NationStates Jolt Archive

It's not as bad as the other thread, but it's still pretty fucking retarded.

So I was explaining to people around my school about the MCA, trying to get activism up to stop it. About 95%, and that number is NOT exaggerated, said "So what?" when I explained, in full detail, to them what the MCA meant. They said "So what?" to the fact that at any time they can be grabbed out of their house, thrown into a secret government prison, and tortured. They said "So what?" to the fact that we no longer have the right to a fair trial. They said "So what?" to the fact that they can be held without reason for as long as Mr. President wants. They said "So what?" to the fact that GWB has, basically, dictorial powers now.

Apathy is just as bad as someone actually supporting it.

Why is NSG becoming a blog?

Were they all 14 years old?

Were they all 14 years old?

It's a high school. It's like, 13 to 18.

Alas, we, the few intellectuals, will have to suffer for their lack of foresight.

Just like Prometheus and Epimetheus... [/allusion]

Haha, thanks for the reference to my thread :)

Unless something actually occurs to them personally what do they care? It doesn't affect their tidy, comfortable life.

Why is NSG becoming a blog?

iDitto.
Get a blog and less of the MCA spam.

It's a high school. It's like, 13 to 18.

I asked if the kids you talked to were 14.

Unless something actually occurs to them personally what do they care? It doesn't affect their tidy, comfortable life.

I remeber reading or hearing somewhere... About how people don't care to look past their own backyards, but when the shit hits the fan they have no idea what happened.

They won't be saying "So what?" when they're in a secret prison, being tortured, or being in a Work Group in a mine filled with toxic gas.

I asked if the kids you talked to were 14.

Of course not! Why would I just single out the 14 year olds and talk to them only? I talk to all the people at my school.

iDitto.
Get a blog and less of the MCA spam.

No body reads blogs. Everybody reads NSG.

I remeber reading or hearing somewhere... About how people don't care to look past their own backyards, but when the shit hits the fan they have no idea what happened.

They won't be saying "So what?" when they're in a secret prison, being tortured, or being in a Work Group in a mine filled with toxic gas.
You're paranoid.
Of course not! Why would I just single out the 14 year olds and talk to them only? I talk to all the people at my school.
I didn't say "singled out"
No body reads blogs. Everybody reads NSG.
So you waste our time here.

Of course not! Why would I just single out the 14 year olds and talk to them only? I talk to all the people at my school.

Particularly those who are of, or near voting age.

*nods*

You're paranoid.

So you waste our time here.

Really? I am? The MCA is nothing but a crock of shit, and the president won't use it for his own personal gains?

So now you consider trying to get this bill repealed a "waste of time"?

Really? I am? The MCA is nothing but a crock of shit, and the president won't use it for his own personal gains?

So now you consider trying to get this bill repealed a "waste of time"?

Yes.

No body reads blogs. Everybody reads NSG.

But you are creating a somewhat copy cat thread to Wanderjars in the sense of being horrified, not only that, but you already have a thread about whatever this is on. How do i know? Because I posted on it :p

Are there any political clubs at your school? Maybe Young Democrats? A political discussion forum? Anything?

Is there a school newspaper that will publish political opinion pieces?

Are you in a Government or History class where you discuss these subjects?

Sad people caring more about American Idol and Survivor then the state of their nation. Is this country retarted or something?

Sad people caring more about American Idol and Survivor then the state of their nation. Is this country retarted or something?

You must be my mental twin. I don't know how many times I have said the same words.

Sad people caring more about American Idol and Survivor then the state of their nation. Is this country retarted or something?

Wasn't there some story about more people voting on the Idol Finale then for the 2004 Presidential election?

It's not as bad as the other thread, but it's still pretty fucking retarded.

So I was explaining to people around my school about the MCA, trying to get activism up to stop it. About 95%, and that number is NOT exaggerated, said "So what?" when I explained, in full detail, to them what the MCA meant. They said "So what?" to the fact that at any time they can be grabbed out of their house, thrown into a secret government prison, and tortured. They said "So what?" to the fact that we no longer have the right to a fair trial. They said "So what?" to the fact that they can be held without reason for as long as Mr. President wants. They said "So what?" to the fact that GWB has, basically, dictorial powers now.

Apathy is just as bad as someone actually supporting it.

My God, that is just sad.

This is why during the standardized test for my state (called the MCAS, something we take in Massachusetts), when they said that I should suggest some extra-curricular activity for kids, I said "Poli-Talk".

The sole purpose of "Poli-Talk" is so that kids won't act like they do in your school.

Are there any political clubs at your school? Maybe Young Democrats? A political discussion forum? Anything?

Is there a school newspaper that will publish political opinion pieces?

Are you in a Government or History class where you discuss these subjects?

Yes.

No, JSA.

Not an active forum. We only meet on Mondays.

Yes, but I seriously doubt they would publish MY opinion, and then who in my school would actually care to read something about politics? 95% of people I talk to already said "So what?".

I'm in World Civilizations, but we rarely talk about politics.

Wasn't there some story about more people voting on the Idol Finale then for the 2004 Presidential election?

Unfortunately, its true...:(

Oy, America. I pray for thee. Well, kinda.

Wasn't there some story about more people voting on the Idol Finale then for the 2004 Presidential election?

Well, there's probably 2 reasons for that.

1) Some people are too lazy to get up and vote (these people have been around since the 2nd president, my friends).

2) Most of the people who watch American Idol are 16 year old girls (and thus cannot vote).

Yes.

No, JSA.

Not an active forum. We only meet on Mondays.

Yes, but I seriously doubt they would publish MY opinion, and then who in my school would actually care to read something about politics? 95% of people I talk to already said "So what?".

I'm in World Civilizations, but we rarely talk about politics.

Really? You're in JSA too? Awsome!

I'm in Model UN as well. Went on the SPIMUN Conference earlier in the year (To St. Petersburg Russia :D)

Wasn't there some story about more people voting on the Idol Finale then for the 2004 Presidential election?

Yeah, I remeber that. It's fucking sad, really.

Really? I am? The MCA is nothing but a crock of shit, and the president won't use it for his own personal gains?

So now you consider trying to get this bill repealed a "waste of time"?

Of course not. But we also know that if the president were to do such a thing, there would be an outcry from the people and his immediate impeachment would follow. We also know that most of what your saying is probably an exaggeration or is missing some extra detail. Despite what many people think, Congress is a group of people that would not give the president the power to take away their own liberties.

You must be my mental twin. I don't know how many times I have said the same words.

I don't know how many OTHER people have said the same words.

Of course not. But we also know that if the president were to do such a thing, there would be an outcry from the people and his immediate impeachment would follow. We also know that most of what your saying is probably an exaggeration or is missing some extra detail. Despite what many people think, Congress is a group of people that would not give the president the power to take away their own liberties.

Both Congress and the Supreme Court are sympathetic to Bush right now. I agree with Jack Cafferty: Vote 'em all out!

Yes.

No, JSA.

Not an active forum. We only meet on Mondays.

Yes, but I seriously doubt they would publish MY opinion, and then who in my school would actually care to read something about politics? 95% of people I talk to already said "So what?".

I'm in World Civilizations, but we rarely talk about politics.

What do you think are the reasons for that? Most likely because of the president's new spying program and how the government's control now has overshadowed even schools. Therefore, any negative talk about the administration would obviously be ignored, lest the school get shut down.

Really, don't blame your school. Blame the new anti-"terrorist" policies of this administration.

NOTE: Yes, I've been talking like this since I was 12 years old. My knowledge in politics is way above average.

I don't know how many OTHER people have said the same words.

Yeah I know, but it sounded good :D

Really? You're in JSA too? Awsome!

I'm in Model UN as well. Went on the SPIMUN Conference earlier in the year (To St. Petersburg Russia :D)

Wish we had a Model UN... I was thinking of making one, but with only about ten people in JSA, and with all those being in other clubs (I myself am only in JSA), I doubt I could get together the required five people to make the Model UN.

