that anyone they choose is an enemy combatant.

SEC. 5. TREATY OBLIGATIONS NOT ESTABLISHING GROUNDS FOR CERTAIN CLAIMS.

(a) In General- No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories.

no person. The United States has just effectively negated the Geneva conventions treaty it signed.

(d) Statements Obtained After Enactment of Detainee Treatment Act of 2005- A statement obtained on or after December 30, 2005 (the date of the enactment of the Defense Treatment Act of 2005) in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the military judge finds that--

`(1) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value;

`(2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence; and

`(3) the interrogation methods used to obtain the statement do not amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment prohibited by section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.

Section one and two basically leave it up to the judge's judgement whether or not to allow coerced evidence (read "beaten out of them") Let's go have a look at that section defining " cruel, inhuman, or degrading" treatment

`(12) CRUEL OR INHUMAN TREATMENT-

`(B) DEFINITIONS- In this paragraph:

`(i) The term `serious physical pain or suffering' means bodily injury that involves--

`(I) a substantial risk of death;

`(II) extreme physical pain;

`(III) a burn or physical disfigurement of a serious nature (other than cuts, abrasions, or bruises); or

`(IV) significant loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty.


notice how this seems to be cut around things like waterboarding, which don't cause any of those four, but which few people who have experienced it would call anything less than torture. Section III almost seems to give permission to inflict "cuts, abrasions, or bruises" on victims. And I wonder who gets to define "Extreme physical pain."

INTERPRETATION BY THE PRESIDENT-

(A) As provided by the Constitution and by this section, the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and to promulgate higher standards and administrative regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

(B) The President shall issue interpretations described by subparagraph (A) by Executive Order published in the Federal Register.

So the president now gets to interpret what the geneva conventions mean? I thought that was a job for the executive branch.

I think that covers most of it, but in a bill like this, there are disgusting little tidbits woven through the whole damn thing.

to be fair, the act doesn't appear to open up the door to military tribunals for citizen enemy combatant. it just let's the president disappear them indefinitely. that's much better.

According to the Bush administration, if you fight against the US, you're an enemy combatant, and not subject to the Geneva Convention.

At least thats the impression they're giving me...:mad:

Of course, what they're hoping we overlook is that in practical fact it's if Bush says you fight against the US you're an enemy combatant. And Cheney has already made public their "1% Doctrine" meaning if there's any chance you are, they assume you are.

Just take a look at that guy on the Daily Show yesterday who was branded as a terrorist because he had the same middle name as Uday Hussein.

So the president now gets to interpret what the geneva conventions mean? I thought that was a job for the executive branch.

I think you mean Judicial Branch. The president is executive.

Note to some: I'm not as much as a Bastard as some may think. I do, however, strongly believe in and support the "Military Commissions Act".

That pretty much puts you in Bastard territory. No one could be so stupid that they think it's a good idea, so the only option left is that you believe in it out of a vaguely malicious nature.

I think you mean Judicial Branch. The president is executive.

Gah, this bill makes me so mad I'm getting my branches of government wrong!

Oh, and to be fair, the act doesn't appear to open up the door to military tribunals for citizen enemy combatant. it just let's the president disappear them indefinitely. that's much better.

I see your point. However, the act actually seems to say absolutely nothing about what they do with citizen unlawful enemy combatants. This leaves a void of jurisdiction for anyone declaired an unlawful enemy combatant who is a citizen of the united states. Which may mean that they are entitled to no trial at all.

I see your point. However, the act actually seems to say absolutely nothing about what they do with citizen unlawful enemy combatants. This leaves a void of jurisdiction for anyone declaired an unlawful enemy combatant who is a citizen of the united states. Which may mean that they are entitled to no trial at all.
Give that man a see-gar!

When this bill was being debated, both Myrmidonisia and I were in agreement on this point--that it gives too much power to the executive, and that that much power vested in one branch of government is a bad thing, no matter who's got it, your guy or the other. And no president is going to give up this power willingly.

I see your point. However, the act actually seems to say absolutely nothing about what they do with citizen unlawful enemy combatants. This leaves a void of jurisdiction for anyone declaired an unlawful enemy combatant who is a citizen of the united states. Which may mean that they are entitled to no trial at all.

well obviously. but we should trust that dear leader would never take advantage of these dictatorial powers and use them for anything but good. after all, history shows us that it is always for the best to give the state more and more power, and rulers are inherently good people.

no.

next question.


Well I guess you should explain to all the rest of us why you believe that we are not in a war and thats not a true statement.

It should be interesting .

well obviously. but we should trust that dear leader would never take advantage of these dictatorial powers and use them for anything but good. after all, history shows us that it is always for the best to give the state more and more power, and rulers are inherently good people.

;)

Well I guess you should explain to all the rest of us why you believe that we are not in a war and thats not a true statement.

It should be interesting .

the statement in question:
"al-Queda and other terrorists and extremists gave cause for us to redefine and to rethink 'enemy combatant'"

what's to explain? the only way you could think that is true and from that it follows that we need to institute a dictatorship to deal with it is if you think a couple of dipshits in the desert form some sort of existential threat that makes humanity-annihilating global thermonuclear war at the mere push of a button look like child's play and that terrorism has not been dealt with ever before. and if you think that, you are too dumb for words.

This act has as much to do with terrorists as the Iraq war had to do with WMDs. Terrorists are the excuse. This act is a blatant attempt to steal our civil liberties. I pray for it's quick removal, along with every man or woman (did any women in the house vote for it?) who ever put their name behind it, and the man who signed it. Soon, there will be cases of men being taken away and imprisoned indefinitely under this law.

I've read the law extensively, and let me lay down what's wrong with it. I read the copy from the library of congress website. To find it, go to http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c109query.html and type in "Military commissions act of 2006" then click the one that says (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate) This is the version as it was passed into law.

Here are the parts wrong with it.


This means a tribunal that the president or secretary of defense set up can determine that anyone they choose is an enemy combatant.



no person. The United States has just effectively negated the Geneva conventions treaty it signed.


Section one and two basically leave it up to the judge's judgement whether or not to allow coerced evidence (read "beaten out of them") Let's go have a look at that section defining " cruel, inhuman, or degrading" treatment



notice how this seems to be cut around things like waterboarding, which don't cause any of those four, but which few people who have experienced it would call anything less than torture. Section III almost seems to give permission to inflict "cuts, abrasions, or bruises" on victims. And I wonder who gets to define "Extreme physical pain."


So the president now gets to interpret what the geneva conventions mean? I thought that was a job for the executive branch.

I think that covers most of it, but in a bill like this, there are disgusting little tidbits woven through the whole damn thing.


I want you to know I really appreciate your effort at actualy taking the time to read the thing so you can talk about it intelligently.

I have some questions though on how you arrived at your conclusions .

This means a tribunal that the president or secretary of defense set up can determine that anyone they choose is an enemy combatant.

No it doesn't it says they must be JUDGED to meet guidlines that a competant tribunal uses to determinre there status.

There is nothing in there that says I can be grabbed up off the street and called a terrorist . Even if I think the SOD is a dickhead and give him the finger ...please explain how he can just say " Your an enemy ...etc. and fuck with me . You are assuming that this LAW supercedes all the civil and constitutional protections an AMERICAN CITIZEN enjoys....you would be very wrong ..it simply does not ..only an ammendment to the constitution can do that. It deals strictly with NON Americans . If you can show me otherwise I'd be gratefull .

The United States has just effectively negated the Geneva conventions treaty it signed.


I actually think it has clarified the geneva convention and brought it up to date with Al queada and other terrorist organizations...I am waiting to see what the human rights and geneva commision have to say...so far not much.

In fact 3 and 4 of the geneva convention are covered ..so what part did it negate ? All it did was DEFINE in todays world who meets the status of what provision of the geneva convention ...someone had to...Al Queda and the rest were not even a wey dream when the geneva convention was signed .

Section one and two basically leave it up to the judge's judgement whether or not to allow coerced evidence (read "beaten out of them") Let's go have a look at that section defining " cruel, inhuman, or degrading" treatment

Sure just like in criminal court a JUDGE decides if information was coerced and if it should be admitted. Also we are NOT talking about criminals we are talking about people engaged in acts of war or terrorism and its a different standard . YOU have decided to read it as BEATEN OUT OF THEM ...they could have been left in the dark with black sabbath playing full blast for three days to get the info...or even worse Barry Manilo...I guess the judge will have to deciide .


notice how this seems to be cut around things like waterboarding, which don't cause any of those four, but which few people who have experienced it would call anything less than torture. Section III almost seems to give permission to inflict "cuts, abrasions, or bruises" on victims. And I wonder who gets to define "Extreme physical pain."

Congressional oversite judges and human rights groups...same as now .
They are attempting to define the limits for an interrogation...I actually think its a good thing to do so there are NO questions as to the limits you can go to to coerce information from a person being detained ...even if he's about to blow up half of Ohio .


So the president now gets to interpret what the geneva conventions mean? I thought that was a job for the executive branch.


I thought the President was the executive branch ..so I am unsure what you mean by this .

The United States is a nation of laws ..this is an attempt to redifine old laws to meet new challenges...I dont think its perfect but I am still reading...I am unsure about allot of it...and I am waiting to see what some of the more non partisan legal types say .


better to debate it now than the OTHER way ...I didn't like that too much..As Nazz has said the President has not been given war powers by congress and ONLY ciongress can declare war .

BUT ..THANK ALL THE GODS IN EVERY HEAVEN that War was not declared...
if you think I am joking go read the WAR powers provisions and Imagine living under them .

GOD help us if we declare war..I dont give a shit WHO is President .

Well I guess you should explain to all the rest of us why you believe that we are not in a war and thats not a true statement.

It should be interesting .

