|FAQ||Members List||Calendar||Search||Today's Posts||Mark Forums Read|
|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|Feb 3rd, 2007 01:00 AM|
I don't see what that has to do with the Military Commencement Act. You still have to be an unlawful enemy combatant.. and also i don't think you could be considered an alien if your citizenship was stripped.
So, what law is this citizen stripping in?
|Feb 3rd, 2007 12:46 AM|
|adept_ninja||the president can strip your citizenship now so what the fuck does it matter?|
|Feb 1st, 2007 09:46 PM|
also i think the wikipedia article says something about previous additions right before it mentions that line.
you retarded plagiarist.
|Feb 1st, 2007 09:45 PM|
Adept Ninja: Wikipedia warrior
You know, wikipedia boy, I already covered the section about DEFINITIONS.
I did this by stating that, while the DEFINITION OF THE TERM, "Unlawful Enemy Combatant" can be applied to anybody who fits the term (any terrorist), all of the LAWS THEMSELVES IN OTHER SECTIONS clearly state the word "Alien" before them. The word alien is described in that same definitions page as, "Non us citizen." Now, if you could read fuckface, you wouldn't look stupid.
Also, what the wikipedia article says doesn't actually appear in the entire act. It never says, "Not excluding us citizens" it just doesn't say, "THIS DEFINITION CANT BE APPLIED TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS UNDER THE LAW OF GOD", because an UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT by definition could be ANY unlawful enemy combatant. Again, all the laws have the word alien in front of them. Which means all the laws apply to Non-US citizen unlawful enemy combatants.
|Feb 1st, 2007 07:15 PM|
here is the reason why people are worried and why you are a stupied ass hole who is just trying to further your homosexual or transexual agenda whatever the fuck you are now.
"(section 948a)refer to unlawful enemy combantants, not excluding U.S. citizens" pg. 93
this is just one excerpt like you have mentioned before but it is a loop hole that has the possibility of being exploited. As for your "if the governemnt miss uses this then they should be tried by the court" thats stupied as shit also you are trying to say that Bush has never done anything illeagle or abused his power?
|Jan 29th, 2007 11:14 PM|
Also, if any of you stupid cunt faces are going to respond do so with the answer to the following question preceeding anything else:
HOW ARE THEY GOING TO USE THIS LAW TO OPRESS AMERICAN CIVILIANS? or any civilian, for that matter, since the law itself clearly states that trying ANY civilian or ANY lawful enemy combatant is not covered under this law.
Remember, answer that first or just keep your assholes shut.
Also, believe it or fucking not I think you have to be charged by this law in a normal court and then you are like remanded to a military tribunal. Basically, in the regular court they say, "This person is going to be treated according to X because of X and the guidlines of X outline that we can do X with X." I'm not positive about that one but I think that's pretty much the case ;(
|Jan 29th, 2007 09:22 PM|
k whatever g uy who's opinion when inserted usually means nothing.
the FACT of the matter is that the law itself states it can only be used towards ALIENS.
If you doubt that it will be applied towards aliens only than you are only doubting the legality of our legal system; that is a completely different argument than if this can be LEGALLY applied to american citizens, which it can not.
Simple fact is, if a law says it can't do something, then legally it can't. Considering the law is made distinctly regarding aliens only, you guys should just shut the fuck up. If what you're wondering is if this law can be used illegally to illegally imprison american citizens: POSSIBLY, but wasn't that happening BEFORE the law was written. ie jose padilla who has already been mentioned. So uh if your entire complaint is that illegal things happen outside of the law, you're going to blame the law for something that happened breaking that law, completely outside it's bounds?
Congratulations for misdirecting your stupidity.
I mean seriously what the fuck is so hard to understand that every law, EVERY SINGLE FUCKING LAW PEOPLE HAVE BEEN COMPLAINING ABOUT THAT THIS CREATES can only be applied to aliens?