Really? You're in JSA too? Awsome!

I'm in Model UN as well. Went on the SPIMUN Conference earlier in the year (To St. Petersburg Russia :D)

Know whats better than Model Un? Model EU. I had so much fun with that..Then again, I had a lot of power, being VP of the European Commission :D

Both Congress and the Supreme Court are sympathetic to Bush right now. I agree with Jack Cafferty: Vote 'em all out!

You can't exactly vote out the Supreme Court...

It's not as bad as the other thread, but it's still pretty fucking retarded.

So I was explaining to people around my school about the MCA, trying to get activism up to stop it. About 95%, and that number is NOT exaggerated, said "So what?" when I explained, in full detail, to them what the MCA meant. They said "So what?" to the fact that at any time they can be grabbed out of their house, thrown into a secret government prison, and tortured. They said "So what?" to the fact that we no longer have the right to a fair trial. They said "So what?" to the fact that they can be held without reason for as long as Mr. President wants. They said "So what?" to the fact that GWB has, basically, dictorial powers now.

Apathy is just as bad as someone actually supporting it.

YOU have habeas corpus if you are a legal resident or citizen in the US. Foreign non-combatants don't have it, so you can't take anything away from someone who doesn't have it.

Seriously, though, why would you want to fight terrorism with one hand tied around your balls?

Yes.

No, JSA.

Not an active forum. We only meet on Mondays.

Use the opportunities you have there to raise the issue. They've joined the club, so they're interested in politics; they may be more receptive.

But don't be too insistent; if you are, you will only annoy them.

Yes, but I seriously doubt they would publish MY opinion,

Make the attempt. You never know.

and then who in my school would actually care to read something about politics? 95% of people I talk to already said "So what?".

Some people will read it. If that's the best you can do, it's good enough.

What do you think are the reasons for that? Most likely because of the president's new spying program and how the government's control now has overshadowed even schools. Therefore, any negative talk about the administration would obviously be ignored, lest the school get shut down.

Really, don't blame your school. Blame the new anti-"terrorist" policies of this administration.

NOTE: Yes, I've been talking like this since I was 12 years old. My knowledge in politics is way above average.

The point is isn't that kids aren't saying things about the president because they're afraid they'll get screwed over, it's that they aren't saying things about the president because they don't care and they "don't think it could happen to them".

Wasn't there some story about more people voting on the Idol Finale then for the 2004 Presidential election?

Movie... they made a MOVIE about it.

YOU have habeas corpus if you are a legal resident or citizen in the US. Foreign non-combatants don't have it, so you can't take anything away from someone who doesn't have it.

Seriously, though, why would you want to fight terrorism with one hand tied around your balls?

Read. The. God. Damned. BILL!!!!!

If the president decides it, I can indeed have my Habeas Corpus rights taken away, just because he decides it. He needs no special permission besides from himself. Habeas Corpus is dead now.

YOU have habeas corpus if you are a legal resident or citizen in the US.

Like Jose Padilla, you mean?

Oh, right - his rights were waved because he was an "enemy combatant."

And under the MCA, who gets to declare people - including citizens - "enemy combatants"? Oh, yeah; a tribunal appointed by the President.

Think again.

You can't exactly vote out the Supreme Court...

I know, but I largely meant Congress and secondarily meant ridding the Supreme Court of Bush-Sympathizers with... Other means...

Both Congress and the Supreme Court are sympathetic to Bush right now. I agree with Jack Cafferty: Vote 'em all out!

*Thirds*

Put them all on an island with Mel Gibson and Tom Cruise. :)

Read. The. God. Damned. BILL!!!!!

If the president decides it, I can indeed have my Habeas Corpus rights taken away, just because he decides it. He needs no special permission besides from himself. Habeas Corpus is dead now.

Congress would not pass up such antics if they did happen. Face it, political activists are NOT being thrown in jail, nor are 14-year olds such as yourself for no reason at all. Key word is reason here. If you are engaged in jihad, then it kind of makes sense that you should be detained and interrogated.

And just for the record, even the non-citizen detainees can legally challenge their status.

*Thirds*

Put them all on an island with Mel Gibson and Tom Cruise. :)

Nah, Mel is cool. He said some bad stuff, but he was drunk.

Tom Cruise used to be cool.....:(

Unfortunately, its true...:(

Crap. I was hoping my memory was messed up. :(

Like Jose Padilla, you mean?

Oh, right - his rights were waved because he was an "enemy combatant."

And under the MCA, who gets to declare people - including citizens - "enemy combatants"? Oh, yeah; a tribunal appointed by the President.

Think again.

You mean that guy who was charged with terrorism?

If you are charged with terrorism, it doesn't matter if you are a citizen-you will be detained, as you should be.

What our friend New Naliitr seems to be suggesting here is that everyday people and political activists can be thrown in jail just becuase Bush doesn't like them. Clearly, this is not the case at all.

Nah, Mel is cool. He said some bad stuff, but he was drunk.

Tom Cruise used to be cool.....:(

Booze 'em up first and give Tom and Mel (only) unlimited supplies of booze.

The point is isn't that kids aren't saying things about the president because they're afraid they'll get screwed over, it's that they aren't saying things about the president because they don't care and they "don't think it could happen to them".

That's also true.

The reasons for the teachers being ignorant is because they're afraid they'll get fired for being against the government policies openly.

The reasons for students being ignorant is what you said, they think it will never happen to them.

Just the other day, we were talking about possible war with North Korea. Everyone kept saying "Can they launch nukes at us? Will this be like the war in Iraq? Will we all die?". One kid even said "wait, North Korea tested a nuke?". Shows how people don't keep up with current events since the media AND Bush (surprisingly) AGREE on the outcomes of this war and answers all of those questions.

I'm glad I don't go to your school, though.

Booze 'em up first and give Tom and Mel (only) unlimited supplies of booze.

No. Give Tom Cruise "vitamins and exercise". That helps everything!

It's not as bad as the other thread, but it's still pretty fucking retarded.

So I was explaining to people around my school about the MCA, trying to get activism up to stop it. About 95%, and that number is NOT exaggerated, said "So what?" when I explained, in full detail, to them what the MCA meant. They said "So what?" to the fact that at any time they can be grabbed out of their house, thrown into a secret government prison, and tortured. They said "So what?" to the fact that we no longer have the right to a fair trial. They said "So what?" to the fact that they can be held without reason for as long as Mr. President wants. They said "So what?" to the fact that GWB has, basically, dictorial powers now.

Apathy is just as bad as someone actually supporting it.


How can you comment on something you obviously have not read or even understand and expect anyone to take you seriously .

Do you realise that every single thing you told them was not true and a lie ?

I challenge you to prove just one thing in your little speech to be even close to being true .:D


Take your time .....

I'll even make it EASY for you...provided you can actually read...here's the bill..

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.txt.pdf

:D


Have fun .

I know, but I largely meant Congress and secondarily meant ridding the Supreme Court of Bush-Sympathizers with... Other means...

Terrorist!

You mean that guy who was charged with terrorism?

If you are charged with terrorism, it doesn't matter if you are a citizen-you will be detained, as you should be.

What our friend New Naliitr seems to be suggesting here is that everyday people and political activists can be thrown in jail just becuase Bush doesn't like them. Clearly, this is not the case at all.

Just wait, my friend, just wait. As soon as the knowledge that he can do whatever he wants gets through Bush's thick skull, the power will soon corrupt him. I need to find George right now...

How can you comment on something you obviously have not read or even understand and expect anyone to take you seriously .

Do you realise that every single thing you told them was not true and a lie ?

I challenge you to prove just one thing in your little speech to be even close to being true .:D


Take your time .....

I'll even make it EASY for you...provided you can actually read...here's the bill..

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.txt.pdf

:D


Have fun .

Read between the lines. Now don't start going and saying "Oh well you just said that the bill said yadda yadda, but now you're saying it's not!" Well, it is saying it. Just because it's not on paper doesn't mean it's not being said.