Technically we haven't been at war since WWII. But you can't fight a war on terrorism. Terrorism is a police issue. You can fight a war against Iraq, or even a war againt the Taliban, but you can't make war on a crime. You may as well try to make war on murder.

the statement in question:
"al-Queda and other terrorists and extremists gave cause for us to redefine and to rethink 'enemy combatant'"

what's to explain? the only way you could think that is true and from that it follows that we need to institute a dictatorship to deal with it is if you think a couple of dipshits in the desert form some sort of existential threat that makes humanity-annihilating global thermonuclear war at the mere push of a button look like child's play and that terrorism has not been dealt with ever before. and if you think that, you are too dumb for words.

]
You are talking about being too dumb for words ...OK I see how you can be that way.

You think we have a dictatorship or are working towards one...way too dumb for words and even TRYING to think of the thought process to come to that conclusion...is well way too dumb for words.

A couple dipshits in the desert...:)

Hate to see what would happen if this couple was actually a world wide linked organization with common goals and actually infiltrated a country and learned to fly airliners and actually hijacked them in a coordinated effort and destroyed Two huge buildings and actually attacked the PENTAGON in WASHINGTON D.C. And have not only eluded capture but continue to organise and plan attacks in countries all ove the world...but hey..like you said

WAY TOOOOOO DUMB for mere words....

A couple dipshits in the desert .:rolleyes:


This TYPE of terrorism on a global scale along with the threat of using CBN weapons...has NEVER in history been faced before.

Of course being too dumb for words you can actually try to prove me wrong .


But you would need some words .

Technically we haven't been at war since WWII. But you can't fight a war on terrorism. Terrorism is a police issue. You can fight a war against Iraq, or even a war againt the Taliban, but you can't make war on a crime. You may as well try to make war on murder.


I almost fully aggree...you can declare war on an organization and any country that supports it ot harbors it,,but its kinda stupid to declare war on a tactic...almost like declaring war on drugs......but as I said before..I am very gratefull we have not yet found the need to declare war and I hope we never do.

Then the US gets to live under almost total dictatorial powers.


FUCK THAT .

Then the US gets to live under almost total dictatorial powers.


FUCK THAT .
That is basically what we're saying. If we lose our rights because of a war, we may as well lose the war, because the country is already lost.

I am very gratefull we have not yet found the need to declare war and I hope we never do. Then the US gets to live under almost total dictatorial powers.

FUCK THAT .
Indeed, fuck that. Right where it lives.

So - how dictatorial are you willing to go before you've had enough? Realizing of course, that if you let it slide too long you'll no longer be in a position to actually do anything to alleviate matters.

...have any of you actually read the documents...?

Not until you posted the link.

Thanks. I think. :eek:

Technically we haven't been at war since WWII. But you can't fight a war on terrorism. Terrorism is a police issue. You can fight a war against Iraq, or even a war againt the Taliban, but you can't make war on a crime. You may as well try to make war on murder.

whu? I may not understand what your sayign here, but it sounds like you just forgot about the Korean and Vietnam Wars, bth of which elicited an official declaration of war from the. U.S.

And don't even get me started ont he Cold War.

King Bodacious, just real quick:

I don't condone the blind, unreasoning hatred those pissant rodents hold for anything they associate with the United States. However, when we're talking about not adhering to Geneva Conventions or not allowing them the same "inalienable rights" upon whose premises this country was founded, then we no longer have the moral high ground on them and WE become pissant rodents just like they are. Their disregard and even hatred for our ideas about equality and freedom are, in fact, a large part of the reason that they are pissant rodents. Would you fight, for example, transvestitism (just an EXAMPLE! Relax!) by becoming one? This is what people are talking about when they say, "The terrorists have already won." We can't allow our values to be compromised just because these puny little fucklings don't know how to behave.

As for this act, it is so totally NOT necessary in order to effectively fight these vermin. Just like the asinine and inconsistent "security" measures at airports, it pretty much only serves to exercise the minds of our enemies in circumventing the measures (i.e. we're forcing them to develop new technology) and exasperate the general populace. We need to relax a little more, keep our eyes open and know who our neighbors are. We need politicians who care about our country enough to not even conceive garbage like the (un)PATRIOT(ic) Act and this Military Commissions Act, and who would instinctively laugh them off the drawing table, never to see the light of day.

We have to stop letting fear guide our decisions. That is, after all, what the terrorists are counting on.

Funny. None of the environmental bills I've read contain information as to why one should vote for it. They're basic facts and don't try to play any sympathy cards. I suppose whoever included all the references to terrorist attacks had something in mind when they were writing this up.

Heh. And isn't it interesting how those attacks are presented? Just passing mentions of the 1993 WTC bombing, 1998 embassy bombings and the USS Cole. But 9/11, the big one that will stir up the most raw emotion, gets almost a full paragraph of detailed coverage, like no one remembers what happened. Disgraceful propaganda. Sieg hiel!

You think we have a dictatorship or are working towards one...way too dumb for words and even TRYING to think of the thought process to come to that conclusion...is well way too dumb for words.

yes, because the state having the power to disappear people isn't at all indicative of a dictatorship. and the state engaging in widespread torture and murder? nope, not at all. and the executive branch not even pretending to need to follow the law? that's just normal in a free society. the state engaging in widespread domestic surveillence of everybody without oversight or legal grounding? that's just common sense. the state infiltrating legal and above ground opposition groups? a democratic society can't go around letting people organize peace marches without a couple spooks there to try to get them to engage in illegal activities and generally keep tabs on them. prominent members of the bush movement constantly beating the drum of violence for its own sake and eliminationism? why that's just some good clean fun, nothing to worry about. etc.

A couple dipshits in the desert...:)

Hate to see what would happen if this couple was actually a world wide linked organization with common goals and actually infiltrated a country and learned to fly airliners and actually hijacked them in a coordinated effort and destroyed Two huge buildings and actually attacked the PENTAGON in WASHINGTON D.C. And have not only eluded capture but continue to organise and plan attacks in countries all ove the world...but hey..like you said

yeah, amazing, they've knocked over a couple buildings. holy shit, it's the end of the world! everybody piss yourself!

man, fucking 17N eluded capture and destruction for decades. so fucking what?

whu? I may not understand what your sayign here, but it sounds like you just forgot about the Korean and Vietnam Wars, bth of which elicited an official declaration of war from the. U.S.

And don't even get me started ont he Cold War.

Neither of those were declared wars.

Well, you said it yourself....We haven't been attacked within the past 5 years. Conclusion: Our Government must be acting appropriately in deterring the Terrorists from hitting us again in our Homeland.

Wait, WTF?!? Though I haven't agreed with most of what you've said up to this point, and I believe you are blind in your support of the efforts of the Bush administration to systematically dismantle the country originally conceived as the United States of America, this is the first statement you've made that has caused me to truly doubt both your sanity and mental capacity.

I'm assuming your definition of "attacked" includes the qualifier "on our own soil," or else perhaps you don't think that the targeting of our soldiers in the Middle East counts because...we're there asking for it? At any rate, assuming the first case, would you say the adminstrations at that time were "acting appropriately in deterring the Terrorists" since in the 5 years prior to 9/11 we suffered no attacks on our home soil? They didn't just get lucky, eh? Or THEY got lucky but Bush knows what he's doing?

In case you're not aware of it, all of the organizations currently labelled "terrorist" organizations or their predecessors have been operating worldwide since at least the 1970's. In that time, regardless of who held office, the number of effective attacks on US mainland targets can be counted on 1 hand. 9/11 was a fluke. Right place, right time for the camel jockeys; nothing more. We don't need tighter security measures: the measures in place at the time would have been sufficient if the expectation of the victims had been what it is now, after that incident. Those 4 planes were full of people who had grown up with the paradigm that terrorists capture planes, fly them to Lebanon, offload the passengers and conduct hostage negotiations with them. Not one of them expected to be flown into a building, and when word got out to the plane that was left in the air, the passengers did act, because they finally knew this was no ordinary hostage situation. In every single airborne incident since that day, no US Marshalls have even been necessary. Anyone stepping out of line has had their ass kicked in a major way by a large group of civilian passengers who now know better. We will never be fooled like that again.

Similar to my above post regarding lowering ourselves to their level, the fallacy of the "preemptive strike" is that, whether or not you have a mountain of evidence providing "justification," you've just opened the door for any asshat with a grudge to shoot first and ask questions later. You've suddenly provided the terrorists with justification by subscribing to their own very twisted view of things.

I fully support the Military Commission Act. As far as I am concerned, the terrorists should not be given the same rights as the US Citizen.

The problem most of us have with the MCA is that it effectively gives US citizens the same rights as terrorists. Especially when you consider the likes of John Walker (who is a fucking criminal and a traitor and will receive a sound ass-kicking should he make the mistake of wandering into my neighborhood), in the aftermath of this act it wouldn't be very hard for the feds to round us up, concoct a story flaming us as enemy combatants and deny us of all of the rights we're supposed to be guaranteed, all with the added goodness of popular opinion.

"Do unto others as thou wouldst have others do unto thee."

Reminds me a lot of apartheid South Africa's Suppression of Communism Act. The government could name anyone it chose a "communist," and they could ban or detain the person. There was no right of appeal, either. Incidentally, the act had very little to do with suppressing "communism." The government conveniently chose to label anyone it deemed too troublesome a "communist," and voila! Away with them.

Some similar examples from America's history: Salem witch trials, McCarthyism, Japanese concentration camps.

Fear is a bitch of a mistress.

Some similar examples from America's history: Salem witch trials, McCarthyism, Japanese concentration camps.

Fear is a bitch of a mistress.

It is.

Don't forget the Alien and Sedition Acts...

You need tools to fight them do you not ?