NO RIGHTS TO A SPEEDY TRIAL, no geneva rights, no habeus corpus:
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE SAYS, "UNDER THIS LAW NO ALIEN UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT WILL HAVE RIGHTS TO A SPEEDY TRIAL". Now you see why they couldn't apply this law to AMERICAN CITIZENS? Because it fucking says "ALIEN UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT."
You guys are fucking stupid, you need to shut the fuck up, and not act like you know or understand how to read the law. It's fucking ridiculous and very annoying, and all you are doing is taking some POPULAR media complaint and swirling it around in your assholes and for whatever reason allowing that ass swirley action to dictate your opinion on this law. If you haven't read the law, shut the fuck up. If you're regurgitating someone else's opinion without even understanding what the hell is going on, shut the fuck up. I don't want to hear your jackass opinion, adept ninja jackass face.
ps doing things outside the law is a crime and the people who break that law should be tried for breaking the law
|Jan 29th, 2007 05:39 PM|
|adept_ninja||your stupied as fuck if you think that this wont be applied to american citizens.|
|Jan 25th, 2007 09:39 PM|
I'm not ACTUALLY fuming it's more of a psuedofume.
I think that if this law were abused too much it would probably be changed or people would riot or something.
ps I am glad you got my point without me having to explain it 50 times.
|Jan 25th, 2007 08:19 PM|
I hope your right, one of my problems is that i trust the folks that say it can be applied to americans for non-violent actions much more than i trust the cato institute or the cfr.
time will tell but, kahljorn, you do make good points when your not fuming, i'm not a lawyer and will remain skeptical until its tested.
|Jan 25th, 2007 07:21 PM|
it's possible my testicles are being used as a smokescreen while my cock is flying towards your face at 30 million miles per hour and has already pierced your skull 15 billion times in your lifetime and you don't even k now because my testicles make such a great smokescreen.
And actually for your information the term, "Alien" is being used as a term to *shock* DESIGNATE NON-US CITIZENS AAS CLEARLY DEFINED IN THE DEFINITIONS.
Fuck people's concerns, the simple facts are: The military commisions act existed prior to this in regards to how to treat prisoners of war, this isn't for use against american citizens but only non-citizens, and this is clearly for use against people who commit War Crimes. It doesn't violate any rights, except for those who shouldn't have any-- even then their rights aren't really violated, they just aren't given as much leeway.
Do you want confidential materials to be released to terrorists? Do you want us to have to release terrorists? No.
The only arguments against this I want to see you assholes make is as far as contributing to terrorist organizations being considered a war crime. Do you guys consider it a warcrime to aid terrorist organizations; or rather do you consider it a warcrime to aid in making war crimes?
|Jan 25th, 2007 07:00 PM|
|Geggy||Kahl, it's possible that the term "aliens" is being used as a smokescreen to fool the congress for the bush administration to build immunity to dictatorial powers. I think that's what people are most concerned about.|
|Jan 25th, 2007 05:53 PM|
it's not up to inpretation, it clearly states that it only applies to aliens-- which are non-us citizens.
the jose padilla incident happened before any of this.
the "mca" has always been in effect, this recent fiasco is just an ammendum to a law that already existed.
" unlawful enemy combatant"
Yes they could be American Citizens by DEFINITION-- the reason for this is that the DEFINITION of UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT is not defined as only ALIENS. HOWEVER, the LAWS themselves state, "Alien unlawful enemy combatant."
Therefore, regardless of if an american citizen were defined as an unlawful enemy combatant, according to the LAWS they couldn't be charged because the LAWS THEMSELVES can ONLY BE APPLIED TO ALIEN UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANTS.
That means the laws that say no speedy trial, no rights to habeus corpus etc. apply to ALIENS ONLY. Whereas, yes, American Citizens could be declared unlawful enemy combatants; the laws could still not apply to them. Comprende? We would still have the same rights, we'd just be declared an unlawful enemy combatant-- which means fucking nothing.