You mean that guy who was charged with terrorism?

Yes... years after he was arrested.

What our friend New Naliitr seems to be suggesting here is that everyday people and political activists can be thrown in jail just becuase Bush doesn't like them. Clearly, this is not the case at all.

It absolutely is, as long as they are designated as "enemy combatants."

It absolutely is, as long as they are designated as "enemy combatants."

Of which Bush can label anyone at any time. He could label the god damned head of the Supreme Court an "Unlawful Enemy Combatant" if he wanted!

Read between the lines. Now don't start going and saying "Oh well you just said that the bill said yadda yadda, but now you're saying it's not!" Well, it is saying it. Just because it's not on paper doesn't mean it's not being said.


I'm sorry I live in a world that has a supreme court an aclu and about three billion lawyers who are all laughing their ass off at what you just posted..

ITS A LAW ...there are NO BETWEEN THE LINES ....:D :D


OMG ....what school are you in ? Please warn us ....:D

IT SAYS WHAT IT SAYS ...it was written to give congress a say in how the justice side of the war against terrorist would be handled instead of by Presidential decree...that the SUPREME court said wasn't legal.

READ IT ...pay special attention to the fact that everything these commisions do MUST BE REPORTED TO CONGRESS ..you know the place Nancy Pelosi is ?

Not to mention all the judges that must be involved...

Wait...did you even read it ?:D :D

Just wait, my friend, just wait. As soon as the knowledge that he can do whatever he wants gets through Bush's thick skull, the power will soon corrupt him. I need to find George right now...

That's not how I see it. Let's see if we can agree on 3 things here, shall we?

1) Al-Qaida terrorists have no constitutional rights

2) Al Qaida terrorists have no treaty rights.

3) Al Qaida terrorist can challenge their status legally.

If yo agree with the above, then this is a perfectly reasonable law.

Now let's use some common sense.

Prominent political activists are the most insturmental people in the process of change. They are also the most visible, so prosecuting them would be way too obvious. Congress and the courts would never stand for it.

On the other hand, everyday people like you and me who may join opposition movements are relatively unimportant. We're only cogs in the machine, therefore, the government would have to arrest us most of us to make a difference, which would be way too obvious, and the government just doesn't have those capabilities right now. It would take a significant military effort, and our military is scattered all over the world.

Besides people like Padilla, who have questionable status and are suspicious anyway, how many stories have you heard of prominent political activists or everyday people getting thrown in G-Bay?

1) Al-Qaida terrorists have no constitutional rights

If you don't respect their constitutional rights, how do you know if they're terrorists?

I'm sorry I live in a world that has a supreme court an aclu and about three billion lawyers who are all laughing their ass off at what you just posted..

ITS A LAW ...there are NO BETWEEN THE LINES ....:D :D


OMG ....what school are you in ? Please warn us ....:D

IT SAYS WHAT IT SAYS ...it was written to give congress a say in how the justice side of the war against terrorist would be handled instead of by Presidential decree...that the SUPREME court said wasn't legal.

READ IT ...pay special attention to the fact that everything these commisions do MUST BE REPORTED TO CONGRESS ..you know the place Nancy Pelosi is ?

Not to mention all the judges that must be involved...

Wait...did you even read it ?:D :D

1. Supreme Court = Sympathetic to GWB

2. Bullshit. All laws of all time periods can be read in between the lines.

3. Armijo High School

4. It was written by congress to give GWB power in the war on "terror". Not the other way around.

5. Congress = Also sympathetic to GWB

6. All the judges = ALSO sympathetic to GWB

7. Yes I did.

8. Stop with the smilies, and please, don't be a pot and call the kettle black.

Yes... years after he was arrested.



It absolutely is, as long as they are designated as "enemy combatants."

It takes time to sufficiently accumulate evidence when you're charging someone. Saddam's trial began 2 years after he was captured.

The government has neither the time nor resources to go after people it doesn't like. If Bush is charging someone for terrorism, he has a good reason for doing so.

Of which Bush can label anyone at any time. He could label the god damned head of the Supreme Court an "Unlawful Enemy Combatant" if he wanted!



BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ WRONG again....

THE BILL ONLY AFFECTS ALIENS...those that are NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS.

So unless the head justice of the supreme court is not a citizen of the US he is not affected by this law.


Before you continue making a fool of yourself ...take a few minutes and READ THE BILL ...:D


OMG you just pegged my laugh meter you said you read the bill...AND you are still saying such awsomely wrong things about what it does....

Hey thanks for making me almost pee my pants.... Especially with the Judges ...the ones that smacked down Bush and MADE this bill a priority...and I just Know all the love the democrats in congress have for good 'ol George Bush ...so saying CONGRESS is in love with Bush is ...OMG just tooo much.. .

You should have a cable show .

How can you comment on something you obviously have not read or even understand and expect anyone to take you seriously .

Do you realise that every single thing you told them was not true and a lie ?

I challenge you to prove just one thing in your little speech to be even close to being true .:D


Take your time .....

I'll even make it EASY for you...provided you can actually read...here's the bill..

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.txt.pdf

:D


Have fun .
(e) (1) "No court, justice or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination"

You were saying? :rolleyes:

BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ WRONG again....

THE BILL ONLY AFFECTS ALIENS...those that are NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS.

So unless the head justice of the supreme court is not a citizen of the US he is not affected by this law.


Before you continue making a fool of yourself ...take a few minutes and READ THE BILL ...:D

I am doing a project on these bills and have read them through and through. If you are a US Citizen, and you are accused of being a Terrorist, it can apply to you.

So no, you are wrong on that regard.

1. Supreme Court = Sympathetic to GWB

2. Bullshit. All laws of all time periods can be read in between the lines.

.

Not clearly defined ones such as the Military Comissions Act.

By the way, do you mean to tell me that you actually read the whole thing?

That's not how I see it. Let's see if we can agree on 3 things here, shall we?

1) Al-Qaida terrorists have no constitutional rights

2) Al Qaida terrorists have no treaty rights.

3) Al Qaida terrorist can challenge their status legally.

If yo agree with the above, then this is a perfectly reasonable law.

Now let's use some common sense.

Prominent political activists are the most insturmental people in the process of change. They are also the most visible, so prosecuting them would be way too obvious. Congress and the courts would never stand for it.

On the other hand, everyday people like you and me who may join opposition movements are relatively unimportant. We're only cogs in the machine, therefore, the government would have to arrest us most of us to make a difference, which would be way too obvious, and the government just doesn't have those capabilities right now. It would take a significant military effort, and our military is scattered all over the world.

Besides people like Padilla, who have questionable status and are suspicious anyway, how many stories have you heard of prominent political activists or everyday people getting thrown in G-Bay?

1. They have the constitutional rights of the constitution of the country they are a citizen of.

2. Yes they do. They are members of a legitimate (Like it or not, it is legitimate) military force. They are protected by international war conventions.

3. Yes they can.

FOR THE LAST GOD DAMNED TIME!

Congress, Supreme Court = SYMPATHETIC TO GWB!

And our military, contrary to popular belief, is not that thinly spread.

BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ WRONG again....

THE BILL ONLY AFFECTS ALIENS...those that are NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS.

So unless the head justice of the supreme court is not a citizen of the US he is not affected by this law.


Before you continue making a fool of yourself ...take a few minutes and READ THE BILL ...:D

YES IT FUCKING DOES YOU FUCKING IDIOT! STOP SAYING YOU READ THE THING AND I DIDN'T WHEN YOU ARE SPOUTING SHIT THAT YOU SAY IS IN IT BUT IS NOT! THE BILL APPLIES TO EVERYONE AROUND THE WORLD! GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL!

EDIT: Ok, that was bad, but I needed to get that out.

(e) (1) "No court, justice or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination"
You were saying? :rolleyes:

Nuff said.

Not clearly defined ones such as the Military Comissions Act.