Certainly, but the problem is that this particular tool is of a relatively permanent nature and has the potential to be used against domestic dissidents if there should come a day when the wielders of said tool grow tired of chasing sand n...um, Islamic extremists. Domestic dissent is a cornerstone of our nation. The United States was founded on domestic dissent and the founders did their best to guarantee that domestics could continue to dissent if they so chose. This act has a high potential to jeopardize that cornerstone. Not that it has yet, not that it will, but it can. That's what sucks about it.

okay, not Korea, but Vietnam was formally declared. The U.S. has a werid way of 'declaring' war due to the vagueness of the constitution on such matters.
Technically, operation's Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom (war in Afghanistan) and Iraqi Freedom meet every definition of a declared war for the U.S. I can find, excepting the strict literalist definitions.

okay, not Korea, but Vietnam was formally declared. The U.S. has a werid way of 'declaring' war due to the vagueness of the constitution on such matters.
Technically, operation's Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom (war in Afghanistan) and Iraqi Freedom meet every definition of a declared war for the U.S. I can find, excepting the strict literalist definitions.

When we say they wern't technically wars, that's because they wern't. Congress never voted to actually declair war. Instead, they kept extending the presidents ability to do stuff with the military. It's effectively identical to a war, but technically isn't.

that makes them literally not wars, in practice however the United States Congress would never vote to declare an 'actual' war since doing so gives the president a lot of power while simply extending the period he already has to do stuff means Congress is still holding the reigns. SO while literally its not a declared war, technicaly its the closest the U.S> government is ever going to get to a declared war.

Indeed, fuck that. Right where it lives.

So - how dictatorial are you willing to go before you've had enough? Realizing of course, that if you let it slide too long you'll no longer be in a position to actually do anything to alleviate matters.

You can ony hope war is never declared given how the Constitution allows the president to disregard habeas corpus. I tell you, we start doing something like herding Muslims into internment camps I hope there will be people here willing to actually do something to stop the government.

Certainly, but the problem is that this particular tool is of a relatively permanent nature and has the potential to be used against domestic dissidents if there should come a day when the wielders of said tool grow tired of chasing sand n...um, Islamic extremists. Domestic dissent is a cornerstone of our nation. The United States was founded on domestic dissent and the founders did their best to guarantee that domestics could continue to dissent if they so chose. This act has a high potential to jeopardize that cornerstone. Not that it has yet, not that it will, but it can. That's what sucks about it.


I'm sorry but I cant see that provision in any part of the law .Can you point it out ?

I dont see how I am missing it. I am dead serious ..I'm not breaking your balls or being sarcastic etc...I just cant find it in there how they can supercede the contitution since the constitution says no law can supercede constitutional rights and guarantee's, you need an Ammendment.

This is a law . I am an American Citizen protected by the bill of rights and I will use all of them if the government fucks with me , especially the second one.
I just dont see in there the provision that removes citizenship from US citizens and enables the government to declare them illegal combatants .

If you can point it out I would be gratefull.


When we say they wern't technically wars, that's because they wern't. Congress never voted to actually declair war. Instead, they kept extending the presidents ability to do stuff with the military. It's effectively identical to a war, but technically isn't.

Believe me ...in fact DONT believe me,,,,,, go read the war powers that are given the President if congress declares war...then go thank every god in recorded history we do not declare war.

Some similar examples from America's history: Japanese concentration camps.

Fear is a bitch of a mistress.
and what was done in reponse to the Japanese INTERMENT camps? The 442. The American Japanese proved their loyalty... and except for some small hick areas.. No one questioned the loyalty of the American Japanese again.

You can ony hope war is never declared given how the Constitution allows the president to disregard habeas corpus. I tell you, we start doing something like herding Muslims into internment camps I hope there will be people here willing to actually do something to stop the government.

Thanks for responding, Ultracia - though I'll admit I don't see what's to prevent Mr. Bush from placing American Muslims in internment camps under the auspices of the MCA (i.e., I don't think he needs to have war declared in order to commit to such an action - he has that power now, under the MCA). Now if Ultraextreme Whatsits would follow suit and respond to the question I put before him last night, not only will my job here be done - I won't feel quite as though I'm simply addressing the open air.

Thanks for responding, Ultracia - though I'll admit I don't see what's to prevent Mr. Bush from placing American Muslims in internment camps under the auspices of the MCA (i.e., I don't think he needs to have war declared in order to commit to such an action - he has that power now, under the MCA).

I would hope that the memory of the Japanese internment would give the government pause but somehow I doubt that. If the paranoia grew to a high enough level I'm sure the government could come up with an excuse to do another internment. Especially as I've heard some people claim the internment of the Japanese Americans was the right thing to do. I really can't understand such beliefs but hopefully these opinions aren't shared by anyone in power. A fleeting hope though, given the passage of the MCA. I really don't know what the government might try to do in the future.

Indeed, fuck that. Right where it lives.

So - how dictatorial are you willing to go before you've had enough? Realizing of course, that if you let it slide too long you'll no longer be in a position to actually do anything to alleviate matters.


Sorry Dobbs the bottle of Vodka was empty and I decided that a brain cell might actually be usefull to answer ...so I went and chases my wiife around and ditched the computer.


I dont want any dictatorial and want an open an honest debate over any law that may infringe on my current rights. I have read this law I am still unsure about it and am waiting until I can talk to my best friend ..who happens to be a common pleas court judge , to get an opinion and some insight into the areas of the law I do not understand...until I can figure out if. and how bad , I am screwed I wont say too much except to ask questions ...lots of questions..


But so far I see it as a ppositive thing because Congress got invollved and Bush got a leash put on his rule by decree shit....again I understand we are at war buy if I lose my freedom ..fuck the war we lost it .

Thats why I saay we need to balance our efforts with laws that give us tools to fight effectivly but preserve our essential freedoms .

This was a first effort and in my opinion a long time in comming...Like the origional patriot act that had me storing ammo in my house in the mountains this one may need changes..but it does give clear guidlines and rules and it was voted on by our representatives. I just have not digested it yet to argue about it with any intelligence . Just the parts I understand .( not many right now ) .

It was not a page off the desk of the Comander in chief ...that alone is a great leap forward.



So did whatshisface answer your question ?:p

But so far I see it as a ppositive thing because Congress got invollved and Bush got a leash put on his rule by decree shit

can you really call something a leash when it explicitly says, "yeah, keep doing what you're doing"?

can you really call something a leash when it explicitly says, "yeah, keep doing what you're doing"?

Took the words right out of my mouth with that one, FS.

I would hope that the memory of the Japanese internment would give the government pause but somehow I doubt that. If the paranoia grew to a high enough level I'm sure the government could come up with an excuse to do another internment. Especially as I've heard some people claim the internment of the Japanese Americans was the right thing to do. I really can't understand such beliefs but hopefully these opinions aren't shared by anyone in power. A fleeting hope though, given the passage of the MCA. I really don't know what the government might try to do in the future.

If we were dealing with a government that gave two shits about human rights, your hope might be justified, but we're not. We're dealing with a government that has sought to codify torture and remove civil rights in the name of protecting the national security.

Here's why people like Ultraextreme Sanity are dangerous. They read the bits of the MCA that talk about commissions and tribunals and act as though the government will set them up fairly and honestly, and that an innocent US citizen caught up by accident will have the opportunity to defend himself, that the only people who will be "disappeared" are terrorists. They trust the government to do the right thing, even though there's no reason to do so. They trust the government even though the government has fucked up and lied to us time and again.

And what's worse, they trust future govenments sight unseen with this power. They trust that their ideal of America will survive no matter who manages to wangle his or her way into the Oval Office, and that's just stupid. You never give any government that kind of power willingly. And yet we have.

And useful idiots like Ultraextreme Sanity and King Bodacious applaud when we do.

can you really call something a leash when it explicitly says, "yeah, keep doing what you're doing"?

Yes. Because now that Bush intends to use the Military Commissions Act as the basis for his actions, he can't ignore the will of Congress if it decides to withdraw its permission.

Took the words right out of my mouth with that one, FS.

‘‘§ 948a. Definitions
‘‘In this chapter:
‘‘(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.
‘‘(B) CO-BELLIGERENT.—In this paragraph, the term ‘cobelligerent’,
with respect to the United States, means any State
or armed force joining and directly engaged with the United
States in hostilities or directly supporting hostilities against
a common enemy.
‘‘(2) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.—The term ‘lawful enemy
combatant’ means a person who is—
‘‘(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party
engaged in hostilities against the United States;
‘‘(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized
resistance movement belonging to a State party
engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible
command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at
a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the
law of war; or
‘‘(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes
allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities,
but not recognized by the United States.
‘‘(3) ALIEN.—The term ‘alien’ means a person who is not
a citizen of the United States.
‘‘(4) CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.—The term ‘classified
information’ means the following:
‘‘(A) Any information or material that has been determined
by the United States Government pursuant to
statute, Executive order, or regulation to require protection
against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national
security.
‘‘(B) Any restricted data, as that term is defined in
section 11 y. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2014(y)).



and then those covered by the commision...

‘‘§ 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
‘‘Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by
military commission under this chapter.

I cant be an alien if I am an American citizen. So the fucking sectary of defense and his commision can all kiss my ass right ? Not to mention I would have to meet the othe criteria of actually being a combatant .‘‘(3) ALIEN.—The term ‘alien’ means a person who is not
a citizen of the United States.



How this translates into me being declared an enemy combatant or any of the other definitions ....is what you need to explain ...


Ang guys get real.... A note of the desk of the president is a HUGE change from a law debated on and prepared by congress and then voted on and passed..... and to be fair it doesn't let him do what they were doing.

It allows for way more oversite and gets the congress fully engaged in this oversite...something LONG overdue .

If we were dealing with a government that gave two shits about human rights, your hope might be justified, but we're not. We're dealing with a government that has sought to codify torture and remove civil rights in the name of protecting the national security.

Here's why people like Ultraextreme Sanity are dangerous. They read the bits of the MCA that talk about commissions and tribunals and act as though the government will set them up fairly and honestly, and that an innocent US citizen caught up by accident will have the opportunity to defend himself, that the only people who will be "disappeared" are terrorists. They trust the government to do the right thing, even though there's no reason to do so. They trust the government even though the government has fucked up and lied to us time and again.

And what's worse, they trust future govenments sight unseen with this power. They trust that their ideal of America will survive no matter who manages to wangle his or her way into the Oval Office, and that's just stupid. You never give any government that kind of power willingly. And yet we have.