This is just a bunch of blown up shit idiots like you get fixated over. If you're going to complain about something, complain about the patriot act.
I hate the fucking examples on that wikipedia page, "Let's say my wife is walking by a military base and SWOOOP SHES PICKED UP AS AN UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT". What the fuck? You have to commit a crime first. All these ridiculous hypothetical situations are gay, "What if you accidently contribute to a charity that aids in terrorist actions huh DID YOU THINK ABOUT THAT ONE IT COULD HAPPEN RIGHT GUSY???"
|Jan 25th, 2007 02:33 PM|
I wish you were correct, but there are many different interpretations.. the cato institute and the council on foriegn relations agree with you. on the face of it, it seems to only apply to 'aliens' but 'enemy combatant' could be anyone the police or the administration decide at the moment as in the case of jose padila before the mca was law, and he is an american citizen. the lines drawn are fuzzy and again i'm saying they will not become clear until court cases define it.
wikipedia has some decent info on the mca..
here's some folks that disagree with you, the cato institute and cfr
|Jan 25th, 2007 01:17 PM|
Did you even read what I posted? None of the laws apply to anyone other than ALIEN UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANTS. All of the laws and stipulations have the word ALIEN before them. There is nothing that is not defined-- the word alien is defined as a non-US citizen.
The only way to MAteRIALLY SUPPORT HOSTILITIES would be if you donated money, bombs or guns to one of those supposed "terrorist charities". Standing around with a sign is not "Materially supporting hostilities" unless that sign says, "BLOW UP LARGE B UILDINGS AND ACT LIKE TERRORISTS".
Just because the sign itself is material doesn't mean you would be materially supporting hostilities. god you're retarded.
being against war, and thus being against hostilities, is not the same as being hostile against the united states-- you retard. Being hostile against the united states means you say things like, "I WANT TO KILL AMERICA BECAUSE I HATE THEM" not, "I want to stop all wars because i don't want anyone to die" kay thx.
|Jan 25th, 2007 01:10 PM|
ok, back to the question:who could they wrap up with this act?
my concern centers around the frame of mind bush has when he says things like 'if you are not with us your with the terrorists.
the mca allows broad interpretation and as Fiengold said 'key terms go undefined' If i stand out on the street with a sign claiming bush is a war criminal i could be considered materially supporting hostilities. If i donate money to a group that turns out to support hostilities without my knowledge i could be wrapped up by the mca. People have already been nabbed by this several years ago, now it's even easier to apply the rule. Also, maintaining a blog or website against war could be considered supporting hostilities.
Fiengold: "It would permit trial by military commission not just for those accused of serious terrorist crimes, but also individuals, including legal permanent residents of this country, who are alleged to have "purposefully and materially supported hostilities" against the United States or its allies. "
|Jan 25th, 2007 12:33 PM|
no problem dude.
Look guys(geggy), I hate the PATRIOT act too, but I don't see what the PATRIOT act has to do with a law designed to clearly define what a war crime is. It's actually designed to protect legitimate soldiers.
|Jan 25th, 2007 09:14 AM|
|sspadowsky||Sorry, Kahl, I got this one mixed up with the PATRIOT Act. Under the PATRIOT Act, anyone, including a US Citizen, whom the president determines to be an enemy combatant, my be held indefinitely, without charge, or access to a lawyer. My mistake.|
|Jan 25th, 2007 08:15 AM|
|Jan 25th, 2007 01:23 AM|
More stuff from the bill:
"NOPBODY AWDFO:W KNOW ABOUT IT ECXCEPT PRESIDENT BUSH"
(1) ANNUAL REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than December 31 each year, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Armed Services Committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate an annual report on the conduct of trials by military commissions established pursuant to subsection (a) during such year.
“§ 948a. Definitions
“In this chapter: “(1) ALIEN.—The term ‘alien’ means an individual who is not a citizen of the United States.
Just so you know.