By the way, do you mean to tell me that you actually read the whole thing?

All laws are never truely "Clearly Defined".

And yes, I have.

Nuff said.

Let us also remeber that the bill says that the president can, at any time, determine who is or is not an alien.

Nuff said.
Oh yes, because those inferior foreigners shouldn't have rights.

It takes time to sufficiently accumulate evidence when you're charging someone. Saddam's trial began 2 years after he was captured.

So you're okay with someone being held indefinitely without charge?

The government has neither the time nor resources to go after people it doesn't like. If Bush is charging someone for terrorism, he has a good reason for doing so.

This blind servility to the state is absurd and disgusting.

So you're okay with someone being held indefinitely without charge?



This blind servility to the state is absurd and disgusting.

You want some Soma?

1. They have the constitutional rights of the constitution of the country they are a citizen of.

2. Yes they do. They are members of a legitimate (Like it or not, it is legitimate) military force. They are protected by international war conventions.

3. Yes they can.

FOR THE LAST GOD DAMNED TIME!

Congress, Supreme Court = SYMPATHETIC TO GWB!

And our military, contrary to popular belief, is not that thinly spread.

1. They are non-state actors. As such, they are illegal combatants as defined by the Geneva Conventions. Thus, they are illegitimate. There is no debate about this. It is written in stone.

As I said before, the gov't doesn't have the time or resources to lock up people it simply doesn't like.

It doesn't matter who's sympathetic to whom. Everyone follows laws. Even conservatives.

(e) (1) "No court, justice or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination"

You were saying? :rolleyes:



You just proved me 100 percent right...

an ALIEN is defined by the BILL in the definitions section as being SOMEONE WHO IS NOT A US CITIZEN .:D :rolleyes: :D


So yes I was saying ?

1. They are non-state actors. As such, they are illegal combatants as defined by the Geneva Conventions. Thus, they are illegitimate. There is no debate about this. It is written in stone.

As I said before, the gov't doesn't have the time or resources to lock up people it simply doesn't like.

It doesn't matter who's sympathetic to whom. Everyone follows laws. Even conservatives.

Have you ever read the Geneva Convention?

In it, it does mention uniformed combatants. However, LOOK AT THE TIMES! It was written in 1864, back when it was inconcievable to go into battle without a uniform!

So that aspect is outdated. And besides, Bushy is making it out to be anyone who fights against the United States is a terrorist.

1. They are non-state actors. As such, they are illegal combatants as defined by the Geneva Conventions. Thus, they are illegitimate. There is no debate about this. It is written in stone.

As I said before, the gov't doesn't have the time or resources to lock up people it simply doesn't like.

It doesn't matter who's sympathetic to whom. Everyone follows laws. Even conservatives.

1. Please, don't go saying you've read the Geneva Conventions just like you said you read the MCA.

2. It does, it does.

3. Oh come on. You're acting like my dad. You think everyone follows the rules, no matter how much of a chance there is for them to exploit the system and gain power. These people are trying to gain power, plain and simple. And if they have to radically rewrite the constitution, thereby breaking many a law, then so be it.

You just proved me 100 percent right...

an ALIEN is defined by the BILL in the definitions section as being SOMEONE WHO IS NOT A US CITIZEN .:D :rolleyes: :D


So yes I was saying ?

Read my post as well.

The bill also says that GWB and Rummy can, at any time, determine whether or not someone is or is not an alien.

So you're okay with someone being held indefinitely without charge?
This blind servility to the state is absurd and disgusting.

He was listed as an "enemy combatant" in 2002. For that alone, one can be detained.

What is truly absurd and disgusting is your that your hatred of Bush will not allow you to face reality and use your common sense.

You just proved me 100 percent right...

an ALIEN is defined by the BILL in the definitions section as being SOMEONE WHO IS NOT A US CITIZEN .:D :rolleyes: :D


So yes I was saying ?

Let us also remeber that the bill says that the president can, at any time, determine who is or is not an alien.

and also
Oh yes, because those inferior foreigners shouldn't have rights.
Even if US citizens couldn't be designated as aliens, it's not exactly okay to detain foreigners illegally for months on end. Even if they are evil Muslims of doom :rolleyes:

You just proved me 100 percent right...

an ALIEN is defined by the BILL in the definitions section as being SOMEONE WHO IS NOT A US CITIZEN .:D :rolleyes: :D


So yes I was saying ?

Yeah... it is totally fine that they are denied habeas corpus. I can see how that is perfectly acceptable, even if it is illegal given the Constitution.

He was listed as an "enemy combatant" in 2002. For that alone, one can be detained.

What is truly absurd and disgusting is your that your hatred of Bush will not allow you to face reality and use your common sense.

I fear it is the inverse.

Your love of Bush has clouded your mind, and not allowing you to use your common sense. If you were, you would be on our side.

1. Please, don't go saying you've read the Geneva Conventions just like you said you read the MCA.

2. It does, it does.

3. Oh come on. You're acting like my dad. You think everyone follows the rules, no matter how much of a chance there is for them to exploit the system and gain power. These people are trying to gain power, plain and simple. And if they have to radically rewrite the constitution, thereby breaking many a law, then so be it.

I never said I read the MCA. Nor did I read the Geneva Conventions, but if I know anything about them, then it's what I said previously. I suggest you wiki the Geneva Conventions.

By nature, the 3 branches of gov't-judicial, executive, legislative compete with each other and are jealous of each other's powers. So one party could run the whole show, but you will still have each branch competing and counter-acting the others. That's how it was, and how it will be, and how it is.

Citizenship, by the way, is defined by documents, not bush or rummy.

I fear it is the inverse.

Your love of Bush has clouded your mind, and not allowing you to use your common sense. If you were, you would be on our side.

Love of Bush? Hahahaha...

Thanks. I enjoyed that.

He was listed as an "enemy combatant" in 2002. For that alone, one can be detained.

What is truly absurd and disgusting is your that your hatred of Bush will not allow you to face reality and use your common sense.

And now anyone can be labeled as an alien, and therefore labeled as an enemy combatant.

I, too, fear it is the opposite. That your neocon mind has blinded you to the fact that GWB has set out to destroy our country.

And now anyone can be labeled as an alien, and therefore labeled as an enemy combatant.

I, too, fear it is the opposite. That your neocon mind has blinded you to the fact that GWB has set out to destroy our country.

Alien-a person who is not a citizen of the United States.

How much spin can you put on that?

I never said I read the MCA. Nor did I read the Geneva Conventions, but if I know anything about them, then it's what I said previously. I suggest you wiki the Geneva Conventions.

By nature, the 3 branches of gov't-judicial, executive, legislative compete with each other and are jealous of each other's powers. So one party could run the whole show, but you will still have each branch competing and counter-acting the others. That's how it was, and how it will be, and how it is.

Citizenship, by the way, is defined by documents, not bush or rummy.

1. If you haven't read them, don't act like you do. Please.

2. Just because in the late 1700's it was like that doesn't mean two hundred and thirty years later it's like that.

3. With the MCA it can now be defined by Bush and Rummy.

I am doing a project on these bills and have read them through and through. If you are a US Citizen, and you are accused of being a Terrorist, it can apply to you.

So no, you are wrong on that regard.

Please show me in the bill ...siince the bill is VERY specific in its intent and defintions that it only applies to NON US Citizens...I see no addendum nor a single line that refutes that .

A US citizen can be tried under the laws of the USA and its constitutional rights are included...there are already laws that apply to US citizens that are also terrorist they get " special " treatment .

NO LAW CAN SUPERCEDE THE CONSTITUTION ...look it up.
I would triple check if I were you...before you turn that project in .

Remember also that this bill was intended to meet the criteria the Supreme court set when it smacked down GWB's rule by decree tribunal stuff.
If you are studying law you should already know that a law has to pass constitutional muster...it can be injunctioned in a second by anyone who cares to fill out the paperwork and convince a judge that its not constitutional and would fail the easiest test .