And useful idiots like Ultraextreme Sanity and King Bodacious applaud when we do.

come on, history shows that the state never uses any powers it claims for itself for anything other than good. it's like the predominant trend throughout the entire run of human civilization.

i, for one, welcome our new fascist dictatorship, and pledge to help maintain peace and order by joining the snatch squads and disappearing dangerous homosexuals and liberals from their beds at night. to fight terrorists, of course.

I cant be an alien if I am an American citizen. So the fucking sectary of defense and his commision can all kiss my ass right ?

How this translates into me being declared an enemy combatant or any of the other definitions ....is what you need to explain ...

that's right, according to the law, you won't be going up before a military tribunal (assuming bush follows the law - though one can only express amusement at anyone who offers him the benefit of that doubt at this point). but that's ok, because he can still have you declared an enemy combatant through any sort of sham process he chooses, and the entire point of doing so to this point has been to disappear people - citizens and otherwise - into black holes for years at a time. the tribunals only came up because he figured that a couple show trials might make the disappearances go down a little smoother. they are not required.

Nazz you are a TEACHER ?????

Someone who holds a contrary opinion to yours is a usefull idiot ?


I actually used to respect you...guess I was an idiot .

i, for one, welcome our new fascist dictatorship, and pledge to help maintain peace and order by joining the snatch squads and disappearing dangerous homosexuals and liberals from their beds at night. to fight terrorists, of course.

No real job security in such a system. You utter a single remark against the government and you just might disappear yourself. Hmmm. Have to watch a lot of reality tv to numb your mind down to such passivity that you won't question a thing. Be able to do the difficult, like watch FOX News without wanting to puke.

Nazz you are a TEACHER ?????

Someone who holds a contrary opinion to yours is a usefull idiot ?


I actually used to respect you...guess I was an idiot .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

Dont fit me and I dont like it.;)

No real job security in such a system. You utter a single remark against the government and you just might disappear yourself. Hmmm. Have to watch a lot of reality tv to numb your mind down to such passivity that you won't question a thing. Be able to do the difficult, like watch FOX News without wanting to puke.

that there's disappearin' talk...

that's right, according to the law, you won't be going up before a military tribunal (assuming bush follows the law - though one can only express amusement at anyone who offers him the benefit of that doubt at this point). but that's ok, because he can still have you declared an enemy combatant through any sort of sham process he chooses, and the entire point of doing so to this point has been to disappear people - citizens and otherwise - into black holes for years at a time. the tribunals only came up because he figured that a couple show trials might make the disappearances go down a little smoother. they are not required.

however, as an enemy combatant, he will still be affored the civil rights as a citizen of the USA.

that there's disappearin' talk...

Well that might be survivable. Better then what happened to that Russian reporter...

Then again, thinking about it, maybe not...

I'm sorry but I cant see that provision in any part of the law .Can you point it out ?

OK, I found something that I think makes you correct, though I am not a lawyer, so, anyhow...

At first glance, this looks very bad:

(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.

...but if we keep going, we see:

`(3) ALIEN- The term `alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.

...and then:

`(a) Purpose- This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission.

`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.

(a) Jurisdiction- A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.

So, in this light, it would appear that this particular bit of paper doesn't, in fact, promote such terrible powers over the American citizenry. Score 1 for the MCA. However, as I mentioned earlier, I do have a problem curtailing the rights of non-US citizens just because we think the ideas advanced in the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence are only for US citizens.

I just dont see in there the provision that removes citizenship from US citizens and enables the government to declare them illegal combatants .

Yeah, that part isn't precisely in there, excepting as noted in part (ii) of the quote above from the Definitions section. However, it IS in the Detention of Enemy Combatants Act of 2005, but that's not what we're talking about here.

To be honest, the MCA actually seems to extend more rights to "alien unlawful enemy combatants" than they had previously. There are some provisions, like Section 948r, which actually grant constitutional rights (5th Amendment privilages) to alien unlawful enemy combatants who are before a "military commission." I now think that, overall, the MCA is probably in the best interests of the detainees in that it seems to provision a few more rights for them than they have been allowed to date. Separately, I am still concerned about the ability of the federal government to suppress the rights of the US citizenry.

Don't forget the classiied evidence that neither the accused nor his lawyer can see or challenge.

It was bad enough when Dear Leader used Orwell as a government primer, but then adding Kafka as a legal guidebook on top of that?

It's a shame they don't make John Brown masks. It smells like another V for Vendetta moment.

Well that might be survivable. Better then what happened to that Russian reporter...

Then again, thinking about it, maybe not...

At least it was a quick end for Anna Politkovskaya. What Mr. Bush has in store for those he disappears, or for how long is anybody's guess. Well, actually it's Karl Rove's guess. May his arteries soon clog beyond all hope of repair.

Hey Guys! I'm pissing all over the consitution right now, its so much fun! I mean if the government can do it, why not me? We dont even need the consitution I say we bring back slavery, whos with me?

It was bad enough when Dear Leader used Orwell as a government primer, but then adding Kafka as a legal guidebook on top of that?

It's a shame they don't make John Brown masks. It smells like another V for Vendetta moment.

The Declaration of Independence would indicate that we are creeping closer and closer to the need to get ourselves a new government.

Hey Guys! I'm pissing all over the consitution right now, its so much fun! I mean if the government can do it, why not me? We dont even need the consitution I say we bring back slavery, whos with me?

MTAE is with you.

and what was done in reponse to the Japanese INTERMENT camps? The 442. The American Japanese proved their loyalty... and except for some small hick areas.. No one questioned the loyalty of the American Japanese again.

Undoubtedly. I have a tremendous respect for the honor and dedication of the Japanese heroes in the Pacific theater of WWII who fought for the United States in spite of the atrocities commited against them by the very government they were defending. May they forgive us, and may we never, EVER commit such grievous errors again.

a couple apt quotes from arthur silber (http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/):

We proceed steadily down the road to hell, and all the mechanisms for a full dictatorship are now in place -- and our media act as if nothing has changed. Oh, there's some dispute about what it all means, but that's just the normal difference of opinion. And a few people appear to be deeply worried, but they're just those "extremists" and "leftist loons" who come around to annoy us well-balanced "centrists" every now and then.

And I still continue to hear some especially dull-witted defenders of the administration use the long-discredited argument: "But do you know anyone who's been 'disappeared,' who's been taken away in the middle of the night and never heard from again? Do you know anyone else who knows someone like that? Of course not! See, we're still a free country! You're just a nut!" ... These people wouldn't know a principle if it announced itself in one-syllable words and then stabbed them in the gut -- which, by the way, it has now done.

To put the point the other way, which will hopefully penetrate the wall of resistance erected by so many people: the only reason you aren't in a concentration camp right now is because Bush hasn't decided to send you to one -- yet. But he claims he has the power to do so -- and there are almost no voices of any prominence to dispute the contention.

Undoubtedly. I have a tremendous respect for the honor and dedication of the Japanese heroes in the Pacific theater of WWII who fought for the United States in spite of the atrocities commited against them by the very government they were defending. May they forgive us, and may we never, EVER commit such grievous errors again.

Too bad there isn't an actual war where Muslim Americans can prove themselves just as worthy. I sure won't be surprised if Dear Leader or someone in his inner circle decides building Allahschwitz is a great idea.

Too bad there isn't an actual war where Muslim Americans can prove themselves just as worthy. I sure won't be surprised if Dear Leader or someone in his inner circle decides building Allahschwitz is a great idea.

there isn't any way they cannot prove themselves? funny, I thought there was conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq?
There are ways to prove loyalty, sitting on your keister and screaming "Racial Profiling" isn't one of them.

Why should Muslims have to "prove their loyalty?"

No one else does...

Why should Muslims have to "prove their loyalty?"

No one else does...

It's an American tradition. Started with German Americans in WW1, then Japanese Americans in WW2. Right now it's Muslim Americans, and believe me if and when space aliens decide to immigrate to the U.S. they'll have "prove their loyalties" as well.

Why should Muslims have to "prove their loyalty?"

No one else does...

Nope but then they look different then the rest of us and have a strange religon. Obviously means they can't be trusted.

It's an American tradition. Started with German Americans in WW1, then Japanese Americans in WW2. Right now it's Muslim Americans, and believe me if and when space aliens decide to immigrate to the U.S. they'll have "prove their loyalties" as well.

Except being German or Japanese isn't really covered in "freedom of religion."

And painting anyone of a certain religion as "disloyal" (to the Reich?) smacks of religious persecution and bigotry.

Frankly, a lot of people aren't going to trust Muslims no matter what. Hell, for that matter, many people never trusted Japanese or Germans (and a good deal still don't!)

Too bad there isn't an actual war where Muslim Americans can prove themselves just as worthy.

There is an actual, physical war right now, just not a declared one. Kind of like the VietNam "Conflict." Unfortunately, instead of war heroes we have guys like that one Marine who ran off and was later discovered holing up with his family in Syria or wherever. I don't agree with what's going on, but dude, come on, you're (not you, Guthier, but the guy to whom I'm referring) a soldier. Have some fucking spine and do your fucking job so that at least no one can accuse you of doing the wrong thing.

I sure won't be surprised if Dear Leader or someone in his inner circle decides building Allahschwitz is a great idea.

Nor would I. Sadly, I wouldn't even be surprised when the American populace condoned such a vile practice. We really haven't learned anything. :(

Nazz you are a TEACHER ?????

Someone who holds a contrary opinion to yours is a usefull idiot ?


I actually used to respect you...guess I was an idiot .

Okay, for starters, you might want to look up the term "useful idiot." It's got a very specific denotation, and doesn't automatically refer to intelligence levels. Secondly, this has nothing to do with a difference of opinion. It has to do with a willful blindness to the subject we're "discussing." That bit of the law you quoted up there? You bolded the primary problem with the section and didn't even catch it. I'll repost it.
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.No matter what the rest of the bill tries to hedge around, in this, the primary section of the law, the definition of unlawful enemy combatant simply says "person." NO other qualifications.