“(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—
“(A) to be part of or affiliated with a force or organization—including but not limited to al Qaeda, the Taliban, any international terrorist organization, or associated forces—engaged in hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents in violation of the law of war;
“(B) to have committed a hostile act in aid of such a force or organization so engaged; or
“(C) to have supported hostilities in aid of such a force or organization so engaged.
“This definition includes any individual determined by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, before the effective date of this Act, to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant, but excludes any alien determined by the President or the Secretary of Defense (whether on an individualized or collective basis), or by any competent tribunal established under their authority, to be
(i) a lawful enemy combatant (including a prisoner of war), or
(ii) a protected person whose trial by these military commissions would be inconsistent with Articles 64-76 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of August 12, 1949. For purposes of this section, the term “protected person” refers to the category of persons described in Article 4 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of August 12, 1949.
Okay so again someone at a peace rally could not be charged as an alien unlawful enemy combatant. Neither could a lawful combatant. Neither could a fucking united states citizen. Now shut your fucking assholes.
Apparantly, the only hole (a small hole) in all of this is that the definition of the term, "Unlawful enemy combatant" does not have "Alien" before it or necessarily in it (It mentions it once but not very strongly). Regardless, though, all of the actual laws and stipulations clearly have ALIEN before it and are clearly addressed at non-citizens especially since this entire fucking bill is about non-citizens and people who are at war with us-- ENEMIES. I'm pretty sure just about EVERYONE, even legal scholars who previously disagreed with this, have already come to that conclusion and most everything else has been dismissed. You guys are living in the past.
|Jan 25th, 2007 12:22 AM|
I actually appreciate this law because at the very least it draws a distinction between people who fight honorably and people who fight like dirty cunts.
As for the holes in this that make abuses possible (which almost every law in the entire world has possible abuses associated with it) I would like to see them addressed and filled, but I don't see what addressing holes has to do with you saying that people at anti-war rallies who are united states citizens can be held as unlawful enemy combatants. That's just as much bullshit as you are accusing our government of wielding.
ps this act has actually been applied... to a foreign person with a terrorist-like name.
|Jan 25th, 2007 12:16 AM|
|ranxer||kahljorn, you act as if you belive the established government to be honorably using the powers it has.. seems we need to question that before we wonder how the military commissions act is applied. this thread was on the mca and nobody can deny that it's application will be worked out in the courts, ...when and if it's applied, the possible implications, still, are outrageous to some you must admit.|
|Jan 24th, 2007 11:56 PM|
I think you're lying, misinformed, or stupid about it being expanded to include american citizens. Okay cause here's what I read tell me if this is old or unupdated or something:
And look at that asshole ranxer acting like being at an ANTI WAR protest can make you eligible for this, "Excuse me competent tribunal, just look at THIS EVIDENCE OF HIM NOT WANTING THERE TO BE A WAR AT ALL, OUTRIGHT HOSTILITY AND TERRORIST ACTS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA."
Being anti-war is not hostile, not combative, DOESNT EVEN HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WAR other than not wanting it and it's fucking stupid to say it's at all relevant to this. I hate all of you geggy clones.
|Jan 24th, 2007 10:45 PM|
The patriot act hasn't been "Extended", it was written with other things in mind. That said, I don't appreciate things that are designed to combat terrorism being used to enforce drug laws. In the same way, I don't like to see people act all ridiculous about all the laws that are coming out without: having any reasons, providing reasons for their ridiculousness (because that makes it unridiculous) and without elucidating on those reasons.
When was it "Expanded" to include american citizens?
ps they can't be detained for ANY REASON WHATSOoveR and even if they were it probably wouldn't fly. "Yea we arrested this guy cause um he farted let's get this guy thrown in jail okay guys?"
|Jan 24th, 2007 10:05 PM|
Where power can be abused, it will be abused. This shit doesn't happen overnight. It's a gradual process, and Feingold recognizes the long-term implications. You sound like a short-sighted, well, douche.
|This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|