Alien-a person who is not a citizen of the United States.

How much spin can you put on that?

By passing a bill that says the president and secretary of defense can determine if someone is or is not a citizen of the United States.

Please show me in the bill ...siince the bill is VERY specific in its intent and defintions that it only applies to NON US Citizens...I see no addendum nor a single line that refutes that .

A US citizen can be tried under the laws of the USA and its constitutional rights are included...there are already laws that apply to US citizens that are also terrorist they get " special " treatment .

NO LAW CAN SUPERCEDE THE CONSTITUTION ...look it up.
I would triple check if I were you...before you turn that project in .

Remember also that this bill was intended to meet the criteria the Supreme court set when it smacked down GWB's rule by decree tribunal stuff.
If you are studying law you should already know that a law has to pass constitutional muster...it can be injunctioned in a second by anyone who cares to fill out the paperwork and convince a judge that its not constitutional and would fail the easiest test .

1. The bill says that Bush and Rummy can say someone is a Non-US citizen.

2. Also, stop acting like everyone plays by the rules. They don't care if it's unconstitutional, or even rips the constitution into shreds, throws it into a furnace, and spreads the ashes to the furthest corners of the universe.

1. If you haven't read them, don't act like you do. Please.

2. Just because in the late 1700's it was like that doesn't mean two hundred and thirty years later it's like that.

3. With the MCA it can now be defined by Bush and Rummy.

I haven't read the whole transcipt of the Geneva Conventions, but I do know it's major point. You still haven't answered my question-have you read the whole MCA?


It's still like that. Recent example-Congress cut funding for the South Vietnamese in 1974 despite Nixon's protests.

More recent example-Congress acted to stop the sale of American ports to DubaiCo, over the president's protests.

He was listed as an "enemy combatant" in 2002. For that alone, one can be detained.

That is precisely the point.

Anyone who the executive declares to be an "enemy combatant" has her rights stripped from her.

How the fuck can you not have a problem with that?

By passing a bill that says the president and secretary of defense can determine if someone is or is not a citizen of the United States.

Show me the part of the bill that says that.

Yeah... it is totally fine that they are denied habeas corpus. I can see how that is perfectly acceptable, even if it is illegal given the Constitution.



Excuse me ?


Show me the part in the constitution that grants protection to NON US CITIZENS....:D

And since when do persons captured durring war have the rights of habeas corpus...unless of course they are American citizens fighting against the US ?

That is precisely the point.

Anyone who the executive declares to be an "enemy combatant" has her rights stripped from her.

How the fuck can you not have a problem with that?

Once again, the gov't doesn't go snatch people it doesn't like off the streets and call the "enemy combatants." They have proof. Just like they had proof against Padilla.

That is precisely the point.

Anyone who the executive declares to be an "enemy combatant" has her rights stripped from her.

How the fuck can you not have a problem with that?


Anyone who is not a US citizen and meets the criteria of an enemy combatant as desribed in the bill and after being judged so and reviewed by Congress can yes.


Thats the whole point of the bill...to Define who is what.... when.... and what to do with them .

You know like what CONGRESS has wanted now for four years ?

Excuse me ?


Show me the part in the constitution that grants protection to NON US CITIZENS....:D

And since when do persons captured durring war have the rights of habeas corpus...unless of course they are American citizens fighting against the US ?

RUMMY AND BUSH CAN SAY WHETHER OR NOT ANYONE IS A NON US CITIZEN! GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL PLEASE!

Ok, that was bad too, but this guy is annoying.

About 95%, and that number is NOT exaggerated, said "So what?" when I explained, in full detail, to them what the MCA meant.

Apathy is just as bad as someone actually supporting it.
Indeed

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the...

well I think you get the point.

Excuse me ?


Show me the part in the constitution that grants protection to NON US CITIZENS....:D

And since when do persons captured durring war have the rights of habeas corpus...unless of course they are American citizens fighting against the US ?

You are joking right? Illegals or foreigners who commit crimes in the U.S. still have to be tried by U.S. law. We don't get to do whatever the hell we want with them because they aren't citizens!

We are trying them for crimes so they deserve to challenge their imprisonment. Again, we haven't proved they have done anything wrong, just because we slap the title "enemy combatant" doesn't mean their life is forfeit. They must have the same rights as anyone else. That people are so casual with stripping people of their rights really disturbs me.

Besides, Bush can declare anyone an enemy combatant so the "alien" part really becomes moot after that doesn't it?

Once again, the gov't doesn't go snatch people it doesn't like off the streets and call the "enemy combatants." They have proof. Just like they had proof against Padilla.

Ok. You keep asking us for proof. Give me proof that they had proof against Padilla.

Anyone who is not a US citizen and meets the criteria of an enemy combatant as desribed in the bill and after being judged so and reviewed by Congress can yes.


Thats the whole point of the bill...to Define who is what.... when.... and what to do with them .

You know like what CONGRESS has wanted now for four years ?

I think that if they just took a step back, a few calm breaths, and wikid the MCA, read the entry in its entirety, scrutinizing every sentence, as I have, then they would realize that this act doesn't take away any rights that weren't already taken away by previous acts of Congress and precedents starting all the way from the beginning.

1. The bill says that Bush and Rummy can say someone is a Non-US citizen.

Actually it doesn't, it says that Bush can declare someone to be an unlawful enemy combatant and that alien unlawful combatants can be denied certain rights but no where does it say that Bush can declare you to be an alien unlawful combatant.

Incidentally, any who has read the document will have noticed the seemingly interchangeable use of the two phrases through the bill, it's almost like someone is trying to confuse this particular issue ;)

Enough bullshit ...

‘‘§ 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)).



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



‘‘§ 948e. Annual report to congressional committees
‘‘(a) ANNUAL REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than December 31
each year, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees
on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
a report on any trials conducted by military commissions under
this chapter during such year.
‘‘(b) FORM.—Each report under this section shall be submitted
in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.

Ok. You keep asking us for proof. Give me proof that they had proof against Padilla.

According to the text of the ensuing decision from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, President Bush's order for Padilla's detention as an "enemy combatant" was for these reasons:

Padilla was "closely associated with al Qaeda, an international terrorist organization with which the United States is at war";
he had engaged in "war-like acts, including conduct in preparation for acts of international terrorism";
he had intelligence that could assist the United States in warding off future terrorist attacks; and
he was a continuing threat to American security.

You have yet to address two of my questions:

1) Where in the MCA does it say that Bush can define who is a citizen?

2) Have you read the MCA in its entirety?

According to the text of the ensuing decision from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, President Bush's order for Padilla's detention as an "enemy combatant" was for these reasons:

Padilla was "closely associated with al Qaeda, an international terrorist organization with which the United States is at war";
he had engaged in "war-like acts, including conduct in preparation for acts of international terrorism";
he had intelligence that could assist the United States in warding off future terrorist attacks; and
he was a continuing threat to American security.

You have yet to address two of my questions:

1) Where in the MCA does it say that Bush can define who is a citizen?

2) Have you read the MCA in its entirety?

It does say that he can renounce a domestic person, and claim them to be a terrorist. Mentions it in the PATRIOT ACT, completes it here.

I think that if they just took a step back, a few calm breaths, and wikid the MCA, read the entry in its entirety, scrutinizing every sentence, as I have, then they would realize that this act doesn't take away any rights that weren't already taken away by previous acts of Congress and precedents starting all the way from the beginning.

How about reading the actual bill? (http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/nkk/documents/MilitaryCommissions.pdf) Wiki'ing something like this that is so controversial and still unraveling will only lead to false information.

How about reading the actual bill? (http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/nkk/documents/MilitaryCommissions.pdf) Wiki'ing something like this that is so controversial and still unraveling will only lead to false information.

Wiki is great, but on new stuff like this, it can't be entirely trusted. As a Wiki member, I will admit that we are not perfect, and can make biased mistakes.