Now, when I accused you of being a useful idiot, I did so because you're apparently trusting that the fact that in order for any person (not alien) to be called an enemy combatant, he or she has to be found as such by a tribunal set up by the President or the SecDef. You're assuming that these will be fair-minded tribunals. I have no such faith in that, especially since the government has taken away all other forms of recourse in the form of habeas petitions.

As for your respect of me, I don't much care. I don't have time to worry about it. Just know this--if you were snatched up and called an enemy combatant, I'd be pissed and petitioning my government to give you a fair hearing. If you support this law, you have, by your actions, said that you wouldn't be doing that. Who's more deserving of respect here?

Nope but then they look different then the rest of us and have a strange religon. Obviously means they can't be trusted.

They look different? Really? I didn't know joining a religion imposed physical changes on your body.

Why should Muslims have to "prove their loyalty?"

No one else does...

During WWII, those of Japanese Decent did, especially after Pearl Harbor.

if those that did commit acts of such violence on 9/11 were Fundie Christians, you bet I'll be out there proving where my loyalty lies.

They look different? Really? I didn't know joining a religion imposed physical changes on your body.

I hear them Quakers is tripodal.

During WWII, those of Japanese Decent did, especially after Pearl Harbor.

Fat lot of good it did them.

They look different? Really? I didn't know joining a religion imposed physical changes on your body.

Converting to Islam makes your skin go brown. They just nailed John Walker Lindh before his pigmentation changes set in.

Or at least that's the impression you get from fruitcakes like DK, NM, NN, etc etc.

During WWII, those of Japanese Decent did, especially after Pearl Harbor.

During WWII, Japanese were seen as subhuman. So that doesn't really make me feel fine with the same thing happening today.

if those that did commit acts of such violence on 9/11 were Fundie Christians, you bet I'll be out there proving where my loyalty lies.

You're a fundamentalist?

Thing is, no one would suspect you of disloyalty because Christianity is the majority in this nation. We didn't have paranoia about Christians anytime a Christian committed a violent act. It wouldn't be expected for every christian to prove his loyalty on account of some wackos.

Ah, but Muslims, well. We're supposed to be afraid of the big bad Muslims, because being afraid means we win the war on terrorism! ;)

Okay, for starters, you might want to look up the term "useful idiot." It's got a very specific denotation, and doesn't automatically refer to intelligence levels. Secondly, this has nothing to do with a difference of opinion. It has to do with a willful blindness to the subject we're "discussing." That bit of the law you quoted up there? You bolded the primary problem with the section and didn't even catch it. I'll repost it.
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. (Lets Highlight everything, and not the one word you are concentrating on.)
No matter what the rest of the bill tries to hedge around, in this, the primary section of the law, the definition of unlawful enemy combatant simply says "person." NO other qualifications. now considerign that it is defining, unlawful enemy combatant that word COMBATANT usually means one person. :rolleyes:
add to that the above section which also defines UNLAWFUL enemy combatant "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 "
and if you read further, the President nor Rummy, does NOT define who is an Unlawful Enemy Combatant, but " Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense." not will be established, but ESTABLISHED. do you honestly think that these Military tribunals are just thrown together at the last minute?

Now, when I accused you of being a useful idiot, I did so because you're apparently trusting that the fact that in order for any person (not alien) to be called an enemy combatant, he or she has to be found as such by a tribunal set up by the President or the SecDef. You're assuming that these will be fair-minded tribunals. I have no such faith in that, especially since the government has taken away all other forms of recourse in the form of habeas petitions.please show this.

Thing is, no one would suspect you of disloyalty because Christianity is the majority in this nation. We didn't have paranoia about Christians anytime a Christian committed a violent act. It wouldn't be expected for every christian to prove his loyalty on account of some wackos.

Ah, but Muslims, well. We're supposed to be afraid of the big bad Muslims, because being afraid means we win the war on terrorism! ;)

Exactly. When Tim McVeigh blew up the Federal Building, everyone at first assumed it was a Muslim terrorist attack. When McVeigh and Nichols were finally pinned, was there a massive anti-Christian hysteria? Of course not. Churches weren't vandalized, and no white person working in a convenience store got murdered because he looked like a Christian.

They look different? Really? I didn't know joining a religion imposed physical changes on your body.

Well most Muslims are Middle Eastern so have a skin color we aren't familiar with, and often wear clothing we are not familiar with. So, different, and untrustworthy and people to be feared. Isn't that why people glance at them nervously?

Anyway people like to generalize so because there are a few Muslim extremists, all are suspect. I'm sure anyone with any kind of reason will realize such thoughts are wrong. Unfortunately, I don't think any of those people are in power at the moment.

Exactly. When Tim McVeigh blew up the Federal Building, everyone at first assumed it was a Muslim terrorist attack. When McVeigh and Nichols were finally pinned, was there a massive anti-Christian hysteria? Of course not. Churches weren't vandalized, and no white person working in a convenience store got murdered because he looked like a Christian.

Mcveigh did not blow up the Murra building because of some religious motivation, he did as an act of revenge against the gov't for Waco. He was a part of a Neo-Nazi group, which doesn't have any basis in religion at all.

It is shameful that there was still Anti-Arab hysteria after Mcveigh and Nichols were caught, and conspiracy theories still exist that allege, that the PC brigade hushed up the fact that arabs committed the bombing....It seems people are still in denial that a terrorist act could be committed by a homegrown terrorist. Threats have to come from some foreign entity

During WWII, Japanese were seen as subhuman. So that doesn't really make me feel fine with the same thing happening today.only after Pear Harbor they were seen as subhuman. but after WWII... even noticed that they are generally counted among the Whites?

You're a fundamentalist?

Thing is, no one would suspect you of disloyalty because Christianity is the majority in this nation. We didn't have paranoia about Christians anytime a Christian committed a violent act. It wouldn't be expected for every christian to prove his loyalty on account of some wackos. if 9/11 was committed by a group of Fundie Christians, You bet your last coin every fringe church (Which just might include Baptist, Mormons, heck perhaps even the JW's) would be looked at.

Ah, but Muslims, well. We're supposed to be afraid of the big bad Muslims, because being afraid means we win the war on terrorism! ;)again, you are wrong. we're supposed to be Vigilant, not afraid.

Well most Muslims are Middle Eastern so have a skin color we aren't familiar with, and often wear clothing we are not familiar with. So, different, and untrustworthy and people to be feared. Isn't that why people glance at them nervously?
only about 25% of muslims are Arab. the country with the most muslims is Indonesia, followed by India.

Anyway people like to generalize so because there are a few Muslim extremists, all are suspect. I'm sure anyone with any kind of reason will realize such thoughts are wrong. Unfortunately, I don't think any of those people are in power at the moment.

Sad, but true. Humans as a whole seem to possess little reason.

do you honestly think that these Military tribunals are just thrown together at the last minute?They can be. Please understand that I'm looking at how this law could be implemented. To trust that it won't be implemented in such a way eventually is shortsighted and stupid.

please show this.
Well, considering that based on this law, the federal government has already told the district court that it expects them to vacate all current habeas petitions for people in Gitmo, I think that's proof enough. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/19/AR2006101901692.html)
Moving quickly to implement the bill signed by President Bush this week that authorizes military trials of enemy combatants, the administration has formally notified the U.S. District Court here that it no longer has jurisdiction to consider hundreds of habeas corpus petitions filed by inmates at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.

In a notice dated Wednesday, the Justice Department listed 196 pending habeas cases, some of which cover groups of detainees. The new Military Commissions Act (MCA), it said, provides that "no court, justice, or judge" can consider those petitions or other actions related to treatment or imprisonment filed by anyone designated as an enemy combatant, now or in the future.
So let's recap. A tribunal set up by the President or SecDef (which in a worst case scenario means a rubberstamp group of people) can declare anyone, not just aliens, enemy combatants, can do so using classified evidence that can be withheld even from opposing counsel simply by refusing him the proper clearances, and can toss you in jail without even the recourse of a habeas petition. Satisfied?

Exactly. When Tim McVeigh blew up the Federal Building, everyone at first assumed it was a Muslim terrorist attack. When McVeigh and Nichols were finally pinned, was there a massive anti-Christian hysteria? Of course not. Churches weren't vandalized, and no white person working in a convenience store got murdered because he looked like a Christian.

wrong, Muslim groups were looked at, but only those with a history of violence. Muslim groups in TOTAL were not looked at.

and also other fringe groups (non-muslim) were also looked at. IT didn't help that alot of groups (Muslim ones included) lay claim to that bombing.

and as someone else stated, McVeigh did not blow up the building claiming some religous reason for doing so.

only after Pear Harbor they were seen as subhuman.

Yeah okay, and only after the "Jews declared war on Germany" did they get seen as subhuman. Doesn't justify it. Not in any way, shape, or form. Then, or now.

but after WWII... even noticed that they are generally counted among the Whites?

No.

if 9/11 was committed by a group of Fundie Christians, You bet your last coin every fringe church (Which just might include Baptist, Mormons, heck perhaps even the JW's) would be looked at.

Sure. Looked at. Not discriminated against, hated, and slandered by mobs wanting to slaughter people based on their religion.


again, you are wrong. we're supposed to be Vigilant, not afraid.

I was being sarcastic. Because this "vigilance," when it comes in the form of the MCA, or invading Iraq, is fear. It's a fear disproportional to the threat. 3,000 dead in one year is hardly any threat at all - we both know hundreds of things that are more lethal and threatening, yet no one even gives a shit about those. It's a fear designed to whip the nation into a state where we accepted unjust wars based on the president's personal agenda and the desires of the administration to consolidate its hold on power.

Americans are afraid. Europeans too. The way I see it - the terrorists won, pure and simple.

wrong, Muslim groups were looked at, but only those with a history of violence. Muslim groups in TOTAL were not looked at.

