Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
ranxer ranxer is offline
Member
ranxer's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: U$
Old Jan 25th, 2007, 12:10 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. "
__________________
the neo-capitalists believe in privatizing profits and socializing losses
Reply With Quote
  #27  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
Old Jan 25th, 2007, 12:17 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.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #28  
ranxer ranxer is offline
Member
ranxer's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: U$
Old Jan 25th, 2007, 01:33 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
Quote:
According to Bill Goodman, Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Joanne Mariner, from FindLaw, this bill redefines unlawful enemy combatant in such a broad way that it refers to any person who is engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.

This makes it possible for US citizens to be designated unlawful enemy combatant because it could be read to include anyone who has donated money to a charity for orphans in Afghanistan that turns out to have some connection to the Taliban or a person organizing an anti-war protest in Washington, D.C.
Kieth Olberman
Quote:
We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who may now, if he so decides, declare not merely any non-American citizens “unlawful enemy combatants” and ship them somewhere—anywhere -- but may now, if he so decides, declare you an “unlawful enemy combatant” and ship you somewhere - anywhere.
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Quote:
Since 9/11 the PATRIOT Act has been used in numerous cases involving American citizens, including strip club owners, toy store proprietors, the homeless, owners of websites, writers, artists, photographers, and common criminals.

Section 802 of the PATRIOT Act is specifically aimed at US citizens and announces any crime as "domestic terrorism". Citizens can be held without a trial as "Enemy Combatants". The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in January 2003 that U.S. citizens can be stripped of their citizenship and held as enemy combatants.

Therefore any legislation passed by Bush automatically applies to American citizens because, as the Washington Post reported, after 9/11 Bush announced his "parallel legal system" in which he could declare any individual on the planet an enemy combatant and order their summary execution.
once a person is designated an 'enemy combatant' the mca applies in full despite its statements about 'aliens'
__________________
the neo-capitalists believe in privatizing profits and socializing losses
Reply With Quote
  #29  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
Old Jan 25th, 2007, 04:53 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???"
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Geggy Geggy is offline
say what now?
Geggy's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Peebody
Old Jan 25th, 2007, 06:00 PM       
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.
__________________
enjoy now, regret later
Reply With Quote
  #31  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
Old Jan 25th, 2007, 06:21 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?
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #32  
ranxer ranxer is offline
Member
ranxer's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: U$
Old Jan 25th, 2007, 07:19 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.
__________________
the neo-capitalists believe in privatizing profits and socializing losses
Reply With Quote
  #33  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
Old Jan 25th, 2007, 08:39 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.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #34  
adept_ninja adept_ninja is offline
Member
adept_ninja's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: nap town MD
Old Jan 29th, 2007, 04:39 PM       
your stupied as fuck if you think that this wont be applied to american citizens.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
Old Jan 29th, 2007, 08:22 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
__________________
NEVER

Last edited by kahljorn : Jan 29th, 2007 at 10:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
Old Jan 29th, 2007, 10:14 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 ;(
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #37  
adept_ninja adept_ninja is offline
Member
adept_ninja's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: nap town MD
Old Feb 1st, 2007, 06:15 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?
Reply With Quote
  #38  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
Old Feb 1st, 2007, 08:45 PM        Adept Ninja: Wikipedia warrior
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=...fp-t-501&x=wrt

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.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #39  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
Old Feb 1st, 2007, 08:46 PM       
also i think the wikipedia article says something about previous additions right before it mentions that line.

you retarded plagiarist.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #40  
adept_ninja adept_ninja is offline
Member
adept_ninja's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: nap town MD
Old Feb 2nd, 2007, 11:46 PM       
the president can strip your citizenship now so what the fuck does it matter?
Reply With Quote
  #41  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
Old Feb 3rd, 2007, 12:00 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?
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:08 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.