According to the text of the ensuing decision from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, President Bush's order for Padilla's detention as an "enemy combatant" was for these reasons:

Padilla was "closely associated with al Qaeda, an international terrorist organization with which the United States is at war";
he had engaged in "war-like acts, including conduct in preparation for acts of international terrorism";
he had intelligence that could assist the United States in warding off future terrorist attacks; and
he was a continuing threat to American security.

You have yet to address two of my questions:

1) Where in the MCA does it say that Bush can define who is a citizen?

2) Have you read the MCA in its entirety?

And what does it mean by "Closely associated" and "war-like acts"?

If you've really, read it, and I don't mean just the text, you should know.

And yes, I have. I've already answered that before.

You are joking right? Illegals or foreigners who commit crimes in the U.S. still have to be tried by U.S. law. We don't get to do whatever the hell we want with them because they aren't citizens!

We are trying them for crimes so they deserve to challenge their imprisonment. Again, we haven't proved they have done anything wrong, just because we slap the title "enemy combatant" doesn't mean their life is forfeit. They must have the same rights as anyone else. That people are so casual with stripping people of their rights really disturbs me.

Besides, Bush can declare anyone an enemy combatant so the "alien" part really becomes moot after that doesn't it?

Those people are being charged for civilian crimes, not treason, or sabotage. Even American citizens are held without habeas corpus for things like that. Like when a group of German Americans were held for working for Nazi Germany.

They do get to challenge their imprisonment. They are defined as enemy combatants by a military tribunal, as provided by this act. So what are you complaining about?

Again, American citizens can be held for suspicion of acts like sabotage and treason.

It does say that he can renounce a domestic person, and claim them to be a terrorist. Mentions it in the PATRIOT ACT, completes it here.


Sure then they tried under US law with all its constitutional guarantees as an unlawfull enemy combatant or depending on the charges " traitor " etc.

It does NOT strip them of citizenship or constitutional protections .


‘‘§ 948r. Compulsory self-incrimination prohibited; treatment
of statements obtained by torture and other
statements
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—No person shall be required to testify against
himself at a proceeding of a military commission under this chapter.
‘‘(b) EXCLUSION OF STATEMENTS OBTAINED BY TORTURE.—A
statement obtained by use of torture shall not be admissible in
a military commission under this chapter, except against a person
accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.
‘‘(c) STATEMENTS OBTAINED BEFORE ENACTMENT OF DETAINEE
TREATMENT ACT OF 2005.—A statement obtained before 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; and
‘‘(2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission
of the statement into evidence.
‘‘(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.
‘‘§ 948s. Service of charges
‘‘The trial counsel assigned to a case before a military commission
under this chapter shall cause to be served upon the accused
and military defense counsel a copy of the charges upon which
trial is to be had. Such charges shall be served in English and,
if appropriate, in another language that the accused understands.
Such service shall be made sufficiently in advance of trial to prepare
a defense.
‘‘SUBCHAPTER IV—TRIAL PROCEDURE
‘‘Sec.
‘‘949a. Rules.
‘‘949b. Unlawfully influencing action of military commission.
‘‘949c. Duties of trial counsel and defense counsel.
‘‘949d. Sessions.
‘‘949e. Continuances.
‘‘949f. Challenges.
‘‘949g. Oaths.
‘‘949h. Former jeopardy.
‘‘949i. Pleas of the accused.
‘‘949j. Opportunity to obtain witnesses and other evidence.
‘‘949k. Defense of lack of mental responsibility.
‘‘949l. Voting and rulings.



This is sure looking like a really nasty law ...:rolleyes:

They do get to challenge their imprisonment. They are defined as enemy combatants by a military tribunal, as provided by this act. So what are you complaining about?

Clearly you haven't read the bill. The injustices are laid out nicely in the other thread.

And what does it mean by "Closely associated" and "war-like acts"?

If you've really, read it, and I don't mean just the text, you should know.

And yes, I have. I've already answered that before.

It means what it says. If there is reasonable suspicion of things like treason or sabotage, then you are an enemy combatant, and you can be detained whether or not you are a citizen.

It does say that he can renounce a domestic person, and claim them to be a terrorist. Mentions it in the PATRIOT ACT, completes it here.

Where exactly does it say that?

It does say that he can renounce a domestic person, and claim them to be a terrorist. Mentions it in the PATRIOT ACT, completes it here.

Where? Quote the paragraph.

Clearly you haven't read the bill. The injustices are laid out nicely in the other thread.

Section 948a of title 10 of the United States Code, as added by the Act, defines an "unlawful enemy combatant" as:

`(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

Now please don't go on a rant about how Bush can pick anyone he wants for the trial. It's in his interest to see to it that he's charging the right person, and he's smart enough to realize that.

Section 948a of title 10 of the United States Code, as added by the Act, defines an "unlawful enemy combatant" as:

`(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

Now please don't go on a rant about how Bush can pick anyone he wants for the trial. It's in his interest to see to it that he's charging the right person, and he's smart enough to realize that.

I don't need to rant. I think it is obvious that such a Tribunal could easily just become a rubber stamp for the president.

You must be my mental twin. I don't know how many times I have said the same words.

Yeah well I have personal experience with what happens to people because of American Idol, One person in a county near where I live was on it for awhile.

The only thing in the freaking newspaper in that county reported on for a time was how great the person was... (No they didn't win) and when that person lost the newspaper comments section was filled with cursing and yelling and accusations of cheating and "shoot the judges" by others and stuff.

Meanwhile the Iraq war was going downhill like a boulder and no one cared there. Except for one person who would come in talking about how God spoke to Bush and so on. Insane.

‘‘§ 950a. Error of law; lesser included offense
‘‘(a) ERROR OF LAW.—A finding or sentence of a military
commission under this chapter may not be held incorrect on the
ground of an error of law unless the error materially prejudices
the substantial rights of the accused.
‘‘(b) LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE.—Any reviewing authority with
the power to approve or affirm a finding of guilty by a military
commission under this chapter may approve or affirm, instead,
so much of the finding as includes a lesser included offense.
‘‘§ 950b. Review by the convening authority
‘‘(a) NOTICE TO CONVENING AUTHORITY OF FINDINGS AND SENTENCE.—
The findings and sentence of a military commission under
this chapter shall be reported in writing promptly to the convening
authority after the announcement of the sentence.
‘‘(b) SUBMITTAL OF MATTERS BY ACCUSED TO CONVENING
AUTHORITY.—(1) The accused may submit to the convening
authority matters for consideration by the convening authority with
respect to the findings and the sentence of the military commission
under this chapter.
‘‘(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a submittal
under paragraph (1) shall be made in writing within 20 days
after the accused has been given an authenticated record of trial
under section 949o(c) of this title.
‘‘(B) If the accused shows that additional time is required
for the accused to make a submittal under paragraph (1), the
convening authority may, for good cause, extend the applicable
period under subparagraph (A) for not more than an additional
20 days.
‘‘(3) The accused may waive his right to make a submittal
to the convening authority under paragraph (1). Such a waiver
shall be made in writing and may not be revoked. For the purposes
of subsection (c)(2), the time within which the accused may make


Hmmmm OVERSITE and review....

BUSH isnt even involved in the tribunals ...the Sec of defense and his people are though .

The object is to create some sort of justic system for terrorist or captured " unlawfull combatants so they can either be let go or given a prisoon sentance or something aside from holding them until the war is over . Or basically indefinately...or forever.