Have you got any evidence to back that claim up?

add to that the above section which also defines UNLAWFUL enemy combatant "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 "

i'd like to introduce you to the 'or' operator. or, junii. junii, or.

and if you read further, the President nor Rummy, does NOT define who is an Unlawful Enemy Combatant, but " Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense."

yeah, and? do you think that the generals in argentina lacked 'tribunals' that handled the actual operation of the disappearances? if the president gets to establish these tribunals, then the president gets to decide who gets disappeared.

please show this.

"A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive..."

They can be. Please understand that I'm looking at how this law could be implemented. To trust that it won't be implemented in such a way eventually is shortsighted and stupid.and it COULD not. and to trust that it will be implemented in such a way is also shortsighted and stupid.

Well, considering that based on this law, the federal government has already told the district court that it expects them to vacate all current habeas petitions for people in Gitmo, I think that's proof enough. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/19/AR2006101901692.html)considering that this notice was sent after the bill was signed, not before. also, it does remove that coverage from all non citizens and US residents. and if you also read, it's being challanged, the system at work.

So let's recap.yes, lets.

A tribunal set up by the President or SecDef (which in a worst case scenario means a rubberstamp group of people)a power and ability the President and SoD had long before 2000...
can declare anyone, not just aliens, enemy combatants, as long as they meet the qualifications already defined for "Enemy Combatant"
can do so using classified evidence that can be withheld even from opposing counsel simply by refusing him the proper clearances, and the proof of such refusual can be found.... nowhere, there is even conditions for granting such clearances that is defined in earlier bills ones the does not have Pres GW Bush's signature.
and can toss you in jail without even the recourse of a habeas petition. only if you are a non-citizen or us resident. in which, because you are disavowed the writ of Habeas Petition, allows you to petition your home Government to grant you protection under the Geneva Convention and thus puts international pressure on the government concerning your rights. rememeber, the Geneva convetion cannot be used as personal protection, but as a citizen of a signatory country, then they (your country) can pressure the USA to uphold the Geneva Convention. if home country refuses to aknowledge your citizenship... then that is a problem with your home country.

also, the proceures are only for unlawful enemy combatants for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commissions.

Satisfied?
that you selectively read the MCA 2006? yep.

and it COULD not. and to trust that it will be implemented in such a way is also shortsighted and stupid.

only if you are in total denial of the entire history of the state as an institution.

as long as they meet the qualifications already defined for "Enemy Combatant"

i see my introduction to the or operator wasn't formal enough.

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.

this means there are two seperate and equal ways to be an unlawful enemy combatant.

you can either purposefully and materially support hostilities, etc
OR
you can be declared one by the state for whatever reason they happen to feel like, up to and including no reason what so ever.

Yes. Because now that Bush intends to use the Military Commissions Act as the basis for his actions, he can't ignore the will of Congress if it decides to withdraw its permission.

except bush has what you might call a loose relationship with legal basises and justifications. whatever comes to hand, you might say.

if the law says he can do something, he'll point to the law. if the law might be purposefully misread to say he can do something, he'll purposefully misread it. if the law clearly and explicitly says he can't, he'll point to his inherent power as dictator. and if that doesn't work, he'll just do it secretly.

Yeah okay, and only after the "Jews declared war on Germany" did they get seen as subhuman. Doesn't justify it. Not in any way, shape, or form. Then, or now.when did America see Jews as Subhuman?

No.you should pay more attention then.

Sure. Looked at. Not discriminated against, hated, and slandered by mobs wanting to slaughter people based on their religion.wanna bet?

I was being sarcastic. Because this "vigilance," when it comes in the form of the MCA, or invading Iraq, is fear. It's a fear disproportional to the threat. 3,000 dead in one year is hardly any threat at all - we both know hundreds of things that are more lethal and threatening, yet no one even gives a shit about those. It's a fear designed to whip the nation into a state where we accepted unjust wars based on the president's personal agenda and the desires of the administration to consolidate its hold on power. that's 3000+ dead in ONE act of violence, not one year.

please show me where such actions take place that is planned and performed with the purpose of causing massive deaths and injuries in ONE act where it is ignored?

Americans are afraid. Europeans too. The way I see it - the terrorists won, pure and simple.giving into their demands let's the terrorist win.

Have you got any evidence to back that claim up?had it in another thread, will look for it. it was a claim that the government ONLY looked at Mulsim groups. however, it showed they looked at all groups and that the Muslim groups that claimed responsiblitiy were the ones looked at. will post when I find that report.

i'd like to introduce you to the 'or' operator. or, junii. junii, or.then let me repost that in a way you can understand.

"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 "

Now considering that there is a Definition of "LAWFUL enemy Combatant"...

yeah, and? do you think that the generals in argentina lacked 'tribunals' that handled the actual operation of the disappearances? if the president gets to establish these tribunals, then the president gets to decide who gets disappeared.So you're saying what happened in Argentina is in connection with how the USA runs? I hope not.

and the tribunals for establishing Combat status has been around far longer than you think.

and it COULD not. and to trust that it will be implemented in such a way is also shortsighted and stupid.
Bullshit. If history has proven one point time and again, it is that power will be abused eventually. Always. It is one of the few absolutes that exist in this world. But hide your head in the sand if it helps you sleep at night.

that you selectively read the MCA 2006? yep.
I said from the beginning that I was reading it as a worst case scenario. That you refuse to accept the potential of this law is not my problem--it just puts you in the same category as all the other cheerleaders for this abomination of a law. Hope you like your friends.

only if you are in total denial of the entire history of the state as an institution.



i see my introduction to the or operator wasn't formal enough.

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.

this means there are two seperate and equal ways to be an unlawful enemy combatant.

you can either purposefully and materially support hostilities, etc
OR
you can be declared one by the state for whatever reason they happen to feel like, up to and including no reason what so ever.
nope, it has to be defined by the CSRT.

nope, it has to be defined by the CSRT.

Jesus Fucking Christ, Junii--who sets up that tribunal? Hell, the Soviet Union had "independent" tribunals too. Would you have trusted them to bring about any verdict the government didn't want? You seem like a fairly logical person in other cases--I don't see why you're being so fucking blind on this one. Why do you trust the government--any government--to treat people fairly if there's an upside in not doing so?

Bullshit. If history has proven one point time and again, it is that power will be abused eventually. Always. It is one of the few absolutes that exist in this world. But hide your head in the sand if it helps you sleep at night.eventually, ALL POWER is abused EVENTUALLY. thus you should not be fighting the MCA but the Ideas of Government and Technology.

heck, even the Ideas of Society can be corrupted and abused... EVENTUALLY.


I said from the beginning that I was reading it as a worst case scenario. That you refuse to accept the potential of this law is not my problem--it just puts you in the same category as all the other cheerleaders for this abomination of a law. Hope you like your friends.and only concentrating and basing judgement on WORST CASE SCENARIOS is wrong.

Here's another WORST CASE SCENARIO: The Patriot act and MCA is revoked, Government power reduced, and Terrorst blow up 4 captial cities in the US with Dirty bombs obtained over the internet under the cover of the freedoms they now enjoy.

here's yet another Worst Case Scenario: Bush is elected for a 3rd term because congress and the house determine that the "War on Terror" requires a single leader untill it's won.

all three WORST CASE SCENARIOS are possible... EVENTUALLY.

however, I would rather watch now and not judge on whatever EVENTUALLY may bring.

Jesus Fucking Christ, Junii--who sets up that tribunal? Hell, the Soviet Union had "independent" tribunals too. Would you have trusted them to bring about any verdict the government didn't want? You seem like a fairly logical person in other cases--I don't see why you're being so fucking blind on this one. Why do you trust the government--any government--to treat people fairly if there's an upside in not doing so?
who said I Trusted the Government.

I Neither Trust/Don't Trust the Government. I watch and I wait.

I don't jump to conclusions, I don't assume, and I certanly DONT baise things on EVENTUALLY or WORST CASE SCENARIOS.

I hope for the Best, watch for the worst and I never ASSUME anything.

and I don't Make judgements unless I know I have 100% of the information. and I don't count what is reported in the media as 100% of anything.

eventually, ALL POWER is abused EVENTUALLY. thus you should not be fighting the MCA but the Ideas of Government and Technology.

heck, even the Ideas of Society can be corrupted and abused... EVENTUALLY.


and only concentrating and basing judgement on WORST CASE SCENARIOS is wrong.

Here's another WORST CASE SCENARIO: The Patriot act and MCA is revoked, Government power reduced, and Terrorst blow up 4 captial cities in the US with Dirty bombs obtained over the internet under the cover of the freedoms they now enjoy.

here's yet another Worst Case Scenario: Bush is elected for a 3rd term because congress and the house determine that the "War on Terror" requires a single leader untill it's won.

all three WORST CASE SCENARIOS are possible... EVENTUALLY.

however, I would rather watch now and not judge on whatever EVENTUALLY may bring.Here's what it comes down to--I don't know if it's that you're afraid or that you really believe that this government is honest and forthright and would never fuck innocent people over, but you're willing to buy into their logic. Good for you. Hope you don't wind up in Gitmo one day because your faith bit you on the ass, because you won't have a chance in hell to get out of there.

And no, I will take no solace in saying "I told you so" from the adjoining cell.

nope, it has to be defined by the CSRT.

let's assume that you are right, that csrt's have well defined rules and that those rules cannot be changed by the executive branch at the executive's discretion. why then we're saved! hooray!!

(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.

fuck, there's that or operator again. and this one says that you aren't right. you aren't even wrong.

who said I Trusted the Government.

you do, through your words and actions.

when this government in particular has already given you 1000 reasons to not trust them, then claiming any benefit of the doubt for them at all demonstrates either wholesale support of fascism or unspeakable stupidity.

Here's what it comes down to--I don't know if it's that you're afraid or that you really believe that this government is honest and forthright and would never fuck innocent people over, but you're willing to buy into their logic. Good for you. Hope you don't wind up in Gitmo one day because your faith bit you on the ass, because you won't have a chance in hell to get out of there.