‘‘§ 950c. Appellate referral; waiver or withdrawal of appeal
‘‘(a) AUTOMATIC REFERRAL FOR APPELLATE REVIEW.—Except as
provided under subsection (b), in each case in which the final
decision of a military commission (as approved by the convening
authority) includes a finding of guilty, the convening authority
shall refer the case to the Court of Military Commission Review.
Any such referral shall be made in accordance with procedures
prescribed under regulations of the Secretary.
‘‘(b) WAIVER OF RIGHT OF REVIEW.—(1) In each case subject
to appellate review under section 950f of this title, except a case
in which the sentence as approved under section 950b of this
title extends to death, the accused may file with the convening
authority a statement expressly waiving the right of the accused
to such review.
‘‘(2) A waiver under paragraph (1) shall be signed by both
the accused and a defense counsel.
‘‘(3) A waiver under paragraph (1) must be filed, if at all,
within 10 days after notice on the action is served on the accused
or on defense counsel under section 950b(c)(4) of this title. The
convening authority, for good cause, may extend the period for
such filing by not more than 30 days.
‘‘(c) WITHDRAWAL OF APPEAL.—Except in a case in which the
sentence as approved under section 950b of this title extends to
death, the accused may withdraw an appeal at any time.
‘‘(d) EFFECT OF WAIVER OR WITHDRAWAL.—A waiver of the
right to appellate review or the withdrawal of an appeal under
this section bars review under section 950f of this title.
‘‘§ 950d. Appeal by the United States
‘‘(a) INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL.—(1) Except as provided in paragraph
(2), in a trial by military commission under this chapter,
the United States may take an interlocutory appeal to the Court
of Military Commission Review of any order or ruling of the military
judge that—
‘‘(A) terminates proceedings of the military commission
with respect to a charge or specification;
‘‘(B) excludes evidence that is substantial proof of a fact
material in the proceeding; or
‘‘(C) relates to a matter under subsection (d), (e), or (f)
of section 949d of this title or section 949j(c) of this title.
‘‘(2) The United States may not appeal under paragraph (1)
an order or ruling that is, or amounts to, a finding of not guilty
by the military commission with respect to a charge or specification.
‘‘(b) NOTICE OF APPEAL.—The United States shall take an
appeal of an order or ruling under subsection (a) by filing a notice
of appeal with the military judge within five days after the date
of such order or ruling.
‘‘(c) APPEAL.—An appeal under this section shall be forwarded,
by means specified in regulations prescribed the Secretary of
Defense, directly to the Court of Military Commission Review. In
ruling on an appeal under this section, the Court may act only
with respect to matters of law.


THE HORROR OF IT ALL .....


MORE CHECKS A BALANCES....OMG


‘‘§ 950f. Review by Court of Military Commission Review
‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary of Defense shall establish
a Court of Military Commission Review which shall be composed
of one or more panels, and each such panel shall be composed
of not less than three appellate military judges. For the purpose
of reviewing military commission decisions under this chapter, the
court may sit in panels or as a whole in accordance with rules
prescribed by the Secretary.
‘‘(b) APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGES.—The Secretary shall assign
appellate military judges to a Court of Military Commission Review.
Each appellate military judge shall meet the qualifications for military
judges prescribed by section 948j(b) of this title or shall be
a civilian with comparable qualifications. No person may be serve
as an appellate military judge in any case in which that person
acted as a military judge, counsel, or reviewing official.
‘‘(c) CASES TO BE REVIEWED.—The Court of Military Commission
Review, in accordance with procedures prescribed under regulations
of the Secretary, shall review the record in each case that
is referred to the Court by the convening authority under section
950c of this title with respect to any matter of law raised by
the accused.
‘‘(d) SCOPE OF REVIEW.—In a case reviewed by the Court of
Military Commission Review under this section, the Court may
act only with respect to matters of law.


I am HORRIFIED !!!

‘‘§ 950g. Review by the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit and the Supreme
Court
‘‘(a) EXCLUSIVE APPELLATE JURISDICTION.—(1)(A) Except as provided
in subparagraph (B), the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction
to determine the validity of a final judgment rendered by a military
commission (as approved by the convening authority) under this
chapter.
‘‘(B) The Court of Appeals may not review the final judgment
until all other appeals under this chapter have been waived or
exhausted.
‘‘(2) A petition for review must be filed by the accused in
the Court of Appeals not later than 20 days after the date on
which—
‘‘(A) written notice of the final decision of the Court of
Military Commission Review is served on the accused or on
defense counsel; or
‘‘(B) the accused submits, in the form prescribed by section
950c of this title, a written notice waiving the right of the
accused to review by the Court of Military Commission Review
under section 950f of this title.
‘‘(b) STANDARD FOR REVIEW.—In a case reviewed by it under
this section, the Court of Appeals may act only with respect to
matters of law.
‘‘(c) SCOPE OF REVIEW.—The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals
on an appeal under subsection (a) shall be limited to the consideration
of—
‘‘(1) whether the final decision was consistent with the
standards and procedures specified in this chapter; and
‘‘(2) to the extent applicable, the Constitution and the laws
of the United States.
‘‘(d) SUPREME COURT.—The Supreme Court may review by writ
of certiorari the final judgment of the Court of Appeals pursuant
to section 1257 of title 28.
‘‘§ 950h. Appellate counsel
‘‘(a) APPOINTMENT.—The Secretary of Defense shall, by regulation,
establish procedures for the appointment of appellate counsel
for the United States and for the accused in military commissions
under this chapter. Appellate counsel shall meet the qualifications
for counsel appearing before military commissions under this
chapter.
‘‘(b) REPRESENTATION OF UNITED STATES.—Appellate counsel
appointed under subsection (a)—
‘‘(1) shall represent the United States in any appeal or
review proceeding under this chapter before the Court of Military
Commission Review; and
‘‘(2) may, when requested to do so by the Attorney General
in a case arising under this chapter, represent the United
States before the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit or the Supreme Court.
‘‘(c) REPRESENTATION OF ACCUSED.—The accused shall be represented
by appellate counsel appointed under subsection (a) before
the Court of Military Commission Review, the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and the Supreme
Court, and by civilian counsel if retained by the accused. Any

‘‘(c) PROTECTION OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.—(1) With respect
to the discovery obligations of trial counsel under this section,
the military judge, upon motion of trial counsel, shall authorize,
to the extent practicable—
‘‘(A) the deletion of specified items of classified information
from documents to be made available to the accused;
‘‘(B) the substitution of a portion or summary of the
information for such classified documents; or
‘‘(C) the substitution of a statement admitting relevant
facts that the classified information would tend to prove.
‘‘(2) The military judge, upon motion of trial counsel, shall
authorize trial counsel, in the course of complying with discovery
obligations under this section, to protect from disclosure the sources,
methods, or activities by which the United States acquired evidence
if the military judge finds that the sources, methods, or activities
by which the United States acquired such evidence are classified.
The military judge may require trial counsel to provide, to the
extent practicable, an unclassified summary of the sources, methods,
or activities by which the United States acquired such evidence.

I think this should be enough to be disgusted with this bill.

Can we please, PLEASE get back to the apathy thing and not the MCA thing?

Can we please, PLEASE get back to the apathy thing and not the MCA thing?

You made claims about it and can't back them up because the wording simply isn't in the document. It seems a little unsurprising that your friend at school are apathetic about your claims if this is a common thing with you.

Can we please, PLEASE get back to the apathy thing and not the MCA thing?

Well, people are certainly apathetic about the MCA. Not surprising that the thread would turn to WHY or IF we are to be concerned with it. Which we certainly should be concerned of course but... others somehow disagree.

I'm sorry I live in a world that has a supreme court an aclu and about three billion lawyers who are all laughing their ass off at what you just posted..

ITS A LAW ...there are NO BETWEEN THE LINES ....:D :D


OMG ....what school are you in ? Please warn us ....:D

IT SAYS WHAT IT SAYS ...it was written to give congress a say in how the justice side of the war against terrorist would be handled instead of by Presidential decree...that the SUPREME court said wasn't legal.

READ IT ...pay special attention to the fact that everything these commisions do MUST BE REPORTED TO CONGRESS ..you know the place Nancy Pelosi is ?

Not to mention all the judges that must be involved...

Wait...did you even read it ?:D :D

In the OLD america, yes, this is true.