And no, I will take no solace in saying "I told you so" from the adjoining cell.

Hell, even if the government has totally noble intentions, with such sweeping powers they are going to make a mistake. I think an "Oops!" here is hardly going to make the innocent person feel better of having their rights stripped from them.

Hell, even if the government has totally noble intentions, with such sweeping powers they are going to make a mistake. I think an "Oops!" here is hardly going to make the innocent person feel better of having their rights stripped from them.Especially since that innocent person has no option by which to challenge their detention or prove their innocence.

Well it looks like if this continues, that Rome has outlasted America as a democratic state, IE Rome lasted a good 400 odd years in democratic form.

Especially since that innocent person has no option by which to challenge their detention or prove their innocence.

I'm sure that the government could use these circumstances as propaganda that their system works. When they release the individual they'll say: "See? Even though the accused was stripped of all his/her civil rights, they were still found innocent and released. So if we mistake you for a terrorist, don't worry. The system works!"

you do, through your words and actions.

when this government in particular has already given you 1000 reasons to not trust them, then claiming any benefit of the doubt for them at all demonstrates either wholesale support of fascism or unspeakable stupidity.
then by the same logic that you are using, You are saying that you are now engaging in seeking to undermine the Government and it's powers.

Especially since that innocent person has no option by which to challenge their detention or prove their innocence.

and even if they were for some reason allowed one, the law clearly states that being found to be an uec by a tribunal, any tribunal, created by the executive is to be the final word on the matter. so all they'd have to do is claim that they had in fact found the person to be an uec (as opposed to some sort of embarassing paperwork mix up) and that would be that. and even if for some reason they decided to allow that mere assertion of status wasn't enough, they would then have to claim that the applicable reasons for that status determination are classified and cannot be released for national security reasons.

then by the same logic that you are using, You are saying that you are now engaging in seeking to undermine the Government and it's powers.

man, i was advocating the overthrow of the government during the clinton era.

then by the same logic that you are using, You are saying that you are now engaging in seeking to undermine the Government and it's powers.

Anybody with half a clue would do as much. Anyone seeking to prop up this rotten crop of bad apples has a lot to answer.

man, i was advocating the overthrow of the government during the clinton era.

I suppose then you would be more then advocating now.

I suppose then you would be more then advocating now.

yeah, things have gotten bad enough that i'll probably vote (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secJ2.html#secj22) now, just because i think it stands the slightest chance of slowing down the damage.

Bullshit. If history has proven one point time and again, it is that power will be abused eventually. Always. It is one of the few absolutes that exist in this world. But hide your head in the sand if it helps you sleep at night.

As Jon Stewart pointed out with former Democratic Minority Leader Tom Dashel who neglected to inform congress of a land deal he made that was otherwise perfectly legal, "obselete power corrupts obseletely."

As Jon Stewart pointed out with former Democratic Minority Leader Tom Dashel who neglected to inform congress of a land deal he made that was otherwise perfectly legal, "obselete power corrupts obseletely."
It was current minority leader Harry Reid, but yeah.

when did America see Jews as Subhuman?

I didn't say "America" saw that. I was talking about Germany. Jeez, missing the point.

you should pay more attention then.

Rather than implying I am blind or stupid, maybe you could show me how asian people are "lumped in" with "Whites."

wanna bet?

Instead of offering the traditional fantasy bet, maybe you could resolve this by giving an example of the equivalent "nuke the ragheads" response Americans exhibited post-9/11, but targetting Christians instead. Otherwise, no point making bets you'd just lose is there?

that's 3000+ dead in ONE act of violence, not one year.

It is both.

No matter how you paint it though, the threat represented has been blown out of proportion in terms of how much media attention it gets, and just what kind of responses are acceptable as a result of it (like invading and occupying Iraq).

please show me where such actions take place that is planned and performed with the purpose of causing massive deaths and injuries in ONE act where it is ignored?

It doesn't matter if it was "planned and performed." The FACT is that there are more lethal, more threatening things that get ignored so that people can concentrate on The Muslim Problem.

giving into their demands let's the terrorist win.

Nah. The point of terrorism in this context is to instill so much fear on the target population (usually, a fear disproportionate to the actual risk or level of violence) that the target nation overreacts like a stumbling, dazed boxer lashing out blindly. The lashing out (invading Iraq) then helps the terrorist cause, by killing innocent civilians and getting more people to turn to supporting terrorism as their only perceived means of self-defense. Thus, perpetuating the cycle and expanding the terrorist base of power.

Which is exactly what is happening. And it's an extremely disheartening thing to see that so many Americans buy into the party line. How many times did we "win" again? Mission Accomplished? Bullshit. The war on terror is lost the moment America slips toward becoming a Garrison State, a.k.a fascism. And it's slipping. We're not there yet, but if the nation continues to follow people like the Bush administration long enough, we will.

Nah. The point of terrorism in this context is to instill so much fear on the target population (usually, a fear disproportionate to the actual risk or level of violence) that the target nation overreacts like a stumbling, dazed boxer lashing out blindly. The lashing out (invading Iraq) then helps the terrorist cause, by killing innocent civilians and getting more people to turn to supporting terrorism as their only perceived means of self-defense. Thus, perpetuating the cycle and expanding the terrorist base of power.

Which is exactly what is happening. And it's an extremely disheartening thing to see that so many Americans buy into the party line. How many times did we "win" again? Mission Accomplished? Bullshit. The war on terror is lost the moment America slips toward becoming a Garrison State, a.k.a fascism. And it's slipping. We're not there yet, but if the nation continues to follow people like the Bush administration long enough, we will.
Yup, that pretty much sums it up.

Well it looks like if this continues, that Rome has outlasted America as a democratic state, IE Rome lasted a good 400 odd years in democratic form.


I say the U.S. will last at least another hundred years in a recognizeable form.
I have a whole series of predictions on what will bring about the downfall of the U.S. and what the world will look like before during and after. I'll see if I can dig that up but if not I'll try and do it from memory.

Actually, the fact that we haven't been hit in the last five years is not proof that they're doing a good job. It's just as possible that it's a coincidence we haven't been hit, and it's equally likely that we just haven't been targeted.

Do you have a side job writing speeches for the White House? Because that's precisely the point Bush was selling this week. It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now. Let's be clear here--the Democrats have said that one of their first orders of business should they take the House will be to pass legislation codifying the suggestions of the 9/11 Commission. The fact that the Republican Congress has not done so shows how little they care about protecting the US from the threat of terrorists.


Why? Because you say so? Because you're so busy pissing your pants over this that you assume the rest of us must be doing so as well? Some of us have stones, bub.

Which is your right. You're wrong, but that's your right.


Congress is the only one who can declare war. They have not done so. Bush, regardless of his Unitary Executive theory, does not have that power. Therefore, no matter how much he bleats about us being at war, if Congress doesn't declare it, it's not the case.


Well, one thing is certain. What the US has been doing is not working in reducing the number of terrorists worldwide or in reducing the number of terrorist attacks worldwide in the last five years. In fact, the numbers have gone up. So a wise person would look at the situation, see that we're indeed making the situation worse, and say "hmmm, maybe we ought to try something different." But being a Bushite means never having to realize you're stupid, I guess.



Repeat it all you like, and repeat it as often as you like--it doesn't change the facts on the ground. We're not at war in any legal sense of the word, and we don't even have a well-defined enemy in this "struggle." (P.S. One Arabic word for struggle is "jihad." Are we in a jihad against jihadism?) According to Bush, we're in a war against a tactic. As for your support for the Military Commissions Act, I think I've stated my position on that quite succinctly. You and anyone who supports this abomination of a law is unAmerican.

Call me "unAmerican" if you feel the need to do so, it's within your rights.

Anyone who knows me, personally, and in real life, knows damn well how Patriotic I truly am.

I'll be well within my rights to call you Winston Churchill. A confused, misguided Professor. You remind me so much of the belligerent likes of Winston and what he stands for. You have so much anger within. Honestly, I don't feel that you would support anything that comes from the adminstration.

I'm sad that you are sad. Try thinking of happy thoughts and being and doing positve things in your life. You'll be surprised, how you eventually will be a happier person both inside and out.

From reading your posts, I am in no way going to attempt to persuade you that the MCA is a good thing overall. It may not be perfect as it was written by humans and we all know that there isn't a single perfect human that walks this planet we call Earth. However, it is yet another much needed weapon to fight these barbaric terrorists, these uncivilized parasites.

You and everybody else who claim that the MCA was written out of fear, are dead wrong. If anything, we have brought the Fear to the eyes of the Terrorists. Hell, we probably can't find bin Laden because he has dug himself in a hole and probably is close to the core of Earth by now. He's the one who has "cut and run".

Back to the "unAmerican" comment. I find it funny how the likes of you like to criticize and accuse the GOP of using the "unAmerican" or "not being a Patriot" phrases and hence, now you are the one to use that phrase. Have you ever heard the phrase "When you point the finger, you have 3 more pointing back at you."?

I feel sad for you. You should realize that all of your posts pretty much are lined up with believing in "Civil Rights" "Constitutional Rights" and so on....but according to some of your negative and posts can be pretty filled with hatred if the likes of me and my views disagree with the likes of you and Winston. Now, which is it? Do I not have a right to disagree or do I?

Some of you are pretty good at twisting and turning around the facts. The US citizens are still bound to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The MCA is ultimately stating that the "unlawful ememy combatants" will be tried in front of the Military Commission. These terrorists should NOT be tried in our civilian courts with our juries.

As for the US citizens who are caught w/arms against our troops, they are brought to the US mainland and tried in Federal court and by a jury of their peers.

You and everybody else who claim that the MCA was written out of fear, are dead wrong. If anything, we have brought the Fear to the eyes of the Terrorists. Hell, we probably can't find bin Laden because he has dug himself in a hole and probably is close to the core of Earth by now. He's the one who has "cut and run".

Yeah, I'm sure rational people would trade their liberties so easily. Would treat other people in ways that this country is supposed to be against. Sounds like we are doing the terrorists job for them.