But when the government is under one political banner, led by a nutjob/moron, etc. not so much.

words on paper are meaningless to the man at the barrel of a gun.

I think this should be enough to be disgusted with this bill.

Sure I mean why keep secrets....just because some dude who ratted out a terrorist or a bunch of them might be tortured and beheaded doesn't mean they shouldnt be NAMED IN COURT....and why shouldnt all the terrorist know how we caught them ...what technology we used ...who used it how far....hey its ONLY FAIR ...:D


Secrets suck man ....:D

You made claims about it and can't back them up because the wording simply isn't in the document. It seems a little unsurprising that your friend at school are apathetic about your claims if this is a common thing with you.

1. They aren't my friends.

2. They're apathetic towards EVERYTHING that has to do with politics.

Sure I mean why keep secrets....just because some dude who ratted out a terrorist or a bunch of them might be tortured and beheaded doesn't mean they shouldnt be NAMED IN COURT....and why shouldnt all the terrorist know how we caught them ...what technology we used ...who used it how far....hey its ONLY FAIR ...:D


Secrets suck man ....:D

Yeah, it sucks to have evidence against you that you aren't given the right to try to disprove. That really sucks.

Well, people are certainly apathetic about the MCA. Not surprising that the thread would turn to WHY or IF we are to be concerned with it. Which we certainly should be concerned of course but... others somehow disagree.

I happen to think that if you are concerned about something then it should be for the right reasons and those among use who actually understand something should explain it to those who don't.

Nothing will help supporters of this bill than my side building their strawmen for them.

In the OLD america, yes, this is true.

But when the government is under one political banner, led by a nutjob/moron, etc. not so much.

words on paper are meaningless to the man at the barrel of a gun.


In the US it the people who have the GUNS and the VOTE . The morons in office are there because we put them there they work for us .

Your like really paranoid or something....the second ammendment to the constitution is the sword that enforces the covenant and the people HOLD the sword by constitutional right .

" A covenant without a sword is just words "

We have both .

Yeah, it sucks to have evidence against you that you aren't given the right to try to disprove. That really sucks.


Perspective....think on it...these are not bank robbers...this is a wartime tribunal.

You have...if you read the bill ...TONS of oversite and crosschecking for people charged with being an enemy combatant...not a mugger or a mobster.


Your trying to apply civil standards and criminal law to a wartime condition.

Thats the biggest obstacle for you to overcome.

Hey if you dont even think we are at war...thats fine ..your entitled to your opinion...but if you DO think we are at war ..then act like it .

Use the war as the perspective and dont look at the subject of these tribunals like they are common criminals .


I've read allot of your post I know you think about things...Why cant you accept that some things must be kept secret from our enimies so that we can continue to catch them ...or keep the people who rat them out alive ? Its really not that hard to grasp.

Granted...it makes it tough for a guy caught with bomb making equipment and ten thousand rounds of ammo in his house to explain himself ...but look at the bright side he at least gets a shot at it .

Instead of a firing squad .

Perspective....think on it...these are not bank robbers...this is a wartime tribunal.

You have...if you read the bill ...TONS of oversite and crosschecking for people charged with being an enemy combatant...not a mugger or a mobster.


Your trying to apply civil standards and criminal law to a wartime condition.

Thats the biggest obstacle for you to overcome.

Hey if you dont even think we are at war...thats fine ..your entitled to your opinion...but if you DO think we are at war ..then act like it .

Use the war as the perspective and dont look at the subject of these tribunals like they are common criminals .


I've read allot of your post I know you think about things...Why cant you accept that some things must be kept secret from our enimies so that we can continue to catch them ...or keep the people who rat them out alive ? Its really not that hard to grasp.

Granted...it makes it tough for a guy caught with bomb making equipment and ten thousand rounds of ammo in his house to explain himself ...but look at the bright side he at least gets a shot at it .

Instead of a firing squad .

It is easy to make excuses that "we are at war" to deny people of their rights. But that is not going to ever be the right thing to do. If we are going to try people, then it must be a REAL trial not a show trial with secret evidence, secret witnesses and no way to challenge if you are being lawfully imprisoned to begin with. Being at war does not mean that you should lose any real chance of defending yourself. Until the court rules them guilty they are not. This whole thing is a sham, better just to save the court time and shoot them outright, much simpler and the world will understand better exactly what we have become. Freedom that we say we love so much having no part in it. Only oppression for it is conenient for us.

1. They aren't my friends.

Then why the hell is their opinion important to you?

You're like a christian that wont leave an atheist alone.

Am I right?

I'm sure if someone I didn't like came up to me and started talking politics, I'd say "So what?" too. Perhaps they're not interested in talking to you about it.

2. They're apathetic towards EVERYTHING that has to do with politics.

I'm sure that's not true.

It is easy to make excuses that "we are at war" to deny people of their rights. But that is not going to ever be the right thing to do. If we are going to try people, then it must be a REAL trial not a show trial with secret evidence, secret witnesses and no way to challenge if you are being lawfully imprisoned to begin with. Being at war does not mean that you should lose any real chance of defending yourself. Until the court rules them guilty they are not. This whole thing is a sham, better just to save the court time and shoot them outright, much simpler and the world will understand better exactly what we have become. Freedom that we say we love so much having no part in it. Only oppression for it is conenient for us.

It amazes me that I see this bill as a positive step towards providing some sort of justice and a mechanism with not only Judicial but congressional oversight of the whole process and its TRANSPARENT from beginning to end...even the redaction of secrets has to pass a test ..its almost close to civil law . BUT I am looking at from the perspective of what we WERE doing .
And when I compare this bill to past practice....I see a HUGE step forward.

I am MUCH less inclined to grant terrorist and enemies of my country any more rights than absolutely necessary . I want to win the war . I want the people we capture to be the RIGHT people and have the right to HUMANE treatment and recourse if they feel they are unjustly accused...I SEE IT IN THIS BILL .

I see the judicial review and the congressional oversight that should have been in place grom 2002 .

I'm still not sold on the idea that this is the perfect solution to a complex problem so as much as I am defending the BULLSHIT charges and crazy rantings about the bill...I am still trying to digest it ...I'm looking for loopholes..and the legalease I do not understand I have to wait until monday to talk to the right people to straigten me out.

But I see this bill as a positive step in the right direction. And its right out in the open and being debated by the people and their representatives as it should be .

I never in history have found anything remotely like it from any civilization on earth ...and I challenge ANYONE to show me a country that grants these types of rights to terrorist and " Unlawfull combatants " as defined in this bill .

Thats what I mean by perspective .

He was listed as an "enemy combatant" in 2002. For that alone, one can be detained.

What is truly absurd and disgusting is your that your hatred of Bush will not allow you to face reality and use your common sense.

This post has been labeled as 100% ironic.

Or 100% hypocritical. Either one works for me!

Once again, the gov't doesn't go snatch people it doesn't like off the streets and call the "enemy combatants." They have proof. Just like they had proof against Padilla.

Ah, trust the holy state, which will never do anything wrong and would never even think of abusing its powers.

No, thank you.

Anyone who is not a US citizen

Jose Padilla was a US citizen.

and meets the criteria of an enemy combatant as desribed in the bill and after being judged so and reviewed by Congress can yes.

The bill gives a tribunal appointed by the executive that power.

Congratulations, you've discovered people.

bumpzor

It's not as bad as the other thread, but it's still pretty fucking retarded.

So I was explaining to people around my school about the MCA, trying to get activism up to stop it. About 95%, and that number is NOT exaggerated, said "So what?" when I explained, in full detail, to them what the MCA meant. They said "So what?" to the fact that at any time they can be grabbed out of their house, thrown into a secret government prison, and tortured. They said "So what?" to the fact that we no longer have the right to a fair trial. They said "So what?" to the fact that they can be held without reason for as long as Mr. President wants. They said "So what?" to the fact that GWB has, basically, dictorial powers now.

Apathy is just as bad as someone actually supporting it.
So what?

So what?

Apathy indeed.