Give that man a see-gar!
Here ya go:
http://www.starfileonline.com/output/BSeeg040316G604.JPG
Couldn't find Pete, so Bob had to do. Hope ya dunt mind.

Some of you are pretty good at twisting and turning around the facts. The US citizens are still bound to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The MCA is ultimately stating that the "unlawful ememy combatants" will be tried in front of the Military Commission. These terrorists should NOT be tried in our civilian courts with our juries.

Yes, but how, prey tell, are said people defined.

If there is enough evidence against them, then yes I would agree. But it seems like the evidence requirements to put you in this catagory are minimal. And certianly the act provides for the defendent not to see all the eveidence or for the defence lawyer to see all the evidence. Not exactly fair is it?

Some of you are pretty good at twisting and turning around the facts. The US citizens are still bound to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The MCA is ultimately stating that the "unlawful ememy combatants" will be tried in front of the Military Commission. These terrorists should NOT be tried in our civilian courts with our juries.

As for the US citizens who are caught w/arms against our troops, they are brought to the US mainland and tried in Federal court and by a jury of their peers.
At least one Senator disagrees with you:

Why the Military Commissions Act Is “Flagrantly Unconstitutional” (http://www.progressive.org/mag_leahy100606)

Senator Smith spoke stirringly earlier today of the dangers of this bill’s most dangerous provision, the elimination of the independent judicial check on Government overreaching and lawlessness. He quoted from great defenders of liberty. It was Justice Robert H. Jackson who said in his role as Chief Counsel for the Allied Powers responsible for trying German war criminals after World War II: “That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power ever has paid to Reason.” He closed the Nuremberg trials about which Senator Dodd spoke earlier by saying: “Of one thing we may be sure. The future will never have to ask, with misgiving, ‘What could the Nazis have said in their favor?’ History will know that whatever could be said, they were allowed to say. They have been given the kind of a trial which they, in the days of their pomp and power, never gave to any man. But fairness is not weakness. The extraordinary fairness of these hearings is an attribute of our strength.” He was right and his wisdom was echoed this week at our Judiciary Committee hearing when Admiral Hutson and Lieutenant Commander Swift testified that fairness and lawfulness is our greatest strength. Regrettably, this legislation does not live up to that standard. It is a giant step away from fairness and a further leap away from any accountability for actions by the United States Government.

This Administration, for all its talk of strength, has made us less safe, and its proposal before us today is one that smacks of weakness and fear. Its legislative demands reflect a cowering country that is succumbing to the threat of terrorism. I believe that we are better than that. I believe that we are stronger than that. I believe that we are fairer than that. I believe that America should be a leader in the fight for human rights and the rule of law.
There is lots more.....

Yes, but how, prey tell, are said people defined.

If there is enough evidence against them, then yes I would agree. But it seems like the evidence requirements to put you in this catagory are minimal. And certianly the act provides for the defendent not to see all the eveidence or for the defence lawyer to see all the evidence. Not exactly fair is it?

No, we should NOT hand over Classified documents over to the enemy.

No, we should NOT hand over Classified documents over to the enemy.

How sad that you distrust the American legal system so much. :(

In my humble opinion, the USA has painted itself into a corner, and must pass this law to get thenselves out.

Have you asked yourself why Guantanamo is still open and holding detainees?
Not for their outdated information, that's for sure.
Because they are a menace? Some of them, for sure. But the vast majority that have been released decided not to fuck with the USA again...
Because it's such great PR for the USA?:rolleyes:

I think it's because the USA cannot afford to let them go.

So why doesn't the USA set up a kangaroo court for these folks, and find them all guilty of whatever, and sentence them all to death? It would be morally reprehensible, but easily done, and it would solve many problems.

I think it's because the USA cannot afford to let them have a public trial for fear of what may be said.

Before you start thinking this is some conspiracy theory, bear with me. In the wake of Sept. 11th, the USA went the extra mile to fight terrorism, and they probably used some techniques that are classified. And they probably used some of those classified techniques on some Gitmo detainees. And now Osama Q. Public who got caught in some round-up, and brought to Cuba, and now has some classified information in his head and can't be let go.

What are you going to do? Can't let them go. Can't give them a trial. Can't kill them all with everyone watching. If you want to make them disappear, you have to suspend all sorts of rights, which the US government can't do unless you're being invaded or engaged in civil war.

So you have to create a legal entity that has no rights: the unlawful enemy combatant. Slap that label on anyone, and all your problems go away.

We'll see.

<snip>

I think you're onto something there. Doesn't quite change the fact that the bill is an abberation against goodness, fairness, democratic process and human rights, but I think you also pointed that out.

A lose/lose situation has definitely been created by the Great Bungler and his merry band of pirates, and by the American people too scared and ignorant of the true meaning and price of liberty that they continue to support him. But this is supposed to be a democracy, and even though it really sucks for those of us who see precisely what is going on, it is what most of the country seems to want. Ignoring the fact that the people maintaining such a mindset are terrified beyond the ability for reasonable discourse, I would urge all of them to find a verifiable German citizen who lived through World War II. Talk with them, and ask them how things were when they all found out that supporting Hitler turned out to be a very negative, bad thing. Try and get a feeling for the shame of an entire nation, so you can know what we've got coming to us and perhaps be prepared for it when it finally happens.

In my humble opinion, the USA has painted itself into a corner, and must pass this law to get thenselves out.

Have you asked yourself why Guantanamo is still open and holding detainees?
Not for their outdated information, that's for sure.
Because they are a menace? Some of them, for sure. But the vast majority that have been released decided not to fuck with the USA again...
Because it's such great PR for the USA?:rolleyes:

I think it's because the USA cannot afford to let them go.

So why doesn't the USA set up a kangaroo court for these folks, and find them all guilty of whatever, and sentence them all to death? It would be morally reprehensible, but easily done, and it would solve many problems.

I think it's because the USA cannot afford to let them have a public trial for fear of what may be said.

Before you start thinking this is some conspiracy theory, bear with me. In the wake of Sept. 11th, the USA went the extra mile to fight terrorism, and they probably used some techniques that are classified. And they probably used some of those classified techniques on some Gitmo detainees. And now Osama Q. Public who got caught in some round-up, and brought to Cuba, and now has some classified information in his head and can't be let go.

What are you going to do? Can't let them go. Can't give them a trial. Can't kill them all with everyone watching. If you want to make them disappear, you have to suspend all sorts of rights, which the US government can't do unless you're being invaded or engaged in civil war.

So you have to create a legal entity that has no rights: the unlawful enemy combatant. Slap that label on anyone, and all your problems go away.

We'll see.


I'd say the dumb fucks that chose to take up arms against the US painted themselves into a corner wouldnt you?


OOOPs no you wouldnt.... according to you its the United States fault they chose to become combatants and terrorist and fighters ...and dead people and whatever...it had to be because we used our space ray mind controll to force them to become combatants and declare Jihad....yep thats the ticket.

I'd say the dumb fucks that chose to take up arms against the US painted themselves into a corner wouldnt you?

You seem to be assuming that everyone being held in places like Guantanamo Bay are being held there because they were actually picked up fighting against US forces. This is not the case. How would you deal with the ones who were picked up simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or had Arabic sounding surnames, or used to know someone back in college who eventually became a terrorist? We done wrong, and though this bill has both positive and negative aspects, it isn't really going to help us move forward with doing the right thing. As GoG postulated, it seems that it may just be the only thing we can do to help cover up a number of wrong things we've done.

You seem to be assuming that everyone being held in places like Guantanamo Bay are being held there because they were actually picked up fighting against US forces. This is not the case. How would you deal with the ones who were picked up simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or had Arabic sounding surnames, or used to know someone back in college who eventually became a terrorist? We done wrong, and though this bill has both positive and negative aspects, it isn't really going to help us move forward with doing the right thing. As GoG postulated, it seems that it may just be the only thing we can do to help cover up a number of wrong things we've done.

Its a positive step in the right direction , thats a fact and it will no doubt help fix any mistakes that were made...and because of all the checks and balances and the congressional oversight the United States will be held accountable for everyone of them . If there are any .

IMO its about this bill came about. BTW the report I posted that listed all the detainees at the base now is public record and they are either all high value terorist captured over in battle or turned over to us by other countries because they were on our most wanted list , the rest are enemy combatants of some type yet to be determined. I believe the count was in the range of 450 persons.

Google it . or look at the human rights watch site and follow the links .


BTW you do know the current crop of bay inmates has been on TV and visited by Senators and Congressmen and tv reporters and the red cross and etc....So you might say that YES I do think the majority if not all those left are those that are at war with the US .

Its a positive step in the right direction , thats a fact

Absolutely not. That is your opinion. One that is shared by some, and not shared by others.

and it will no doubt help fix any mistakes that were made

I seriously doubt that, and aside from a few sections that seem to clarify some constitutional rights for detainees, I don't see anything that amounts to even ownership of any wrongdoing.

...and because of all the checks and balances and the congressional oversight the United States will be held accountable for everyone of them.

I'm sorry, you're starting to sound a bit pedantic. What checks and balances? What congressional oversight? And how, based on the contents of the bill, could either of those things possibly help the potentially unjustly mistreated victims of a military tribunal as provisioned in the bill?

If there are any.

OK. At least my audience has been identified.

they are either all high value terorist captured over in battle or turned over to us by other countries because they were on our most wanted list , the rest are enemy combatants of some type yet to be determined.

Which is it? Are they all "high value terrorists" or are some of them of some type yet to be determined? It's those yet to be determineds that I weep for. It's the terrorists who we're no better than if we treat them the same way that they would treat us. I think this bill may prevent us from sinking THAT low, but it doesn't seem to set the bar very much higher.

the rest are enemy combatants of some type yet to be determined

luckily for them, they don't have any chance of contesting that claim. yay freedom!

Wait! Not all Hearts and Souls are lost! Surely we got at least top 10 of them!!!